Scott McLellan: What No One Reports

About | Superdelegates | Predictions | Polls | Obama Vs. McCain

The stir over Scott McLellan’s book on the propaganda war Bush 2 waged to get us into the Iraq war is leaving one thing unreported. No doubt because people either do not know or they do know and are skittish. It’s a predictable like-father-like-son barb that is intelligible when you know that Scott’s dad, Barr McLellan is the author of Blood, Money and Power, which implicated LBJ in the death of JFK.

I must assume that the linkage will surface without any help from me. This is the Web after all.

But my own amusement is tempered by the fact that I am most familiar with Barr’s book. It is a widely-skewered semi-fictional, yet intermittently plausible, account of the prospect that one of the shooters on the 6th floor was Malcolm Wallace, a known hit man and a known part of the Johnson circle.

Most observers are saying that Scott’s conclusions are vastly less speculative than Barr’s. So one could argue that the son is the more veracious of the two.

But what is interesting is that both father and son have sought to write history in a way that would completely justify the relegation of a former President (LBJ) to the bottom rung and the impeachment of the sitting President, George W. Bush.

In any family, such parallelism is of interest.

Send a Personal Email to Stephen C. Rose

scott mclellan

Obama Blog


Listen to my song “We Are All Americans”

“Abba’s Way” states: Unprecedented would be Jesus stating today what he was, and is, about.
Description of “Abba’s Way” (2006) | Purchase “Abba’s Way”

barack obama

Vets for Freedom Probably Illegal

About | Superdelegates | Predictions | Polls | Obama Vs. McCain

The Bobsey Twins of McCain surrogates — Senators Lieberman and Graham — an increasing caricature of their earlier personas — have withdrawn from the board of Vets for Freedom, which would indicate they see it as a partisan political organization.

Originally Vets for Freedom was described as a 527, but this is dead wrong.

Vets for Freedom are WORSE. They are a non-profit 501 entity that may prove to be violation of the legal definition of a 501(c)(4), which is required to make any partisan political activity secondary.

As you will see below, Vets for Freedom is primarily seeking the destruction of Barack Obama’s salient case that the Iraq War was and is an ill-conceived.

Given this fact, Vets for Freedom should be placed on the carpet and challenged regarding its not-for-profit, protected status.

The Vets for Freedom describe themselves as follows:

Vets for Freedom is a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our mission is to educate the American public about the importance of achieving success in these conflicts by applying our first-hand knowledge to issues of American strategy and tactics in Iraq.

We support policymakers from both sides of the aisle who have stood behind our great generation of American warriors on the battlefield, and who have put long-term national security before short-term partisan political gain.

One has only to look here to find that Vets for Freedom is transparently political and that its PRIMARY activity is the placement of these ads.

Here is the bilious ad that has captured the most attention. Vets for Freedom has a PAC to put these outs. It is a subsidiary organization of Vets for Freedom. I think it is clear that this is a fiction. This is the main thing they do. It is partisan. In addition to containing blatent untruths. The untruths we expect. But in a nation of laws, the status of Vet’s for Freedom is subject to challenge.

This fellow was HELPED by Barack obama and Senator Durbin. Sounds like he is now serving the highest bidder. I would be interested on some followup to this.

The following definition and outcome is apposite:

501(c)(4) organizations can participate in partisan politics as a secondary activity. Their primary activity must be pursuit of their social welfare goals. The Christian Coalition apparently failed to establish that its partisan election activity was secondary. On June 10th the St. Petersburg Times quoted University of Miami law professor Frances Hill as saying the ruling “…is suggesting that the real activities were in substantial part to influence the outcome of elections.” The Coalition has distributed millions of guides through a network of 100,000 churches. The guides address a limited set of issues with what has been described as simplistic” characterizations of candidate positions.

The Vets for Freedom should be taken to court and asked to prove that they are in no sense involved primarily in anything but the effort to back candidates they approve of and zap candidates they do not approve of. This is the very definition of a political purpose. To masquerade under tht 501 (c) label is symptomatic of the unregulated and uncritical ambience of the Clinton-Bush years.

Someone step up and deal with this.

Send a Personal Email to Stephen C. Rose


Obama Blog


Listen to my song “We Are All Americans”

“Abba’s Way” states: Unprecedented would be Jesus stating today what he was, and is, about.
Description of “Abba’s Way” (2006) | Purchase “Abba’s Way”

barack obama, clinton, politics

Hillary’s Post-PA $10 Million A Lie

Hillary Clinton came out the day after the PA primary with the triumphant assertion that her campaign had raised $10 million. This was a bald-faced lie, according to the Federal Election Commission which monotors contribution to candidates.

