Video from Unity

As I mentioned on the show last night, I had the opportunity to attend the Obama/Clinton rally in Unity, NH.  Here’s the short video I made:

New Show Tonight At 10pm

Don’t forget we’ll be live tonight at 10pm eastern. You can listen to the show by just bookmarking this website and returning here. We’ll be discussing all of the week’s top political news and taking your calls at 347-205-9993.

Just a note: we’re posting less than normal due to several factors. Much of the staff is very busy with other projects this particular week, we’re busy working to give the site a facelift, and we’re busy working on getting some very special guests on the program. We should be back to normal starting Monday.

Why I’ll Take Biden for VP

As of tonight, he is my favorite for the VP position on the Democratic ticket.

Here are a couple preliminary reasons:

He will win back Hillary-Country for Obama. He is a devout Catholic (born in Scranton, PA even)/Irish Immigrant and stands for the working class. I think he can help Obama lock down Pennsylvania and Michigan, and significantly improve his chances of winning states like Ohio and Virginia.

He is a seasoned legislator. Having been in the Senate since 1972, and now heading the Foreign Relations Committee, there is no better person to have as your right hand man. Keep in mind, Obama can use someone who knows the in and outs of Washington and Congress, and Biden’s experience can aid in that.

He is the king of Foreign Policy and National Security. This is a man who knows his stuff, and I think can be a huge asset when running against a decorated POW and Vietnam Veteran.

He has a sense of genuineness and gives McCain’s strait talk express a run for its money. Although gaffe prone at times, I think Biden can add a lot of value of really getting to the heart of the issues and presenting it in an open and frank way.

He is a nice guy. He has the campaigning skills and the charisma that provides a nice compliment to Obama’s. And he can handle himself in a debate.

________________________________________________________________________

Here is a speech he gave recently on Iraq and the Bush Administration:

Check it out HERE

Listen To Wednesday Night’s Show

Listen here to catch up on Wednesday’s show, where we talked to former Massachusetts Governor Paul Cellucci and Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Wayne Root.

Wayne Root and Paul Cellucci Join Us Tonight

Join us tonight at 10pm EST for the premiere of our summer “Wednesday Filibuster” show. We’ll be joined by Libertarian Party vice presidential candidate Wayne Root. He’ll drop by to talk with the panel about the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket. We’ll also be joined by former Massachusetts Governor and ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci. As always, the best political panel in radio will debate and discuss the week’s hottest political topics. Join the conversation or ask Wayne a question by calling in at 347-205-9993. Just bookmark this page and return here shortly before the show to listen live.

90 Seconds With Tom Dec

WF Exclusive: Cellucci Speaks on Patrick Education Proposal

Today, in a Weekly Filibuster exclusive, former Massachusetts Governor Paul Cellucci spoke on Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick’s latest education initiative, unveilled this morning in the commonwealth. The entire interview begins about 40 minutes in.

The problem is that, you know, he has some very good ideas, but he doesn’t know how he is going to fund it. When Bill Weld and I put out education reform here in Massachusetts, we had a plan and we said we are going to devote additional state revenues to public schools, particularly in the urban areas, because we had a Supreme Court decision that had basically said because the reliance on the property tax was so heavy to fund public education, that the children in poor communities were not getting the same education as the children in the suburbs, in wealthier communities, and that was a constitutional problem.

So we put a lot more state money in to the urban school districts and we brought per pupil spending in those urban school districts pretty much on par with the suburban districts. Now, in return for putting this money in we also said “Look it – we are going to insist upon standards. We are going to have the MCAS test, and you are not going to get a high school diploma unless you can demonstrate you have basic english language skills and basic mathematical skills.” And the truth of the matter is, we have had great success with those standards in Massachusetts.

The Massachusetts students are among the best in the country now in math and in english because we put the standards in and we stuck to them. But we said, we are going to make this a priority; it is going to be in our budget as we ramp up this spending, and we are going to make cuts in other areas of the government. The problem with Deval Patrick’s plan is nobody knows how it’s going to be paid for. And that’s something you have to address at the beginning because if you don’t have a way to fund your proposals then how are you going to put them into effect?

