DOWNLOADS: (856)

PLAYS: (6132)

Embed

I'm not sure how the Republican party came to be known as the party of "compassionate conservatism," unless it was simply because they used to at least pretend to care about the problems of the middle and low-income class people. In this 2007 video of Republican Mitt Romney's exchange with a wheelchair bound man suffering from a rare and deadly form of muscular dystrophy, Romney's compassionate conservatism takes an icy cold form, as he turns his back on the ill young man, Clayton Holton, and walks away without answering his question.

This exchange, and others like it, will no doubt keep cropping up to haunt Romney throughout his campaign. His complete inability to relate to, or show anything resembling empathy towards mainstream Americans is stunningly on display here. If his position on medical marijuana was due to something he believes is a greater good, as a contender for president of the United States, he should certainly be able to articulate that.However this is likely due to the fact that Romney has no real solutions for real people's problems.

Transcript:

Sick Man: "I suffer from an extremely rare type of muscular dystrophy and I have to take medication or I'll die. Right now I weigh less than 80 pounds, I have all my life. Um, I have support of 5 of my doctors that I am living proof that Medical Marijuana works. I am completely against legalizing it for everyone but there is medical . . ."

Romney: "And you have synthetic marijuana that's available and other . . . "

Sick Man: "It makes me sick. I've tried it and it makes me throw up. I have tried all the medications they are and all the forms they come in after my stimulators, the steroids. I have muscular dystrophy, that's completely against my DNA."

Romney: "I'm sorry to hear that."

Sick Man: "My question to you is, will you arrest me and my doctors if I get medical marijuana?"

Romney: "I'm not in favor of medical marijuana."

(Romney looks away, moves on to next person mid-conversation)

Sick Man: "So, will you have me arrested? . . . "

Romney: "Hi, how are you?" (moving on to next person in line)

Sick Man: "Excuse me, will you please answer my question?"

3rd Person: "You're not going to answer his question, Governor?"

Romney: "I think I have."

3rd Person: "No, he asked you if you were going to arrest him. He asked if you were going to arrest patients like him, Governor? You're just going to ignore a person in a wheelchair?"

Romney: "I spoke with him."

3rd Person: "Yeah, but you didn't answer his question!"

Granted, the Obama administration's stance on medical marijuana isn't any more appealing to medical marijuana advocates than Romney's, and came under fire from Democrat Nancy Pelosi earlier this month for the continued raids on marijuana dispensaries. The difference is that I doubt Obama would turn his back and walk away from someone with a legitimate concern about any issue, let alone a sick man in a wheel chair.

At least Romney didn't throw this man down on the ground and cut his hair off.

Clayton Holton, while still wheel-chair bound, and suffering the effects of the muscular dystrophy as it ravages his body, he is able to maintain some semblance of normalcy in his quality of life. He continues to credit marijuana for keeping him alive, and remains a staunch advocate of medical marijuana.

[Video Credit: Heather, H/T Ministry of Truth]

I've been doing a little bit of work with the Occupy Tallahassee group and have been covering Occupy Wall Street for Crooks and Liars and I thought I'd share a few suggestions based on what I've observed. These protests present an historic moment for people who think the system is broken and who want to really make a change. The protests have brought in thousands of new people across the country who don't like the way things are going and want to do something about it. But the other side has more money and more power and has faced opposition before. In order to avoid losing to them once again, there are some things that local groups need to pay attention to...

1. It's all about attracting more and more people. The way we make change is by gathering together so many people that they can't ignore us.

2. Get information about everyone who shows up. We have to be able to contact people for future events and actions.

3. Give people something to do. Protests and rallies are nice. They get people fired up and they can get some media attention. But they aren't enough. We have to take those people who show up to the rallies and give them something concrete to do that will make a difference.

4. We all, every one of us, have to know what we're talking about. The number one way to lose momentum is for us to allow the media to marginalize us as kooks or crazies. If we are all educated and we only give the media educated, thoughtful responses, then we take away the opposition's major weapon.

5. We have to have a coherent message. The media and the opposition are already trying to paint us as having no real point. If they succeed in convincing the public that is true, the movement will die off. People will go home and nothing will change.