According to the FEC, Clinton took in $1,738,154.61 on April 23 and $2,578,730.28 on April 24.

It is hard to reconcile these figures with the confident claim I recall Terry McAuliffe spinning out the ten million figure all over the MSM on the day after the PA primary.

It is also hard to arrive at an accurate estimate of the actual indebtedness of the Clinton campaign.

But it cannot escape the attention of superdelegates that fiscal responsibility is a major qualification for a Presidential nominee. In such a contest, Obama would win over Clinton hands down.

Not to mention veracity.



About | Superdelegates | Predictions | Polls | Obama Vs. McCain

Ah, linkages! McCain+Gramm+Clinton+Meltdown. McCain has relied for primary economic advice on the former Texas Senator Phil Gramm.

Gramm is the guy who helped to spearhead the seminal mid-1990s decision to open US banks to offering of all sorts of financial services once reserved to brokerages. This decision enabled banks to get into greed big time, bundling shaky transactions into investment “products”.

Result: A bulbous, inflated bubble of deceptive values in the so-called free markets, which is now imploding.

Phil and John are doing just fine. The little guy is hurting big time.

And the multi-layered onion skin around John McCain is being peeled away daily.

LINK ONE How Bill Clinton Made the Mortgage Crisis harks back to the repeal of the landmark Glass-Steagall act over his Presidential signature. Here is the salient linkage:

Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. …

When Bill Clinton gave that pen to Sanford Weill, it symbolized the ending of the twentieth century Democratic Party that had created the New Deal. Although the 1999 law did not repeal all of the banking Act of 1933, retaining the FDIC, it did once again allow banks to enter the securities business, becoming what some term “whole banks.”

LINK TWO Phil Gramm & John McCain: Together Again. This 2006 piece previsions the future. Bedfellows again.

“One of the things I like about McCain is that he has not lost the ability to be outraged,” Mr. Gramm said. “I think that is a good thing. Americans like passion.”

Besides giving policy advice, two former aides said Mr. Gramm, who once memorably described money as “the mother’s milk of politics,” has been helping the Arizona senator with fundraising.

McCain, Gramm, and UBS. This explicates the McCain-Gramm connection further and notes Gramm’s UBS connection. The amount LOST by UBS in the mortgage meltdown is mind-boggling. Here is a taste of this link:

I think it was completely inappropriate that McCain had a UBS lobbyist advising him on his response to the housing crisis. It’s inexcusable for a candidate who portrays himself as a crusader against lobbyists and special interests. This should end Gramm’s role as a McCain advisor.

While these linkages get into complex turf, the upshot is reasonably simple. We have had two engines of prosperity in the US. One has been the unimpeded growth of entrepreneurial energy and the results in new products and so forth. And we have had an impulse to share the wealth and open up opportunity to all. This has fueled the notion that anyone can latch on to the American Dream, interpreted in reasonably crass economic terms.

The synthesis of these viewpoints is what the Obama campaign is about. The balancing of the interests of Wall street and Main Street. The McCain emphasis is all on Wall Street. After he left the Senate, Phil Gramm moved to New York with his Enron-connected spouse Wendy. As I say, they’ve all done well in an economy skewed to favor the rich.

The sharing impulse, however, has been miniscule. As evidenced by McCain’s stingy mortgage solution which would address the needs of approximately .02% of the millions now facing foreclosure.

I see this election as a replay of the 2004 contest, but with 2006 and 2008 hindsignt. Never again and no more Bush-o-nomics. And when analyzing the ’90s, remember how Clinton signed away the legacy of the New Deal.

Send a Personal Email to Stephen C. Rose


Obama Blog


Listen to my song “We Are All Americans”

“Abba’s Way” states: Unprecedented would be Jesus stating today what he was, and is, about.
Description of “Abba’s Way” (2006) | Purchase “Abba’s Way”


McCain’ Fearsome Undercurrents

About | Superdelegates | Predictions | Polls | Obama Vs. McCain

One does not wish that McCain is worthy of being scripted by the late Terry Southern as a character worthy of a Strangelove sequel. But that indeed seems to be the appropriate wish. Better that than he becomes President, capable not of Bush’s Third Term, but of vastly worse.

The first thing that needs to get done is to rip the cover off the protection the media accords McCain. The following reveals things that have generally only been alluded to. They are not hidden left wing smears. McCain has more enemies on the right than the left.

No. This is straight talk straight down the middle. Get to know John.