Where Religion Makes Me a Progressive

Anyone who has listened to the show probably knows at least two things: I am a Republican and a Catholic. If you happen to be liberal or progressive who has met me in real life, as people from Harvard and Connecticut often are, chances are we have debated politics at some point. Astute observers will also note that because of my belief in social morality, personal responsibility, and charity, my religious views have an impact on my anti-statist economic views. I also take traditional religious views against abortion, physician assisted suicide, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research. Does this make me a member of the vast right wing fundamentalist conspiracy to dismantle the welfare state and reject modern science as the basis of morality?

Absolutely.

That said, my Catholicism features far more fully into my political views than just my beliefs about bioethics and the market. My religious beliefs inform nearly all of my political views. Before you cry “separation of church and state!” on me, hear me out. There are many places in which my Catholicism pushes me away from my fellow Republicans and puts me in company with the liberal Democrats I grew up around.

Question Of The Day

McCain adviser Charlie Black yesterday:

As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,” says Black.

Do you agree? Would another terrorist attack on U.S. soil be a big advantage to McCain? Would it send voters flocking to the candidate with decades of national security experience? Would they blame McCain by proxy, for Bush’s failure to protect the nation …. and his making the country less safe by having increased anti-American sentiments in the Middle East?

Panelist Matt Cavedon:

Another terrorist attack would certainly be a boon for John McCain. A veteran who has made his career out of handling crises and providing moral leadership, McCain is the type of person people really do trust to answer the phone at 3 AM, as Hillary would have learned had she made it this far. Given his record of supporting unconditional dialogue between himself and leaders of Iran, Syria, and other rogue regimes, it is worth wondering whether Barack Obama would have begun air strikes against Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 or if he would have sent a peace delegation to Kabul to attempt in vain to ask the Taliban politely to turn over al-Qaida.

Of course, there is another feasible way that Obama would react to an attack on the U.S. As I mentioned in yesterday’s response, Obama may be more a war hawk than we are being told. It is entirely possible that, as a snap reaction to danger, Obama would immediately send ground troops to Pakistan’s tribal regions to “root out terrorists.” How the tribespeople would take to a land invasion aiming to get “the bad guys” is anyone’s best bet, but my guess is not much more hospitably than Muqtada al-Sadr’s men did in Baghdad.

Whether or not McCain would make an ethical choice and truly prioritize long-term security that comes only from meaningful peace in the aftermath of another attack is also something of a mystery. After all, he wholeheartedly supported the baseless invasion of Iraq, and might take the next attack as an opportunity to “liberate” the Iranians from their elected government.

Most Americans, though, myself included, think for now that McCain would be more likely to listen to the wisdom of top military and intelligence officials and demand concrete evidence of a continued threat, then be willing to respond to it with all necessary force, than Obama. It’s something worth thinking about as we the people prepare to elect our next Commander-in-Chief.

Panelist Tom Dec:

If we were to have another terrorist attack on US soil, it would certainly be an advantage to McCain. Historically, the republicans have been the party of national security – when people are scared they tend to flock to them – and Sen. John McCain is a safe bet that he would be able to adequately handle the situation (whether you think it is the right way or not, he would be able to lead the country through it), and people would trust him. I think if there was to be a terrorist attack, McCain’s experience in national security would take the forefront, and Obama’s relative inexperience would also take the forefront, giving a massive advantage to McCain. I don’t think people would blame the Republican Party for an attack because if there was another terrorist attack, the first thing we would see is fearful people wanting a strong leader – not people pointing fingers. Since the time window between now and the election is so small, it would provide for people to vote based on their feelings – and fear. Can Barack Obama adequately handle a national security crisis? Absolutely. But the general public, I think, would give a large premium to the person who is a Vietnam veteran, and an experienced legislator in national security.

Following Bob Barr

Since the Libertarian Convention back in May on C-SPAN, I’ve been following the Libertarian ticket very closely. Barr has been picking up some mainstream media coverage as of late: talk of him on CNN’s “The Situation Room”, his interview tomorrow on O’Reilly’s radio show, and his rumored appearance on ABC’s “This Week With An Ex-Clinton Staffer” this Sunday. A recent Insider Advantage poll shows Barr receiving 6% in Georgia, making McCain’s lead over Obama only a point. So far his coverage has only been as a potential “spoiler”, but we’ll see if this press translates into rising poll numbers and eventual votes. The Libertarian Party is doing a great job on ballot access, already on in thirty states. And as third parties know, getting on the ballot is half the battle. 