6. We have to walk a thin line when it comes to the law. Civil disobedience is a valid tool and it changes the world. But not if it is violent or disrespectful of the very people the 1 percent are already screwing over. We have to be better than the other side, not fall into their tactics or fall for the traps they are setting for us. And keep in mind that law enforcement and other people who may appear to be our opposition at times are getting screwed over by the 1 percent, too. We should be recruiting them, not antagonizing them.

7. At the end of the day, when the protest is over, we have to realize that just showing up and protesting and occupying isn't enough. It is an amazing start, but protests are never successful if they aren't coupled with actions that can change the world. Lawsuits and elections are the key tools in American history (and beyond) that have changed the way the system worked and created progress. We have to use the mass mobilizations as a way to get politicians elected that will fight the 1 percent (like Alan Grayson and Bernie Sanders, for instance) and we have to fund lawsuits that will enforce laws that already exist that protect our rights. Without these tools we can't win.

8. We have to win the media battle. This isn't going to be easy, because the 1 percent owns the media. But they don't own the Internet. Well they do, but they can't stop us from using it. And we have to use it well enough to force the rest of the media to pay attention and do the right thing. When a reporter lies about how many people were at an event, we need to use the web to tell the truth. When a reporter tries to spin a story to undercut what we're doing, we need to use the web to tell the truth. They won't do it unless we force them to.

This is cross-posted from my blog, Florida Progressive Coalition

Rep. Chip Cravaack of Minnesota, a tea party favorite, has steadfastly refused to hold a town hall meeting in Duluth, the largest city in his district, until a group of activist grandmothers shamed him into it as he appeared at a meeting for the National Federation of Independent Businesses on Tuesday. Cravaack had numerous meetings with special interest groups, but has yet to answer to the biggest voting block in his district.

If Cravaack actually shows up (since his staff doesn't know anything about a town hall scheduled for Wednesday), here are some questions attendees at the town hall might ask him:

-Will he actually be ready to answer constituent questions?

-Why did Cravaack vote to shut down the Federal Aviation Administration?

-Did he know that the FAA shutdown was solely about assaulting unions and how does he justify such a thing?

Continue reading »

Brookings Institution: A statement condemning the Cheney/Kristol infamy, signed by Bush White House, DOJ, and Pentagon attorneys. Even Ken Starr signed!

TBogg: Who's to blame when situations degenerate? Disgusting things you'd never anticipate

Economist's View:: Enough Already: Venting over four decades of right wing activism

Blue Heron Blast: Separate but unequal

Bildungblog: Senate's shiniest forehead attributed to daily use of Turtle Wax

HOLY CRAP: Beck: Nevermind Jesus...Home-schooled ignorance...Words from a prophet...Choir Boy Practice...Republican Jesus...The wretched of the earth...Arrested...God Blogs...Scientologists prominently dissed...The Week In God...Evil Condoms...Bad Form...Amazing Videos

DOWNLOADS: (852)

PLAYS: (1436)

Embed

(h/t Heather)

Chris Matthews went on a rant against the 'netroots" yesterday when he was talking to John Heilemann from the New Yorker, saying that we're not real Democrats who vote and all we do is back-seat bitching because we're criticizing the LieberCare sellout health-care plan.

Think Progress:

When Heilemann noted that the “Democratic left” has been “trashing the health care bill” this week, Matthews said that those people were part of the “netroots” and not “regular grown-up Democrats”:

MATTHEWS: I don’t consider them Democrats, I consider them netroots, and they’re different. And if I see that they vote in every election or most elections, I’ll be worried. But I’m not sure that they’re regular grown-up Democrats. I think that a lot of those people are troublemakers who love to sit in the backseat and complain. They’re not interested in governing this country. They never ran for office, they’re not interested in working for somebody in public office. They get their giggles from sitting in the backseat and bitching.

I started blogging in 2004 because I was passionate about returning America to the great country it was before conservatives got their hands on the government in 2000 -- and it was because of the phony justifications that media elites like Chris Matthews sat back and used to persuade Americans to back such an outrageous position like the Iraq war that drove me into online activism.

We don't do anything? Really?

Atrios helped expose Trent Lott's love of Strom Thurmond back in 2002, which rocked the political world.

Macaca, anyone?

There are many excellent PAC's out there, but Blue America PAC/a> has raised over a million dollars since we started to do some governing, as we helped many great progressive politicians get elected like representatives Alan Grayson and Donna Edwards and Sen. Jeff Merkley, just to name a few.