But only a few news outlets, like the Phoenix New Times in Arizona and the National Journal, that ran an Associated Press story reporting McCain’s 1998 joke suggesting that Chelsea Clinton was ugly and Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton were lesbians.

“Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?” McCain said at a GOP fund-raiser in Washington. “Because Janet Reno is her father.”

McCain apologized to the Clintons. But more recently, McCain said on Fox News, “You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who is still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn’t have the face for it.”

In part because he gives reporters access and charms them with his apparent openness, McCain gets good press.

“A presidential candidate is not supposed to talk at length and on the record about the rules he broke or the strippers he dated, or the time he arrived so drunk that he fell through the screen door of the young lady he was wooing,” Time wrote in a Dec. 13, 1999 profile of McCain. “The candor tells you more than the comment, and reporters sometimes just decide to take him off the record because they don’t want to see him flame out and burn up a great story.”

“National reporters may genuflect, but local journalists cringe at the thought of covering McCain, better known in Arizona for his short temper, refusal to take calls, and attempts at media manipulation than for the ‘straight talk’ he doles out . . .” a Playboy profile said in February 2000.

When people have come forward to relate their bizarre experiences with McCain, only minor publications or the foreign press have run their accounts. The favored treatment is reminiscent of the way the press turned a blind eye to John F. Kennedy’s dalliances except that voters have far more need to know about evidence of instability than presidential infidelities.


Send a Personal Email to Stephen C. Rose


Obama Blog


Listen to my song “We Are All Americans”

“Abba’s Way” states: Unprecedented would be Jesus stating today what he was, and is, about.
Description of “Abba’s Way” (2006) | Purchase “Abba’s Way”


McCain Loses Either Way

About | Superdelegates | Predictions | Polls | Obama Vs. McCain

Let’s get this straight. Straight talk for John McCain. I believe he loses either way.

I am not talking about the election in November. He loses that too. But that’s then. This is now.

John McCain, when pressed, is the guy who thought the INITIAL Iraq strategy was a disaster. The subsequent SURGE strategy is what he says he pushed and that is the strategy that can WIN.

LOSS NUMBER ONE: By the time the surge came along, we already knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. No reason to continue.

As Jack Cafferty says, If it wasn’t necessary then, why is it necessary now.

LOSS NUMBER TWO: Supposing John McCain gets past loss number one. He has to say why we are still fighting.

He has to argue that we are fighting terrorists or factions or insurgents.

But there is no way he can ssy this fighting is protecting the national interest, saving us from terror.

There is simply no way to justify our presence there on the basis of this argument.

John McCain is reduced to a stupid schoolboy argument about saving face. We save face by admitting we were wrong and accepting that we were wrong when it was proved Iraq was no threat to us.

This is so patently obvious that it is unassailable.

McCain loses either way.

Send a Personal Email to Stephen C. Rose


Obama Blog


Listen to my song “We Are All Americans”

“Abba’s Way” states: Unprecedented would be Jesus stating today what he was, and is, about.
Description of “Abba’s Way” (2006) | Purchase “Abba’s Way”


Refuting Ken Blackwell’s Anti-Obama Lies

About | Superdelegates | Predictions | Polls | Obama Vs. McCain

If I were for Hillary Clinton, I would be sending the column below all over the Web. Apparently that is exactly what her campaign is doing.

It is by Kenneth or Ken Blackwell a columnist for a small New York paper called The Sun. Nothing wrong so far.

What is radically wrong is what Mr. Blackwell says. If he were merely distorting Barack Obama, I would not use the term lies. A liar knows she or he is lying. That is my assumption about Mr. Blackwell. He is lying and he knows it.

Anyone who types the figures 92 or 102 into the BLOG SEARCH field for this blog will come upon direct quotations of almost all of Barack Obama’s positions. They are true.

Mr. Blackwell’s superficial characterizations are false. I am quoting his article below (indented) and offering my refutations below each section.

Beyond Obama’s Beauty


February 14, 2008

“[C]ivilizational war is real, even if political leaders and polite punditry must call it by another name.”
— Robert D. Kaplan in the December 2001 issue of the Atlantic Monthly

It’s an amazing time to be alive in America. We’re in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won’t truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won’t arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender.

Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.

This was written in February. I am writing this on the eve of Barack’s achieving the delegates necessary to nominate him. America will take a much closer look. Hopefully farther than this piece does.

Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He’s not. He’s the next George McGovern. And it’s time people learned the facts.

It IS time people learned the facts. Barack Obama is neither the next JFK nor the next George McGovern. Specifically, he is not a peace candidate who is destined to be faced down by a winning GOP and end up with the electoral votes of Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.