Just a note: we’re going to be joined by Libertarian Party Vice Presidential Nominee Wayne Root on tomorrow night’s show at 10pm. We’ll be taking your calls as well.

Veepstakes On MSNBC.Com

There’s a cool new featured over at MSNBC’s website. Chuck Todd and David Greggory host an online Veepstakes game, where anyone can go and vote for who they think Obama and McCain’s running mates will be. It looks like Pawlenty will take it for McCain, but Obama’s choices still need to be whittled down.

Plouffe’s Powerpoint

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe’s powerpoint to Clinton donors is making the rounds.

Haunting

Sullivan’s “Face of the Day” yesterday:

French first lady Carla Bruni, at the Children’s Memorial in the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial.

The Fray

Pulled from the comments section, a reader disagrees with Brian Moore:

I agree that socialism hasn’t failed and hasn’t been given the opportunity in the US and the rest of the world. However I strongly disagree with his comments about Cuba and Fidel Castro. I don’t know if Cuba has full employment or not, but their wages are very low. Freedom of press and speech aren’t the only rights Cubans don’t have. They don’t have the freedom to travel or the right to own property either.

Anyways the main point I wish to make is that Cuba has a Communist economic system not a socialist economic system. In a communist system the state owns all property and runs all domestic businesses. In a socialist system the workers collectively and democratically own and run businesses. There is no ban on owning private property in a socialist economic system. Socialism is completely different from both Capitalism and Communism. Any society that is totalitarian and undemocratic cannot be socialist. For a society to become socialist there must be both political and economic democracy. While Cuba is less repressive than America, it isn’t democratic.

Your thoughts? The comment section is always open for discussion.

Karl Rove’s Metaphor

On how Republicans should frame Barack Obama:

Even if you never met him, you know this guy. He’s the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by.

Brilliant strategy, Karl (note the sarcasm). Interesting metaphor to use, especially since Barack Obama would likely never be let into many of the country clubs in this country. White women have a hard enough time getting in. If conservatives think they’re going to win this by making ridiculous attacks on Obama that aren’t related to policy – they’re delusional.

And, no Karl, I don’t know this guy. Along with most of America, I don’t have a membership at a country club. Way to really make your elitist argument against Obama kind of ironic.

I actually hope this is the message the GOP uses against Obama, considering how likely it is to backfire.

Question Of The Day

Bill Kristol, the New York Times’ worst columnist that isn’t Paul Krugman, thinks that if the White House believes that McCain will be elected, Bush will likely leave confrontation with Iran for him to deal with. If the White House thinks Obama will be elected, it will more aggressively deal with the issue.

“If the president thought John McCain were going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out. I do wonder with Senator Obama, if President Bush thinks Senator Obama’s going to win, does he somehow think that — does he worry that Obama won’t follow through on that policy.”

Panelist Matt Cavedon:

President Bush’s actions in the next few months will be telling of two things: 1) who he believes will win the election in November and 2) how much he is willing to follow Israel’s cue on Iran. If Bush believes McCain will win, then Kristol is right – he will probably put off taking action. McCain is very much in-line with Bush on Iran, and whatever priorities Bush has now McCain is likely to have following the election.

Obama is a slightly more complicated picture. It is obvious by now that Obama will not follow through with Bush’s plans for Iraq. On Iran, however, most Americans will be surprised by how much Obama will agree with whatever action is taken. In the face of growing criticism over his perceived spinelessness on foreign policy, Obama has become increasingly hawkish towards Iran. At a recent speech at AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobbying group in the US, Obama said:

“There is no greater threat to Israel or peace than Iran… My goal will be to eliminate this threat. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything.”

Although Obama would be hesitant to initiate action against Iran, I would be stunned if he actually comes out against any strikes made on the Islamic Republic prior to the elections. To do so would be political suicide. After the elections are over, he will either have to continue whatever “intense negotiations” or bombings against nuclear facilities that the Bush Administration starts. The only way he would differ from Bush policy would be if the President actually authorizes a land invasion, a highly unlikely circumstance.

Click more to read the rest of Matt’s thoughts and opinions from more of the panel.

A Place Called Unity

Unity, New Hampshire will be the site of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s first joint campaign stop. They both received 107 votes in the January primary there. Expect road-blocked cable coverage of this symbolism heavy event.

