Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Jun 20th, 2003, 03:48 PM        The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney (excellent commentary)
He neglects to mention the anti-semetic remarks made by her father, who is (I believe) a Georgia state Senator, but that's neither here nor there.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0619-12.htm

Published on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 by GregPalast.com

The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney
by Greg Palast

Have you heard about Cynthia McKinney, former U.S. Congresswoman?

According to those quoted on National Public Radio, McKinney’s “a loose cannon” (media expert) who “the people of Atlanta are embarrassed and disgusted” (politician) by, and she is also “loony” and “dangerous” (senator from her own party).

Yow! And why is McKinney dangerous/loony/disgusting? According to NPR, “McKinney implied that the [Bush] Administration knew in advance about September 11 and deliberately held back the information.”

The New York Times’ Lynette Clemetson revealed her comments went even further over the edge: “Ms. McKinney suggest[ed] that President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.”

That’s loony, all right. As an editor of the highly respected Atlanta Journal Constitution told NPR, McKinney’s “practically accused the President of murder!”

Problem is, McKinney never said it.

That’s right. The “quote” from McKinney is a complete fabrication. A whopper, a fabulous fib, a fake, a flim-flam. Just freakin’ made up.

Hi, Lynette. My name is Greg Palast, and I wanted to follow up on a story of yours. It says, let’s see, after the opening – it’s about Cynthia McKinney – it’s dated Washington byline August 21. “McKinney’s [opponent] capitalized on the furor caused by Miss McKinney’s suggestion this year that President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.” Now, I have been trying my darndest to find this phrase . . . I can’t. . .

Lynette Clemetson, New York Times: Did you search the Atlanta Journal Constitution?

Yes, but I haven’t been able to find that statement.

I’ve heard that statement – it was all over the place.

I know it was all over the place, except no one can find it and that’s why I’m concerned. Now did you see the statement in the Atlanta Journal Constitution?

Yeah....

[Note: No such direct quote from McKinney can be found in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.]

And did you confirm this with McKinney?

Well, I worked with her office. The statement is from the floor of the House [of Representatives].... Right?

So did you check the statement from the Floor of the House?

I mean I wouldn’t have done the story. . . . Have you looked at House transcripts?

Yes. Did you check that?

Of course.

You did check it?

[Note: No such McKinney statement can be found in the transcripts or other records of the House of Representatives.]

I think you have to go back to the House transcripts.... I mean it was all over the place at the time.

Yes, this is one fact the Times reporter didn’t fake: The McKinney “quote” was, indeed, all over the place: in the Washington Post, National Public Radio, and needless to say, all the other metropolitan dailies – everywhere but in Congresswoman McKinney’s mouth.

Nor was it in the Congressional Record, nor in any recorded talk, nor on her Website, nor in any of her radio talks. Here’s the Congresswoman’s statement from the record:

“George Bush had no prior knowledge of the plan to attack the World Trade Center on September 11.”

Oh.

And I should say former Congresswoman McKinney.

She was beaten in the August 2002 Democratic primary. More precisely, she was beaten to death, politically, by the fabricated quote.

Months before the 2000 presidential elections, the offices of Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris ordered the removal of 90,000 citizens from the voter rolls because they were convicted felons . . . and felons can’t vote in Florida. There was one problem: 97 percent of those on the list were, in fact, innocent.

They weren’t felons, but they were guilty . . . of not being white. Over half the list contained names of non-whites. I’m not guessing: I have the list from out of the computers of Katherine Harris’ office – and the “scrubbed” voter’s race is listed with each name.

And that’s how our President was elected: by illegally removing tens of thousands of legal African American voters before the race.

But you knew that . . . at least you did if you read the British papers – I reported this discovery for the Guardian of London. And I reported again on the nightly news. You saw that . . . if you live in Europe or Canada or South America.

In the USA, the story ran on page zero. Well, let me correct that a bit. The Washington Post did run the story on the fake felon list that selected our President – even with a comment under my byline. I wrote the story within weeks of the election, while Al Gore was still in the race. The Post courageously ran it . . . seven months after the election.

The New York Times ran it . . . well, never, even after Katherine Harris confessed the scam to a Florida court after she and the state were successfully sued by the NAACP.