He will pobably win more than 300 electoral votes as you can see by scrolling to the bottom of my Obama Vs. McCain Page.

Barack Obama is a unity candidate who combines an almost conservative centrist strain with a highly progressive strain and he is the presumptive nominee because this signals a seismic change in our politics. He is like JFK in one major respect, however. His dominant appeal is to a new generation of leadership.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.

Liberal is a spin word and will be used as such by the hapless GOP. But it will be seen, in a careful examination of Obama’s record, that it is studded with achievements which speak of his ability to create agreement across the political spectrum. Obama as nominee will leave little doubt that he is as described above — a unity candidate practicing unity politics.

Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he’s not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.

Barack Obama has promised to suspend the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest. To CUT the taxes of the middle class. And to ELIMINATE the taxes of seniors whose income is less than $50,000.

He has consistently favored a pay as you go approach — meaning he will not spend without effecting a saving or creating an income offset.

He is for cutting costs, something the Bush administration has consistently failed to do on its way to creating record deficits.

George McGovern was impaled on the spear of Republican wimp charges and Democrats should have known instantly that fear politics would become the staple of Republican Presidential politics. Mike Dukakis was impaled and skewered.

Barack Obama is the first candidate to have not only recognized, but single out, this nefarious ploy and call it what it is. He is no apostle of weakness, only of reasonable prioritizing of what will make us secure and prosperous as a nation.

Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let’s look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial “beauty.

I am not aware that Barack Obama has used aesthetic categories to describe his vision. I prefer common-sense. Practical. We shall see where this goes.

Start with national security, since the president’s most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong Il, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists — something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

None of the statements above are true. As expressed, they are lies of convenience. They enable a mindless opposition to settle into the lassitude of prejudiced certainty. Here is what is true:

Barack Obama has said we should be open to chasing down Osama Bin Laden. This is surgery, not invasion. Obama’s entire foreign policy is vastly more nuanced than your false sentence states. You would prefer shock and awe of a threat to obliterate a nation?

Barack Obama has never said he would meet any leader without preparation, but this is not a convenient idea to those who wish to paint him as impulsive and irresponsible.

Among the three remaining contenders, Barack would earn the award for being the cool, no drama person. I will not even seek to argue the point. It is obvious.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on “the rich.”

Barack is not raising taxes, he is rolling back huge tax cuts on the most wealthy. Warren Buffett endorsed Barack because he agrees with this position. If we are the strongest health system in the world why are we ranked at the bottom of the following ranking by the World Health Organization?

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America

One area where Obama and Clinton are in agreement is regarding the need to renegotiate trade agreements prejudicial to American workers and oppressive to workers in the lands from which we import goods.

How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Now we come to Mr. Blackwell’s silly season, where he gives up all pretense of either accuracy or interest in substantiating what he is saying.

Here is exactly what Obama is saying and it is the linchpin of his governing commitment — pay as you go. Or: “Obama [will press for] budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.”

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, “All praise and glory to God!” but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have “hijacked” — hijacked — Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban — ban — on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

The paragraph above is so mean-spirited that it adds to the act of lying the act of malice. Here, for the edification of Mr. Blackwell, is Barack Obama stating exactly what he thinks about the issues mentioned and how he wishes to create some common ground across the political spectrum.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don’t start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of “bringing America together” means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

It’s a funny thing. The Obama and Clinton proposals are about 95 percent similar. So it really does come down to who can win and even more who can lead and uplift the country. The false statements continue, with the assertion that Obama has cast his opponents as hijackers and warmongers. Obama’s treatment of his opponents has been most charitable, given the kitchen sink of Hillary Clinton and the patronizing lectures offered by John McCain. He is in fact the one who CAN lead the country in a new and better direction.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and — yes — they’re talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama’s radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

With the exception of the last sentence which is false, it is true that neither eloquence nor race is an acceptable criterion for choosing a Commander in Chief. Nor are these qualities reasons for disqualifying anyone.

It’s time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let’s first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.

Evidently this is a campaign piece for Hillary Clinton. Written in February. I wonder if, during the intervening months, Mr. Blackwell has detected in Barack Obama anything that he can admire, trust, commend or otherwise not lie about.

Send a Personal Email to Stephen C. Rose


Obama Blog


Listen to my song “We Are All Americans”

“Abba’s Way” states: Unprecedented would be Jesus stating today what he was, and is, about.
Description of “Abba’s Way” (2006) | Purchase “Abba’s Way”