The netroots have exposed FOX News to be the propaganda arm of the GOP when the MSM stood idly by and let them disseminate as manyLuntz-polled press releases masquerading as news as they could.

I've been asked to run against Jane Harman in CA-36, but I've held off making a decision until the New Year is upon us. We've broken stories like the scandal over the Bush administration firing seven U.S. Attorneys, and have given an incredible amount of content to news networks because of our commitment for truth. And they use that content without crediting many of us, while sneering at us as dirty f&*@king hippies.

I can go on and on, but I'll debate Chris Matthews anytime he wants about the things we actually do and we actually achieve in the real world -- both inside and outside the Beltway, too.

Part II of our year end donation drive begins today. Thanks so much for everyone that has donated so far. We've had over 200 donations already so please don't stop now.

It's been a tough year for the entire country, but I think we're doing our best to represent and so has our entire Team Crooks. I've also been a volunteer for Blue America and the support you have shown our Campaign for Health Care Choice and the many great progressive candidates we've endorsed like Alan Grayson has been incredible.

Corporations are pouring millions of dollars into the blogosphere trying to compete with bloggers and this new article shows you what's been happening lately. Their new twist to fool America is that they have the nerve to call themselves "bloggers." Paid journalists from corporations are trying to co-opt the term. Nice try, ass-wipes.

C&L has been fighting the good fight ever since it started and as our activism has grown so has the help that is needed from our readers.

Harry Reid told the Las Vegas Review Journal that the bill coming out of Congress will have a public option.

U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said today there will be a "public option" in whatever health insurance reform bill comes out of Congress.

"We are going to have a public option before this bill goes to the president's desk," Reid said in a conference call with constituents, referring to some kind of government plan.

."I believe the public option is so vitally important to create a level playing field and prevent the insurance companies from taking advantage of us," he said.

Reid also mentioned the inclusion of incentives for healthy behavior, something suggested by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.

What form of a public option is something we don't know.

dday runs down the various types of proposals that are out there in his post: What's In A Name?

Well, we'll know one way or another soon enough and although many are not optimistic about the chances of a vibrant public option the fact that Reid has injected it into the dialogue after he has been unwillingly to do so only helps our cause. And all the online activism done by the blogosphere and health-care groups has been essential or it never would have gotten this far. We will continue to push and fight and scratch and yell to save the bill from the grubby hands of the health-care industrial complex. You can count on it.

The Huffington Post updates Reid:

UPDATE: Reid's office clarifies his remarks in a statement sent over from an aide to the Senator.

"Sen. Reid believes that health insurance reform must include a mechanism to keep insurers honest, create competition and keep costs down," the statement reads. "He feels that the public option is the best way to do that. While we don't know exactly what that option will look like, Sen. Reid, working with President Obama, will ensure that whatever is included in the final bill does just that."

This seemed somewhat inevitable as Reid has largely resisted going out on a limb when it comes to the public option.

So I'm skimming my bookmarked sites for post ideas and on CongressMatters (which, if you don't read regularly, you should), David Waldman blogged about this ridiculously slanted article in today's Washington Post:

Health-Care Activists Targeting Democrats

Sniping Among Liberals May Jeopardize Votes Needed to Pass Bill

By Ceci Connolly

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Hmmmm....interesting spin. It's the liberals' fault. Not the obstructionist Republicans or centrist Democrats standing in the way of what the people want. Of course. It goes on:

Provided that the Democratic legislators in question were actually pressing for, you know, legislation that these constituencies actually agreed with and wanted to see passed. There's nothing "natural" about it, in the sense that support should be assumed or taken for granted. But that's the implication. I'm not the "natural" ally of anyone who insists that something supported by 76% of the population is really just some sort of "left-leaning" nonsense, and that we need to find "centrist" compromise with the other 24%.

But that's the underlying premise of the entire article, helped along by quotes from Democratic lawmakers and staffers who repeat the mantra, especially when it comes to the pressure being put on them (or rather, that they claim is not actually being put on them, because they all "ignore" ads and other "unhelpful" input from the grassroots).

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), for example:

"I do not think this is helpful. It doesn't move me one whit," she said. "They are spending a lot of money on something that is not productive."