So, I can’t say the New York Times always makes up the news. Sometimes the news just doesn’t make it.

At BBC Television, we had Florida’s computer files and documents, marked “confidential” – stone-cold evidence showing how the vote fix was deliberately crafted by Republican officials. Not a single major U.S. paper asked for the documents – not from the state of Florida nor from the BBC. Only one U.S. Congressperson asked for the evidence and made it public: Cynthia McKinney of Atlanta.

That was her mistake.

The company that came up with the faux felon list that determined the presidency: a Republican-tied database company named “ChoicePoint,” one of the richest, most powerful companies in Atlanta.

Before I started with the BBC in London, I took a one-day television training course with the Washington correspondent for Fox News.

We filmed Al Gore. Specifically, we filmed the eleven seconds of Gore’s impromptu remarks . . . which we’d been given two hours earlier by his advance ladies. They wore blue suits.

The man for the Associated Press wrote a lead paragraph of Gore’s impromptu remarks one hour before Al walked in and said them. The network reporter copied down the AP lead line. I copied down the AP lead line.

After we got Al Gore’s eleven seconds and footage of someone in the crowd saying, “Wow, Al Gore really talked different from the way Al Gore usually talks,” we set up in front of the hotel where Al Gore talked. The important network reporter looked sternly into the camera and spoke in a very important voice. I squinted into the camera and spoke in a very important voice.

I can’t remember what I said.

He can’t remember what he said.

No one can remember what we said.

No one should.

Did I mention to you that (ex-)Congresswoman McKinney is black? And not just any kind of black. She’s the uppity kind of black. What I mean by uppity is this:

After George Bush Senior left the White House, he became an advisor and lobbyist for a Canadian gold-mining company, Barrick Gold. Hey, a guy’s got to work. But there were a couple of questions about Barrick, to say the least. For example, was Barrick’s Congo gold mine funding both sides of a civil war and perpetuating that bloody conflict? Only one Congressperson demanded hearings on the matter.

You’ve guessed: Cynthia McKinney.

That was covered in the . . . well, it wasn’t covered at all in the U.S. press.

McKinney contacted me at the BBC. She asked if I’d heard of Barrick. Indeed, I had. Top human rights investigators had evidence that a mine that Barrick bought in 1999 had, in clearing their Tanzanian properties three years earlier, bulldozed mine shafts . . . burying about 50 miners alive.

I certainly knew Barrick: They’d sued the Guardian for daring to run a story I’d written about the allegations of the killings. Barrick never sued an American paper for daring to run the story, because no American paper dared.

The primary source for my story, an internationally famous lawyer named Tundu Lissu, was charged by the Tanzanian police with sedition, and arrested, for calling for an investigation. McKinney has been trying to save his life with an international campaign aimed at Barrick.

That was another of her mistakes.

The New York Times wrote about McKinney that Atlanta’s “prominent Black leaders – including Julian Bond, the chairman of the NAACP and former Mayor Maynard Jackson – who had supported Ms. McKinney in the past – distanced themselves from her this time.”

Really? Atlanta has four internationally recognized black leaders. Martin Luther King III did not abandon McKinney. I checked with him. Nor did Julian Bond (the Times ran a rare retraction on their website at Bond’s request). But that left Atlanta’s two other notables: Vernon Jordan and Andrew Young. Here, the Times had it right; no question that these two black faces of the Atlanta Establishment let McKinney twist slowly in the wind – because, the Times implied, of her alleged looniness.

But maybe there was another reason Young and Jordan let McKinney swing. Remember Barrick? George Bush’s former gold-mining company, the target of McKinney’s investigations? Did I mention to you that Andy Young and Vernon Jordan are both on Barrick’s payroll? Well, I just did.

Did the Times mention it? I guess that wasn’t fit to print.

I suppose it’s my fault, McKinney’s electronic lynching. Unlike other politicians, McKinney, who’s earning her doctorate at Princeton’s Fletcher School of Diplomacy, enjoys doing her own research, not relying on staff memos. She’s long been a reader of my reports from Britain, including transcripts of BBC Television investigations. On November 6, 2001, BBC Newsnight ran this report with a follow-up story in the Guardian the next day:

Wednesday, November 7, 2001

Probes Before 11 September

Officials Told to 'Back Off' on Saudis Before September 11.

FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11. US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied.

FBI documents shown on BBC Newsnight last night and obtained by the Guardian show that they had earlier sought to investigate two of Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington and a Muslim organisation, with which they were linked.

And so on. There was not one word in there that Bush knew about the September 11 attacks in advance. It was about a horrific intelligence failure. This was the result, FBI and CIA/DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) insiders told us at BBC, of a block placed on investigations of Saudi Arabian financing of terror. We even showed on-screen a copy of a top-secret document passed to us by disgruntled FBI agents, directing that the agency would not investigate a “suspected terrorist organization” headed in the US by a member of the bin Laden family. The FBI knew about these guys before September 11 (with their office down the street from the hijackers’ address).

The CIA also knew about a meeting in Paris, prior to September 11, involving a Saudi prince, arms dealers, and al Qaeda. Although the information was in hand, the investigation was stymied by Bush’s intelligence chiefs. This is what McKinney wanted investigated.

Why were the Saudis, the bin Ladens (except Osama), and this organization (the World Assembly of Muslim Youth) off the investigation list prior to September 11, despite evidence that they were reasonable targets for inquiry? The BBC thought it worth asking; the Guardian thought it worth asking – and so did Congresswoman McKinney. Why no pre-September 11 investigations of these characters?

And what was the reason for the block? According to the experts we broadcast on British television, it was the Bush Administration’s fanatic desire to protect their relations with Saudi Arabia – a deadly policy prejudice which, according to the respected Center for Public Integrity of Washington, DC, seems influenced by the Bush family ties, and Republican donors’ ties, to Saudi royalty. McKinney, a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, thought the BBC/Guardian/Observer investigation worth a follow-up Congressional review.

According to NPR, her “loony” statement was made on the radio news show Counterspin. (Not incidentally, Counterspin is produced by an NPR competitor, the nonprofit Pacifica Radio Network.) I have the transcript; it’s on the web. Her charge that Bush knew about the September 11 attacks in advance and deliberately covered it up can’t be found.

What can be read is her call for a follow-up on the revelations from the BBC and USA Today on the information about a growing terror threat ignored by Bush . . . and whether the policy response – war, war, war – was protecting America or simply enriching Bush’s big arms industry donors and business partners. Fair questions. But asking them is dangerous . . . to one’s political career.

The BBC report which got McKinney in hot water mentioned the Bush Administration’s reluctance to investigate associates of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), which the FBI secret document termed “a suspected terrorist organization.” They may be. They may not be. McKinney’s question was only, Why no investigation?

Just after McKinney’s defeat, the courier of Osama bin Laden's latest alleged taped threat against the United States was busted in Africa: He was on the staff of WAMY. Shortly thereafter, Prince Abdullah, the Saudi dictator, invited WAMY leaders to his palace and told them, “There is no extremism in the defending of the faith.”

So if you listen to U.S. radio and read U.S. papers, you are told this: Abdullah’s protector and godfather, George W. Bush, is sane and patriotic, and McKinney, who wants to investigate these guys, is a loony and a traitor. Got it?

Ted Koppel’s Nightline did a kind of follow-up to the BBC elections story. Our BBC team discovered that of the 180,000 votes never counted in the Florida 2000 presidential race, a sickeningly disproportionate number came from black counties. In Gadsden County, where more than half the population is black, one in eight ballots was marked "spoiled" and, thus, never counted.

Koppel’s team got on the case, flying down to Florida to find out why thousands of black votes were never counted. They talked to experts, they talked to important white people, and Koppel reported this: Many blacks are new to voting and, with limited education, have a difficult time with marking the sophisticated ballots. In other words, ABC concluded, African Americans are too fucking dumb to figure out how to vote.

Hey, if true, then you have to report it. But it wasn’t. It was a fib, a tall tale, made-for-TV mendacity, polite liberal electronic cross-burning intellectual eugenics.

Here’s the real scoop: All races of voters make errors on paper ballots. But in white counties like Leon (Tallahassee), if you make a stray mark or other error, the vote machine rejects your ballot, and you get another ballot to vote again. But in black counties like Gadsden, you make a mistake and the machine quietly accepts and voids your ballot.