Listen To Last Night’s Show

Missed Sunday night’s installment of The Weekly Filibuster? Don’t fret, we’ve got you covered. Click here to listen to our interviews with New York Times bestselling author Thurston Clarke (talking about his new book on Robert Kennedy) and Mike Poss of Perot Charts (on our national debt). The panel, as always, tackles all the week’s political topics.

Author Thurston Clarke & Mike Poss of PerotCharts.com Join Us Tonight

Join us this tonight at 10pm. We’ll be talking to New York Times bestselling author Thurston Clarke, whose new book “The Last Campaign: Robert F. Kennedy And 82 Days That Inspired America” is gathering plenty of accolades. Tom Brokaw calls it ” a great read, an evocative and engaging reminder of the glory and the tragedy of Bobby Kennedy’s run for the presidency in 1968. Thurston Clarke’s keen eye for the telling detail and his fast-paced narrative make The Last Campaign a must-have for any student of American politics.” We’ll talk to him about Robert Kennedy’s historic campaign and the 2008 election, among other topics. We’ll also be taking your calls at (347) 205-9993. Join us by clicking the “Listen Live” button here at blog.

We’ll also be talking to Mike Poss of Perot Charts about our nation’s debt crisis. So make sure not to miss what’s shaping up to be a great show.

Correction On The Brian Moore Transcript

Last Sunday, June 15th, we interviewed Socialist Party nominee Brian Moore and posted a transcript of some of his various comments on topics talked about on the show. It was pointed out by a reader that part of our transcript was misleading to what Brian had really meant to suggest:

Notice how they put in brackets to make it look like he was calling all Cuban Americans in Florida terrorists. I don’t believe that was his intention. He was still talking about the right-wing Cuban fascists, and he probably thought the interview guy was asking about them, not all Cuban Floridians.

Turns out that the reader was absolutely correct, and in transcribing we got it wrong, as we all thought he was suggesting something he wasn’t. I just got off the phone with Brian, and he corrected the record. He was talking specifically about the “right-wing fascist” Cuban-Americans who have: “blackmailed their leaders” and “funded assassination attempts on Castro”, as opposed to all Cuban-Americans. He also said that there are “probably some Cubans in Miami that agree with me”. 

Here’s the original transcript. We apologize to anyone upset, and reiterate that we take journalistic integrity very seriously.

 

Big John

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) just sealed his victory in Texas with a single campaign commercial. This has to be the most brilliant campaign ad in a long time.

Who Won The Week?

Check out my new weekly video feature on WeeklyFilibuster.com:

Race for the Naval Observatory

New weekly Veepstakes Vlog on WeeklyFilibuster.com:

Question Of The Day

Recently we’ve seen attacks on both Michelle Obama’s patriotism and Cindy McCain’s wealth. Both the candidates have suggested that the other party should leave their families out of the fray. So, are the spouses of the presidential candidates fair game?

Panelist Tom Dec:

The spouses of the presidential candidates are fair game in that, they, like all other surrogates of the campaign, play a significant role and should be monitored by the press. I don’t know if you can neccessarily say that everything Michelle Obama says should be taken to be the word of Barack Obama, but I think its fair for them to be critiqued. In terms of Bill Clinton in the Democratic Primary, seeing as Bill is a Former President, he is an entity of his own and should be monitored – just like all other Former Presidents should be (and are), and Hillary knew this. If she didn’t want to attract the press, she wouldn’t have used Bill in any significant fashion (which now, in hindsight may have been a good idea).

We should keep in mind, however, that the election is about the candidates – not who who their spouses are, and we should focus primarily on the candidates. The press I think has been relatively good on this front. We heard a lot about Bill, a little about Michelle (especially her comments on being proud of this country for the first time in her adult life), and virtually nothing about Cindy. Lets hope it continues.

Panelist Matt Cavedon:

Choosing a spouse is one of the most crucial signs of a person’s judgment of character. There is no reason why we should not expect our president, with so many important positions to appoint, to select people of good merit in their personal life as well as their public career.

Where we have to be careful is in being superficial about it. If we focus on the looks, cooking style, religious professions, age, or other demographics of a spouse, rather than the content of their character, we are missing out on some really telling information. To suggest that Cindy McCain is far too young or that Michelle Obama is unpatriotic is stupid and distracting. To say that Cindy is unfaithful or that Michelle is unfeeling, however, is fair game for the campaigns if there is evidence behind it.