That's a hell of a thing for a Member of Congress to say, don't you think? Spending a lot of money on something that is not productive? You don't say! At least it's private money, Senator. Gosh, sorry to bother you, Di!

Next graf:

Much of the sparring centers around whether to create a government-managed health insurance program that would compete with private insurers. Obama supports the concept, dubbed the "public option," but he has been vague on details. Left-of-center activists want a powerful entity with the ability to set prices for doctors and hospitals.

76% support for a public option. But only "left-of-center activists" want it.

But it gets better. Adam Green, with whom we've worked on his "Demand a Public Option" campaign, is one of the few liberals quoted for the article, and Connolly distorts that too:

When asking me about the Progressive Change Campaign Committee's TV ads (which begin airing Monday in DC) holding Senate Dems accountable for taking millions from insurance interests and being on the verge of opposing a public option supported by 76% of Americans, Connolly would ask me ridiculous questions like, "Why are you attacking your friends? Wouldn't you agree that these Democrats are better for you on most health care issues than Republicans?"

I had to patiently explain to her that the public option is the defining issue of the health care debate -- if Senators like Baucus and Nelson aren't with us on that, they are not our friends.

Connolly listened, and then chose to dismiss silly activists who are fighting for what 76% of Americans want:

Activists say they are simply pressing for quick delivery of "true health reform," but the intraparty rift runs the risk of alienating centrist Democrats who will be needed to pass a bill.

As if passing the bill is the goal, regardless of what's in it. Notice how she wrote "Activists say" for the side of an argument representing what 76% of Americans want and simply stated the other side as truth.

But just in case you weren't sure for whom Connolly was advocating:

Connolly then asked me why progressives were picking a political fight on the public option, as opposed to another issue. I guess the fact that it's the #1 domestic issue of the day -- one that affects millions of American families -- wasn't explanation enough.

I figured she was looking for a quote summarizing the political stakes, so I thought for a moment and said, "The public option has become a proxy for the question of whether Democrats will stand on principle and represent their constituents."

I was quite proud of that answer. It summarizes what a lot of people are feeling -- the public option is the "line in the sand" issue for Democrats, something Chris has written about here on OpenLeft several times.

Connolly's take on that quote:

Green, in an interview, was hard-pressed to articulate a substantive argument for the public plan but said that it "has become a proxy for the question of Democrats who stand on principle and represent their constituents."

WHAT? Connolly asked me a question on the politics, and when I gave her an answer on that, she said I didn't answer on the substance?

The Washington Post disinforming the public once again. You can email Ceci Connolly to give her feedback at connollyc@washpost.com or tweet her at @postdailydose.

Oliver Willis: Biden FTW, except with C+ America and the bone-deep stupid

Petrelis Files: Former assitant editor of the conservative Washington Times says it's all over for the Psychogeezer and Caribou Barbie. Maybe so, but get ready for a revival of Reverend Wright.

Calculated Risk: Charley Rose discussion on the economy with Mort Zuckerman and Andrew Ross Sorkin

Blue Heron Blast: Sarah Silverman and The Great Schlep

Open Salon: McCain Wrestles a Bear!

Justice Watch: Reagan appointees criticize Scalia activism

Download | play Download | play

American speed skater Joey Cheek has done a great deal to bring global attention to the immense suffering of the people of Darfur, forming Team Darfur and even going so far as donating his $40k Olympic bonus to the cause in 2006. Unfortunately, the gold and silver medalist was punished for his activism by the Chinese government -- who has contributed to the genocide in Darfur by fueling and supporting Sudan's murderous military government -- when they revoked his visa this week, preventing him from attending this year's Olympics in Beijing.

During the opening ceremony NBC's Bob Costas discussed the controversy surrounding Cheek and the Chinese government, noting that he made it clear he would not protest the Chinese government during the Olympics:

Costas: "Joey Cheek had planned to invoke the Olympic truce, the time-honored concept of an Olympic truce, to call attention to the humanitarian crisis in Sudan. He did not intend to directly protest the Chinese government. The fact that they pulled his visa is so contrary to the Olympic ideal it is simply outrageous."

I wondered if NBC was going to cave on this or take a stand and defend Cheek against the reprehensible actions of the Chinese government. I applaud Costas for choosing the latter.