In other words, it wasn’t that African Americans are too dumb to vote but that European American reporters are too dumb to ask, too lazy to bother, too gutless to tell officialdom to stop lying into the cameras.

Back in the edit room with Mr. Washington Network TV Reporter, we were ready to bake the cake, the Gore story. We had all the ingredients.

“Take out your watch,” said the Fox man.

“You get 90 seconds,” he said. “That’s what you get. You got an intro, 40 seconds of narration, two sound bites, and end with a stand-up to camera.”

I repeated, “Forty seconds narrate, two sound bites, stand-up.”

He said, “Two sound bites and a stand-up. Every story. Every time.”

He said, “What do you think?”

I said, “I think I’m leaving the country.”

Greg Palast is an investigative reporter for BBC television and author of the New York Times bestseller, “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy” (Penguin/Plume 2003). This article is based on his contribution to the compendium, "Abuse Your Illusions," released this month by Disinformation Press. Oliver Shykles, Fredda Weinberg, Ina Howard, and Phil Tanfield contributed research for this report.

Copyright 2003 Greg Palast

###
Reply With Quote
  #2  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Old Jun 20th, 2003, 07:49 PM       
Without her dad, we wouldn't know to blame for the media protraying her as a moron who no one called her on because she was black.

And that's J-E-W-S.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
Old Jun 20th, 2003, 10:30 PM       
either way(for i think the statements she's been framed as saying are true), i support mckinney.. she's a listed runner for the greens for pres. her selection as the candidate wouldnt be a mistake but ill leave that to the caucuses to decide.. she's dedicated to the american People no matter what anyone says.

and vince.. i really have trouble decifering what you mean to say.. i don't care about capitalization or sentence structure and it still doesnt make much sense.
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
  #4  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Old Jun 20th, 2003, 11:49 PM       
When she didn't win in the primary, she basically blamed the Jews.

And her dad made sure everyone knew how to spell it. J-E-W-S Jews.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Jun 21st, 2003, 07:24 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceZeb
Without her dad, we wouldn't know to blame for the media protraying her as a moron who no one called her on because she was black.

And that's J-E-W-S.
This isn't even coherent, thus making it difficult to respond.

Quote:
When she didn't win in the primary, she basically blamed the Jews.
Where did she say it? I want a cited quote.

Her father said it, not her. God help your children the day they are held accountable for your trash mouth.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Old Jun 21st, 2003, 08:06 PM       
I'll say what was said at the time, without sources, which should be valuable either way... either as proof of the depth of the conspiracy or as confirmation that this story is a whitewash... I'll follow up with my opinion and some other unverified crap...

McKinney and another black incumbent in Alabama were "exposed" as receiving lots of money from Pro-Arab groups. That didn't help either of their failed election attempts, once it was widely known. 2002, remember? A bad thing... The McKinney response was to point to campaign contribution to Magette's run (another Democratic black woman, her challenger) from Jewish groups, hence McKinney's father's soundbite indicating his reason for his daughter's primary defeat. He spelled it out. J E W S. Classy.

Additionally, you might remember post 9/11 Rudy Guliani turning down a bunch of money from a Saudi sheik (or whatever) on the gorunds that his note enclosed with the pledge that intimated that the US deserved the attack in some way. McKinney wrote to the guy, asking for the check in order to fund efforts to fight racism, if I remember right. Again, not very well accepted.

She did a lot to alienate her base, which was evenly mixed between black folks and the very white, very white-self-hating and very ultra-liberal Emory University crowd. For the rest of us, not responsible for her career directly, we're glad she's gone. These were just her crowning achievements. She has had years to build a legacy of idiocy, and she was a VERY scary person to have highly placed on important committees.