To expect a wall of separation between a person’s personal and public lives is to suggest that the person has two distinct personalities. If so, there are greater reasons to avoid them than poor choice in spouses.

Join Us Sunday At 10pm

Make sure to join us this Sunday at 10pm on The Weekly Filibuster. Tom Dec will be filling in as moderator, and we’ll have guest panelist Tobin Weltin return. Also joining us for the first time will be our new Republican panelist, Sage Koontz. We’ll keep you up to date on our special guest(s) as we get confirmations. You can listen to the show by going to www.weeklyfilibuster.com every Sunday at 10pm. As always, we’re taking your calls about the top political issues of the week.

Topics: Obama Opting-Out Of Public Financing, Both Candidates Flip-Flopping On The GI Bill, Michelle Obama’s Makeover, and more.

NOTE: To listen to our interview with Prohibition Party Candidate Gene Amondson, CLICK HERE. He begins about 10 minutes in.

Public Financing

Halperin, who is always able to boil things down, explains why Obama opted out of public financing – and why nobody is really going to care:

3. If Obama had stayed in the public system, he would have been giving up the
type of huge advantage the ambitious people rarely give up.

5. Obama will now be able to, say, spend $15 million on Texas television ads, giving McCain some tough choices to make.

6. No candidate has ever had as big a spending advantage as Obama will have for the final two months of the campaign.

7. Because of the nature of the media’s coverage of Obama, he is unlikely to pay too heavy a price for going back on his pledge.

Yep. Obama would be insane to accept public financing, and the McCain campaign would agree.

We’ll be talking about Obama’s decision to opt-out of public financing on our show this Sunday at 10pm. We’ll post a link to listen live here on the blog.

Obama’s First General Election Ad

The ad will air in Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia.

Question Of The Day

The panelists respond to Slate.com’s Jack Shafer:

I wonder whether the media grievers gave a moment of thought to how this Russert torrent they produced played with viewers and readers. Did the grievers really think Russert was so important, so vital to the nation’s course, and such an elevated human being that he deserved hour upon hour of tribute? I wonder whether any of the responsible journalists paused to think, Hey, this is really weird. We’re using our unchecked editorial power to soak the nation with our tears about our friend, and that’s unseemly!

On days like this, I, too, hate the press.

Panelist Matt Cavedon:

As we discussed recently on the show, the media tends to enjoy a person’s narrative more than their merit. It is impossible that any man could possibly live up to Tim Russert’s accolades as the media proclaims them. No one man is the King of Washington and the Voice of Authority in politics in the way he was. This is exaggeration.

It is not, however, the truly unjust thing about how the media covers the dearly departed. All too often, a person with a reasonable amount of merit is heralded as a hero and a prophet. Listening to the encomiums showered on Russert, you would think that his humility in the face of fame was stoic, that his affability was somehow shocking. Certainly, Russert seemed like an average Joe in a big place, the kind of guy you could meet at a cookout in your neighbor’s backyard and shoot the breeze with without him getting condescending on you. But that’s exactly the point. Rather than glorifying Russert for staying “true to his roots”, shouldn’t we expect a little more decency and humility from everyone else on the air?

Whenever we praise an off-duty firefighter for rescuing a would-be suicide jumper, a nurse for stopping traffic around a fallen kid, or a reporter for not being an asshole in the tenth degree, we are doing injustice to the goodness of human nature. I truly believe that most people would act in these ways if put in the situation. Rather than Russert being special, everyone else on the air has become tacky and jaded.

Let’s clap Russert on the back for being an average guy who valued family, faith, and his home, not a hero. And let’s glare at the people who have made his type a true rarity in the public sphere.

Panelist Robert Burack:

Russert’s colleagues at NBC, arguably most in politics and journalism as well, idolized the man. When someone who is idolized passes, they’re talked up and the details of their life that don’t shine as bright are pushed aside: momentarily forgotten. This country has had its share of idols. When Elvis died, we forgot his drug habit and remembered the music. When John F. Kennedy died, we forgot some of the shakier decisions of his presidency, and remembered the man who inspired us.

To most of America, Russert wasn’t an idol. But to those who covered and had a love of politics, he was the pinnacle. Russert’s coverage should probably have been cut back in light of the floods in Iowa and other news, but I have to admit I enjoyed every minute of the stories shared.

Is Muslim A Smear?

