Jerome R. Corsi's controversial new book, "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," occupies a class of its own. Corsi, you may recall, was the coauthor of "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," the campaign diatribe that slimed the decorated Vietnam War veteran and then-Democratic presidential candidate's war record.
And another quote:
"The Obama Nation" was written and printed because major American publishing houses have decided that there's money to be made in funding right-wing boutique imprints modeled after the Washington-based Regnery, which has made a small fortune stoking the hard-right furnace with combustible prose. Corsi's book is published by Threshold Editions, a division of Simon & Schuster, which hired right-wing political operative Mary Matalin to edit the imprint.
There is a group called Citizens United. Wikipedia has this to say:
It has run ads critical of President Clinton's record on terrorism, ads supporting George W. Bush's terrorism record, and filed a Federal Election Commission complaint against Fahrenheit 9/11. The associated Citizens United Foundation is a 501(c)(3) group. Citizens United produced the films Celsius 41.11, Broken Promises: The United Nations at 60, and Border War: The Battle Over Illegal Immigration.
It was co-founded by Floyd Brown. Here's what Joe Conason at Salon.com had to say on April 25 this year:
Will McCain denounce Floyd Brown?
It's time for the GOP to finally repudiate the creator of the infamous Willie Horton ad, who is back
There is nothing remarkable in the sudden reappearance of right-wing con man Floyd Brown, whose latest venture is an inflammatory television ad now airing in North Carolina that attempts to blame Barack Obama for gang murders in Chicago (and international terrorism, too). Nobody familiar with Brown would expect him to resist smearing an African-American presidential contender.
And there's Freedom's Watch. Wikipedia recently had an extensive explanation of its work, including this paragraph:
On September 13, [2007] the group aired a new television ad, challenging a MoveOn.org advertisement which questioned the integrity of General David Petraeus saying "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" and "Cooking the Books for the White House." [14] The advertisement stated, "Name calling, charges of betrayal it's despicable. It's what MoveOn shamefully does - and it's wrong. America and the forces of freedom are winning. MoveOn is losing. Call your Congressman and Senator. Tell them to condemn MoveOn." They also plan to run print advertisements on the subject. [15]
Margaret Bassett is an 86-year old, currently living in senior housing, with a lifelong interest in political conumbrums. She hopes to hold out for one more presidential election. Bachelors from State University of Iowa (1944) and Masters from Roosevelt University (1975) help to unravel important requirements for modern communication. Early introduction to computer science (1966) trumps them. It's payback time. She's been "entitled" so long she hopes to find some good coming off the keyboard into the lives of those who come after her.
Thank you, Margaret, for this telling compilation of how the very best in dishonest, fear and hate-mongering minds work, and the behind the scenes chain of shame that brings these shadows of humanity to screen and print. It speaks volumes, however, at just how desperate some are to win, gain power and profit on half-truths, downright lies, and that old work horse - fear - that plays into the hands of millions who would rather accept such rubbish as gospel as opposed to seeking the truth. Good work.
by
Jan Baumgartner (52 articles, 137 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 252 comments)
on Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 9:42:57 PM
I've often wondered why, as a schoolgirl, I favored Lincoln Steffens and other muckrakers over say, "Gone with the Wind." Next to muckrakers my favorite genre--if you can call it that--was biographies of settlement house workers and such. Looks like I've got two hot topics in the same campaign this time.
by
Margaret Bassett (31 articles, 1963 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 1279 comments)
on Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 10:19:17 PM
Mugwomps and officious intermeddlers- Bloggers and place holders- fund raisers and obstructionists- all must be viewed through your keen lens. The Obama bashers are showing themselves in unabashed fashion as the time grows near. Those of us fighting for our planet must recognize the threat and take appropriate measures. The mugwomps are the worst- Their non position that leads to non decisions stifle the movement. Let us hope that very soon they all turn for the better- Thanks for your great words !!
by
Brent Turner (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments)
on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 2:11:38 PM
I suppose there is the usual head and heart question. How much do any of us determine how we like certain candidates? And must we, maybe, have to decide first who we dislike?
People often talk about "lesser of two evils" decisions. I see it differently. It starts with introspection. If things just don't seem right with me, Numero Uno, well, what to do? In general society, it starts out with "defining issues" and then often gets to such matters as trustworthiness of the politician, ability to become elected, and other things only a political advisor should love.
Here's how I see it as Numero Uno. From garbage pickup outside my door to global diplomacy one candidate is all I can vote for. So I'll see what the candidate has voted for, what major speeches he's made, and whether his webpage tells me that his staff has formed a good forecast for what he promises. Follow the same procedure for all candidates. That's the "head" work done. As we all know, communication is one-third verbal and two-thirds non-verbal. Gestures in making a speech, manner in pressing the flesh, images in TV ads--that sort of thing make me take care of the heart part.
The most important step in deciding a vote is to watch the "suspect" for signs of legitimate worth in issues and history. By the time election day rolls around, something between reason and sentiment will work out an answer. Parties should have no part in the matter.
I come from long experience on the side of the Democrats, but still don't always go with the torch bearer. None was more apparent than in 1960, although it is one of the few times I couldn't vote. We had just moved to a new precinct, and it was before "each man, one vote." I was thoroughly aggravated with Nixon and Kennedy and their campaigns. They couldn't see past the Cold War, and were well out of line in my opinion. From the personalities involved, I had a dislike for Nixon which was intense over his red-baiting tactics. However, Kennedy didn't take that on. In retrospect I learned to respect Jack Kennedy, especially because of Bobby's work in the civil rights movement, but that was not apparent in 1960. If I could have voted, I would have voted for Kennedy for the "lesser" reason.
I was of the opinion that race relations was the first issue , because otherwise the Soviets had us trumped on rights issues. It worked out in the long run. But I have to say that my head was going into the future while many citizens were thinking about the sirens which went off during school hours to teach the little children there was danger next door.
by
Margaret Bassett (31 articles, 1963 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 1279 comments)
on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 4:04:17 PM
4 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....