I hope she stays in politics just for the entertainment value. Read all you want about her, but, please, watch a few speeches before you make your decision. A very disturbing woman. Sure there's a lot of controversy, as there really were concentrated efforts made by Republicans and Democrats alike to strip her power from her. The Green Party seems an appropriate place, but i wouldn't mind her shining a light on the UN, as has been proposed.... nothing like a camera loving wacko to draw attention to government. She SHOULD be in a spotlight, as well... all the better to keep an eye on what she's doing...
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Jun 21st, 2003, 08:35 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
McKinney and another black incumbent in Alabama were "exposed" as receiving lots of money from Pro-Arab groups. That didn't help either of their failed election attempts, once it was widely known. 2002, remember? A bad thing... The McKinney response was to point to campaign contribution to Magette's run (another Democratic black woman, her challenger) from Jewish groups, hence McKinney's father's soundbite indicating his reason for his daughter's primary defeat. He spelled it out. J E W S. Classy.
Uncalled for, certainly. But I refer you to my above lament over Vince's unborn young....

Groups giving money to the candidates they support, or against the candidates they oppose, is nothing new. However, Majette received a fairly large influx of out-of-district cash from national Jewish lobby groups. While this is legal at the moment, it is something I feel raises some ethical questions.

Quote:
Additionally, you might remember post 9/11 Rudy Guliani turning down a bunch of money from a Saudi sheik (or whatever) on the gorunds that his note enclosed with the pledge that intimated that the US deserved the attack in some way. McKinney wrote to the guy, asking for the check in order to fund efforts to fight racism, if I remember right. Again, not very well accepted.
I believe she wanted him to use the funds to rebuild. Maybe not smart, but money is money. Why not use their money for a good cause, like rebuilding NYC, rather than having it potentially end up supporting more terrorism?

Furthermore, as the article above points out, McKinney was hardly pro-Saudi. She was the only one who was initially calling for Saudi families to be investigated, as well as the WAMY. She was ahead of the pack, and she was right in being there.

Quote:
She did a lot to alienate her base, which was evenly mixed between black folks and the very white, very white-self-hating and very ultra-liberal Emory University crowd.
Not to throw out accusations, but I'd wager that this is a fairly borderline racist remark.

You're also wrong. I was fortunate (or unfortunate, perhaps) enough to cover this primary fairly extensively, and there were certain factors that have been neglected by the mainstream press (surprise, surprise):

1. She actually had MORE votes in this primary than in her previous TWO primaries for the Democratic nomination. So the claim that she "lost her base" is, well, off base (no pun intended).

2. Georgia is unique that they permit cross over voting for primaries. This essentially makes primaries more important than the general races. If you are a Liberal in a conservative district, you probably switch over on primary day and vote AGAINST the Republican you like the least. This is what happened to McKinney in her district, much as it did to Bob Barr in his district.

3. McKinney was a victim of redistricting. Her district had formerly been located in Atlanta, more urban, generally Democratic supportive. With redistricting, her district became part-suburb/part-urban. Now her district had become more middle-class, more white, less Liberal. This likewise hurt her, but DESPITE this, she still received more primary votes than past races.

Quote:
For the rest of us, not responsible for her career directly, we're glad she's gone. These were just her crowning achievements. She has had years to build a legacy of idiocy, and she was a VERY scary person to have highly placed on important committees.
How so? Anymore dangerous than a President and Defence Sec. who promised "stockpiles" of WMD, and were willing to risk both American and Iraqi lives in order to prove it...??? But I digress....

Quote:
I hope she stays in politics just for the entertainment value. Read all you want about her, but, please, watch a few speeches before you make your decision. A very disturbing woman.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. I have seen her speak in person, as well as on TV and on radio, and I know her opinions pretty well.

Quote:
Sure there's a lot of controversy, as there really were concentrated efforts made by Republicans and Democrats alike to strip her power from her. The Green Party seems an appropriate place, but i wouldn't mind her shining a light on the UN, as has been proposed.... nothing like a camera loving wacko to draw attention to government. She SHOULD be in a spotlight, as well... all the better to keep an eye on what she's doing...
Again, quite an interesting argument, considering SHE, rather than our President, was the one who proposed investigating the Sa'ud family fully.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Old Jun 21st, 2003, 09:20 PM       
"While this is legal at the moment, it is something I feel raises some ethical questions..."

I agree. I personally think that we should only let actual people contribute to campaigns. I can accept lobby groups and PACS, though I don't particularly like them all that much (more accepting them as a necessary evil,) but I see a problem with the concentration of influence allowed by letting corporations and such essentially vote with their money. Citizens should be the only ones that influence the behavior of the officials elected to represent them. Let the companys fend for themselves until laws are broken.