A commenter, reformislam, takes an interesting view I haven’t seen before:

Why is the presidential candidate who claims to be religiously inclusive is treating the word “Muslim” as an insult? Apparently, it is OK for Mr. Obama to be associated with terrorists like William Ayers or racists like Jeremiah Wright, but God forbid somebody would call him a Muslim! No, he won’t stand for that kind of smear! We admit that most terrorists are Muslims, but most Muslims are not terrorists and the statement on Mr. Obama’s website is insulting to hundreds of millions of people.

What he’s missing is that the Obama campaign is only calling this a smear because that’s how it has been directed. People have called him a Muslim for the purposes of harming him politically. It’s being purposely circulated, accompanied by other slander. That’s constitutes a smear. Accusations of being a terrorist. A smear. A considerable amount of Americans, sadly, would not vote for Obama if he was a Muslim. You’re right though, on the human element. The Obama campaign has to be careful not to risk alienating  those in the Arab American community in their attempts to set the record straight. A fine line to walk, indeed.

Village Re-Elects Dead Mayor

And you thought the primary season was strange…

Apparently, in some small town in Romania, their mayor of almost two decades died of liver disease just before the elections. He won by a margin of 23 votes. Many even voted for him knowing that he was dead.

Imagine if you were defeated by a dead person; how would that make you feel?

You can read the full article here.

Caution Versus Inclusiveness

The New York Times looks at the Obama campaign’s attempt to control their candidate’s environment.

At a rally for Senator Barack Obama in Detroit on Monday, two Muslim women said they were prohibited from sitting behind the candidate because they were wearing head scarves and campaign volunteers did not want them to appear with him in news photographs or live television coverage

We’ve seen how much viciously the media has helped contribute to the rumors going around about Obama, so can we really blame the volunteers? A terrorist fist jab. Shameful.

The volunteer’s hearts were in the right place, wanting to protect him. Their minds, however, must have lapsed. The only way to fight the smears is by confronting them head on – not distancing yourself from Arab Americans. This doesn’t pair up. It seems to skirt around it. The people, my grandmother included, that believe Obama is a terrorist aren’t going to have their ignorant minds changed. Nor were they going to vote for the Democratic candidate in the first place.

Watch As The National Press Club Loses Its Credibility

David Weigel of Reason Magazine, who you’ll remember if you caught CSPAN’s coverage of the Libertarian convention, recounts Larry Sinclair’s bizzare press conference yesterday at the National Press Club. I’m not sure whether to be disgusted or amused.

How did Sinclair hold up? Rather terribly. He started with a lengthy statement that admitted most (not all) of his crimes and dispatched Sibley to run around the room with a microphone. As Seth Colter Walls recounts, most of the questions were legalistic and (somewhat) credulous. Sinclair was asked who funded the event (donors, over the internet), how he made his living (he’s on disability), and whether Obama was “well hung” (I’m not going to dignify his answer here). The only new “evidence” he presented was the name of a limo driver and the bar where he claimed to have met Obama (who, in Sinclair’s story, used his real name and job title as he rendevouzed with a cruising criminal he’d never met before).

I only got to ask one question: What time of day did Sinclair meet with Obama on November 6th and November 7th? In Sinclair’s story, Obama partied with him on the 6th and traveled to his hotel in Gurnee, IL (an hour and change from Hyde Park) on the 7th. Sinclair smiled at the question. “We met in the early evening of November 6th,” he said. “As far as a specific time on November 7th, I can not provide that to you.” He added, parenthetically: “And I know where this question is coming from.”

“You know where this question is coming from?”

Things We’ll Be Watching Wednesday

• Morning Joe. Just because.
• Michelle Obama try to revamp her image as a co-host on “The View”. ABC at 11am eastern.
• Tim Russert’s memorial services at the Kennedy Center. MSNBC at 4pm eastern.
• News coverage of the Celtics’ NBA championship.
• Martha Wainwright performing on Letterman and author Junot Diaz on Colbert.

 

Sad To See Howard Wolfson Out Of Work

If you’re ever curious about the conference calls reporters sit though, Huffington Post has them all for you to enjoy. I feel bad for whoever has to sit through these.

Question of The Day

What can third party candidates do to gain more exposure?