"Why not use their money for a good cause, like rebuilding NYC..."

Because of the attitude of the benefactor. I support Rudy's action, even if it was only motivated by PR. We have money, and it was important that we spend it and whatever money we used to rebuild on proper terms, not letting the spirit of the effort be convoluted by statements designed to cast blame on innocent victims of a horrible crime.

"Furthermore, as the article above points out, McKinney was hardly pro-Saudi..."

That may well be. I personally wish that more coverage were dedicated to that, so I could determine its veracity. My impression of the woman is not very favorable, and I am free to assume, biased as I am by that, that she may have pressed for those investigations to infiltrate the process in order to favor the Saudis.

She has no effect on my life now, and I believe that when she did that effect was bad. I have no interest in delving into her life, political or otherwise, now. My general impression of her is that I don't want her representing me, which she never did anyway, and that I don't want her to be in charge of the direction we are moving in any way, other than in the capacity of showing me where the trouble spots lie."Not to throw out accusations, but I'd wager that this is a fairly borderline racist remark.

"Not to throw out accusations, but I'd wager that this is a fairly borderline racist remark..."

I live here. It's just how I see things as filtered through what I read and hear. If a district is predominantly black, how is it racist to say it is? My description of the white folks that live in her district couldn't be racist, because they are white, right? kinda j/k...

I don't like being called a racist, but you don't know yet just how NOT racist I am. Water off a duck's back, if ya knowhaddimasayin...

"(no pun intended)..."

None taken... haha... That was my impression. Maybe she didn't lose her base... or obviously she didn't, if your statement is correct. Then she fired up her opposition. Majette didn't really win on merit, IMO. She was just not Cindy the Commie...

"This is what happened to McKinney in her district, much as it did to Bob Barr in his district..."

Nope. Barr could have stayed in the district with his base but chose to run against an entrenched incumbent. I'm pissed at him for that decision, as I think we need him kinda, even though he's a racist sumbitch (against BLACKS, mind you,) and he could have won his seat back had he not decided to do more than get back in.

McKinney was obviously not hurt by redistricting, if it affected her at all (not willing to take the time to check it out, honestly.) As you said, she got more votes than ever before. The cross-over voting was limited, and curbed by last-minute shady practices by McKinney (calling registered Reps with a recording informing them that crossing over was a crime!) and has been determined to have had no influence on the result.

"Now her district had become more middle-class, more white, less Liberal..."

Just as Black, just as Liberal. We have ALL sorts of black people here... even *gasp* RICH ones! Seriously... Dekalb and Fulton Counties are predominantly Black and Liberal, and their is no traditional lines of income inequality doe to race or none of that other stuff you guys burned us down for before... Please leave us be... Most of the Racism talk we are constantly bombarded with anymore is widely regarded, by all races, as being financially influenced, not true signs of actual racism...

Atlanta is one of the most racially un-biased towns I've ever experienced... if anything, the city government is biased IN FAVOR OF black folks...

"But I digress.... "

Yes.... I'll not get into that here with you.... Run with that ball over on Newsfilter, whydontcha?

Don't worry... that's not a setup... there's a few people there that are DYING to have that discussion... they will take your side, if you present it well enough... I'd LOVE to see that discussion happen.

I'm all about the opinion expression stuff, y'know....

"but I disagree..."

I'm just not impressed, and I remember just getting sick of her constant soundbites. Maybe that was all part of a media conspiracy to give advantage to Republicans... for MANY MANY years before 2002... but I doubt it. She was a real wack job.

Again... just my opinion. Never voted for or against her...


...I think I addressed your points fully.

HAVE A NICE DAY.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Jun 21st, 2003, 09:48 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
I agree. I personally think that we should only let actual people contribute to campaigns. I can accept lobby groups and PACS, though I don't particularly like them all that much (more accepting them as a necessary evil,) but I see a problem with the concentration of influence allowed by letting corporations and such essentially vote with their money. Citizens should be the only ones that influence the behavior of the officials elected to represent them. Let the companys fend for themselves until laws are broken.
Here, here.