Panelist Matt Cavedon:

Third parties need to recruit more well-known candidates, especially ones with independent wealth who can afford to properly advertise. Ross Perot was highly successful because he was a successful entrepreneur with vast reserves of wealth. Bob Barr has pretty good name recognition and credibility from his days in the Gingrich Revolution. Ralph Nader is a respected consumer advocate.

Third party candidates need to find an area of overlap between the two major party candidates and exploit it. Perot was a phenomenally successful third party candidate because both the GOP and the Democrats were seen as favoring higher taxes and bigger government. Perot came along gunning hard for traditional right-wing economics, balanced budgets, and limited government intervention in the economy and social policy. He scored big because of his ability to find a niche most Americans believed in already. In 1996, the Contract with America was the GOP platform. It incorporated his main ideas, and the GOP swept Congress.

If I were a third-party candidate now, I would seek to exploit conservative social views. Somebody like Mike Huckabee could do very well in this climate, given that he is socially conservative and economically liberal. Although he will not buck the party establishment, you will see more of his type moving towards leadership in a more populist GOP.

Ron Paul’s folks also hit the nail on the head as far as appealing to what people already believe in. The GOP nominally stands for limited government, laissez-faire economics, delegation of social policy to state authorities, and non-interventionism abroad. By pointing out the vast discrepancies between what the GOP ideally supports and what the Bush Administration has practiced, he became a cult idol.

The trick is not in adopting totally extremist positions about revolution, allowing sixteen year-olds to vote, legalizing acid, disbanding the army, releasing all prisoners, banning alcohol, deporting all illegal immigrants, and giving every citizen grenades from the government. That is the kind of idiotic crap that makes people immediately dismissive towards the modern third parties.

Panelist Robert Burack:

Third party candidates are notorious for their criticism of modern mainstream media. Much of their criticism is justified: major media outlets have largely ignored candidates who aren’t running in the two major political parties. However, third party candidates are often too eccentric to be truly viable in a country as shallow as ours can be.

Third party candidates need to learn to be media-savvy. Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and Ross Perot have been successful because they’ve understood how the media works, and how they can use that to their advantage. They were perceived as quirky, not insane. They had considerable speaking skills: which is everything in television.

Luckily for third party candidates, more and more Americans receive their political news from online sources. This is a real opportunity for lesser know candidates to get their message out. Was Mike Gravel’s “rock” video odd and hilarious? Absolutely. But did it encourage more people to head to his website and check out what his candidacy was about? You bet.

Add your thoughts in the comments section.

Gene Amondson

Listen to the entire broadcast here.

Gene Amondson of the Prohibition Party tonight at 10pm!

The weekly filibuster team talks with Prohibition Presidential Candidate Gene Amondson.

www.weeklyfilibuster.com

Selected Excerpts from our Interview with Brian Moore of the Socialist Party

On Fidel Castro as a “moral leader” and Cuba:

“I don’t think socialism has failed this country, it’s never really been given the opportunity. We see examples in Cuba, where there is full employment, full health care, there’s full education. Granted, you don’t have the freedoms of the press and speech. Those are political rights, but in America we don’t have the economic rights that Cuba has. We don’t have free education, we don’t have full healthcare, we don’t have full employment. And we pretend to be democratic when we are really not. We are bordering on fascism – depriving citizens of their rights and their freedoms, spying on their taking books out of the library, their medical records and their bank records, listening to their telephone conversations and emails – is this what capitalism is so good? Is this so-called democracy? It’s not a democracy.”

“He’s [Castro] treated people as human beings with dignity and given them rights. You know, before he took power we had Batista in there, a dictator, that our government supported. And he supported all this prostitution and gambling and the control by the mafia, and it deprived economic rights to many of its citizens – they were basically in servitude, in slavery. So, Fidel Castro has done a great amount good.”

“He sent doctors around the world, he offered to send doctors to Louisiana and Mississippi for Katrina…I don’t see the picture you paint of Cuba as much.”

“Cuba’s limitations pale, they absolutely pale, in light of what we have here. We pander to the right wing, fascist, Cuban terrorists in Miami who resent losing their monied interests and have paid off our politicians and intimidated them with economic deprivation and the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have acquiesced that to that and bowed to it. And, who suffered? America suffered.”

“Yes, they ["right-wing fascist Cuban-Americans"] are terrorists. They have funded projects that have tried to undermine and assassinate Mr. Castro. They have done a lot of harm. They have even deprived Americans the right to entertainment and things like that in Miami. They have acted in a very undemocratic way.”