Quote:
"Why not use their money for a good cause, like rebuilding NYC..."

Because of the attitude of the benefactor. I support Rudy's action, even if it was only motivated by PR. We have money, and it was important that we spend it and whatever money we used to rebuild on proper terms, not letting the spirit of the effort be convoluted by statements designed to cast blame on innocent victims of a horrible crime.
Rudy could've taken the money and told them to burn in hell anyway (I'm no Rudy fan, but this would've been quite acceptable, IMO).

Quote:
"Furthermore, as the article above points out, McKinney was hardly pro-Saudi..."

That may well be. I personally wish that more coverage were dedicated to that, so I could determine its veracity. My impression of the woman is not very favorable, and I am free to assume, biased as I am by that, that she may have pressed for those investigations to infiltrate the process in order to favor the Saudis.
Biases aside, that strikes me as a bit of a stretch. McKinney wanted investigations, not witch hunts. Perhaps she knew Bush wouldn't persue these leads, and thus used them for her own political ends, but this is often the case with elected officials. True conviction is a dying trait in your average politico (forgive my jaded soul).

And your "impression" of her, as this article tries to argue, may be highly contrived by a misrepresentation in the press. I too, despite being a Left-leaning Green, had a certain degree of mistrust for McKinney. When asked why, I could never truly answer, other than parroting what the press had said of her. I have since taken it upon myself to dig a little deeper, and to further qualify my opinion.

Quote:
"Not to throw out accusations, but I'd wager that this is a fairly borderline racist remark..."

I live here. It's just how I see things as filtered through what I read and hear. If a district is predominantly black, how is it racist to say it is? My description of the white folks that live in her district couldn't be racist, because they are white, right? kinda j/k...
I suppose.

Quote:
I don't like being called a racist, but you don't know yet just how NOT racist I am. Water off a duck's back, if ya knowhaddimasayin...
I wasn't calling you a racist per se, but I felt the remark was borderline.

Quote:
None taken... haha... That was my impression. Maybe she didn't lose her base... or obviously she didn't, if your statement is correct. Then she fired up her opposition. Majette didn't really win on merit, IMO. She was just not Cindy the Commie...
She fired up the opposition, yes. And God bless her for not being a typically weak-willed Democrat who's scared to say what they believe. She made the ultimate political sacrifice for it, too.

Other variables were involved, however. I knew folks who went down to help campaign for her, Greens and other Lefty types, and they all said the same thing: She underestimated how far her enemies would go. NOBODY mobilizes voters like Republicans, period. I can admit this as a VERY partisan individual.

Don't forget that up to this point, she had been a very successful politician. She felt confident, and what I have heard is that she essentially got a little cocky about it.

Quote:
"This is what happened to McKinney in her district, much as it did to Bob Barr in his district..."

Nope. Barr could have stayed in the district with his base but chose to run against an entrenched incumbent. I'm pissed at him for that decision, as I think we need him kinda, even though he's a racist sumbitch (against BLACKS, mind you,) and he could have won his seat back had he not decided to do more than get back in.
Hmmm, I think I knew this and brain farted it out. I do recall there being some differences, but I was forced to compare the two races, and they have sort of melted together in my head into a Barr/McKinney stew.

Quote:
McKinney was obviously not hurt by redistricting, if it affected her at all (not willing to take the time to check it out, honestly.) As you said, she got more votes than ever before.
Higher population due to district change, higher voter turnout, etc. These things and more could've affected the case. My point wasn't that McKinney was going to get elected prom queen, it was that she still had the support of her base. The problem is that her base had been shifted away from her out from under her feet.

Quote:
The cross-over voting was limited, and curbed by last-minute shady practices by McKinney (calling registered Reps with a recording informing them that crossing over was a crime!) and has been determined to have had no influence on the result.
Can I see a source on that? I believe the voter turnout was higher than in previous district primaries, so I'm not so sure about that....

Quote:
"Now her district had become more middle-class, more white, less Liberal..."

Just as Black, just as Liberal. We have ALL sorts of black people here... even *gasp* RICH ones! Seriously... Dekalb and Fulton Counties are predominantly Black and Liberal, and their is no traditional lines of income inequality doe to race or none of that other stuff you guys burned us down for before... Please leave us be... Most of the Racism talk we are constantly bombarded with anymore is widely regarded, by all races, as being financially influenced, not true signs of actual racism...
ok, ok, economically different, but still a factor.