“It’s an embarrassment what our country has done for the cause of profit. I think we are hypocrites.”

On the Country and Tim Russert:

“It needs people to stand up and talk like this [to the problems of today] instead of these wusses, these gutless political leaders in the Democratic and Republican Party. They are afraid, they are self interest; they are protecting their survival. I mean even Tim Russert with Meet the Press – that is an establishment program. He catered and pandered to the status quo, the establishment – Bob Dole, John McCain, anytime an anti-establishment candidate came in there they were ridiculed, they were criticized, they were brow-beaten. And then the New York Times and the LA times and the Washington Post and all the other stations picked up the message. Howard Dean, you know, they used every negative word in the book on him, and Tim Russert did.”

“He used that program to reinforce the establishment and the status quo and it was detrimental and harmful and critical of people that were trying to assert new ideas and freedoms and they were ridiculed on that program.”

————————————————————-

Listen to the full broadcast here. Other topics discussed include foreign policy, nuclear energy, and the US Constitution.

Be sure to tune in tonight at 10 for our next candidate in our 3rd party candidate series.

Opening Statements from Brian Moore Interview on The Weekly Filibuster

On Socialism:

“Well, it means that one who believes very much in democracy and sharing equal opportunities with your fellow man as opposed to capitalism, which has the opposite goals.”

On Obama, and the two party system:

“Well, both the democrats and the republicans are still dependent on big corporate money and interest group money, and they cater to those needs and demands, and as a result they legislate and allocate and we see it in how they legislate. I mean, I don’t expect us to be terminating this war anytime soon, even if Mr. Obama is in there. He doesn’t support national health plan, I see an increase in military, I see, again, catering and pandering to the Jewish state and Israel at the expense of the Palestinians. They both support the Cuban embargo, the patriot act, the death penalty, the 700 mile fence. I think Mr. Obama supported Sen. Lieberman in his race in Connecticut over the anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. Obama supported the mining bill; he opposed the single payer system. You know, its twiddle dee or twiddle dum. I mean, they favor legislation that benefits the petroleum industry and the pharmaceutical industry – they support their subsidies, corporate welfare, they don’t demand accountability. So, these are some of the problems that the two party system are weighted down with. And, they support a system of capitalism that is based on the profit motive, and it’s certainly not democratic. I mean, decisions are made from the top down, where as socialism allows for worker and citizen control and ownership of corporations and they set policy from the bottom up. And they share in the profits. And they produce products that don’t have an adverse impact upon our natural resources, like our air and our water. Everything is based on what benefits mankind, what benefits nature, as opposed to what makes the most money. We’ll even decide, probably, to terminate producing some products that may make a lot of money, but they don’t help the community or the country or the globe. I mean, look around at capitalism – unemployment, outsourcing of jobs, people – forty fifty million people without healthcare, poverty, crime, wars. This is the system that is producing that, plus the loss of freedom and our rights, you know, and also forgiving the telecommunications companies and not holding them liable for invading our privacy and our rights. I mean, I can go on and on and on. Socialism is based on egalitarianism and a humane approach and a non-profit approach, and we are concerned about the quality of life and that should really be our primary impetus – to the ecology first, the community second, and the economics third – whereas capitalism reverses it – economics first, then the citizens, and apparently natural resources are last. So um, you know, I think it’s a very attractive economic system that we promoting and pushing and we feel it is going to be the solution to the downward spiral of our economic system and our social system and our problems with the ecology. I think the sooner we can transition to a socialist form of government and economy, the better off we will be.”

Brian Moore, Presidential Candidate, Socialist Party USA

Tune in tonight at 10pm and listen to the panel talk discuss the major issues of 2008 with Brian Moore of the Socialist Party USA. We will be taking your calls.

Go to www.weeklyfilibuster.com to listen to the show.

Guest Gene Amondson This Monday

Make sure to catch a special edition of the show Monday, as we talk to special guest Gene Amondson. Gene is the Prohibition Party’s 2008 Presidential Candidate. The Prohibition Party advocates for the, yes you’ve guessed it, prohibition of alcohol. Amondson has been featured on The Daily Show and Oprah. Do you think alcohol should be legal? Make sure to call in and give Gene your two cents this Monday at 10pm on The Weekly Filibuster.