Quote:
Atlanta is one of the most racially un-biased towns I've ever experienced... if anything, the city government is biased IN FAVOR OF black folks...
I would agree, but that is QUITE another topic....

Quote:
Yes.... I'll not get into that here with you.... Run with that ball over on Newsfilter, whydontcha?

Don't worry... that's not a setup... there's a few people there that are DYING to have that discussion... they will take your side, if you present it well enough... I'd LOVE to see that discussion happen.

I'm all about the opinion expression stuff, y'know....
Time permiting, perhaps. I dunno, gang beatings aren't quite my thing.


Quote:
I'm just not impressed, and I remember just getting sick of her constant soundbites. Maybe that was all part of a media conspiracy to give advantage to Republicans... for MANY MANY years before 2002... but I doubt it. She was a real wack job.

Again... just my opinion. Never voted for or against her...
Well, I think the Rumsfelds, Ashcrofts, and the Wolfowitzs of the world are FAR more wacky, but that is just MY opinion, of course.

And politicians over using the soundbite.....NEVER!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Old Jun 21st, 2003, 11:19 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
True conviction is a dying trait in your average politico (forgive my jaded soul).
I typically won't vote either. http://www.4ranters.com/detail.php?id=30

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
And your "impression" of her, as this article tries to argue, may be highly contrived by a misrepresentation in the press.
Yep. Admitted that. I may delve deeper if she gains another position of power. I'm all for the politically insane person that's willing to speak her mind... I just trust in the free market of politics and media to give her a chance if she desires it and is in any way qualified...

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
I too, despite being a Left-leaning Green..
Eeew.... Surely you mean to say you like Tom Green because he's left-handed, right? Say it ain't SO?!?!?

We'll have to talk about that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
I wasn't calling you a racist per se, but I felt the remark was borderline.
I got that... I was just making sure you knew that about me, so you wouldn't have to sort all my posts throught the ol' "Wonder if he might secretly be a Racist?" -Filter....

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
And God bless her for not being a typically weak-willed Democrat who's scared to say what they believe. She made the ultimate political sacrifice for it, too.
I generally find myself wishing Democrats would actually say what's REALLY on their minds myself. I think they'd get even fewer votes if people heard them really admit where they want America to go.

I find her actions to be less of a noble sacrifice than, as you indicated (<~~I reference this later,) foolish, prideful posturing based on her own overly generous self-image. That's the image that really turned me off to anything she had to say, really. If she's truly such a wonderful person... well, then I guess there a lot of Atlantans that hate her, as I do, for the sole sake of a terrible marketing and PR portion run by Black Panthers. hehe... I know better... just thought I'd throw that in there....

In your research, what did you come up with to make THAT issue seem less like political suicide in itself, BTW? You are no better than the company you keep, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
Other variables were involved, however. I knew folks who went down to help campaign for her, Greens and other Lefty types, and they all said the same thing: She underestimated how far her enemies would go. NOBODY mobilizes voters like Republicans, period. I can admit this as a VERY partisan individual.

Don't forget that up to this point, she had been a very successful politician. She felt confident, and what I have heard is that she essentially got a little cocky about it.
Funny how EVERYBODY got involved in that relatively unimportant race, isn't it? She was extremely disliked, and intensely supported, is my view of that. Folks were coming out of the woodwork to lie about both sides of the issue... Quite a fitting end, really. I'm glad she went out, and I expected a bang, actually... Quite rewarding....

I wonder what you mean about Republicans mobilizing voters? Conservative voters typically have jobs to go to and aren't thinking about changing things... hence less motivation to change things at the polls.

This is not a reflection on my views of the GOP, mind you... I know what they actually stand for and all that, but I'm speaking from the point of view of Johnny GOP-Voter... Far more folks identify with the R-s and don't cast votes than those that vote D-.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
Can I see a source on that?
I heard it reported enough, that a source should be easy to find. Around here, nothing is circulated as fact in conservative circles until the rampantly left (<~~~~W A Y over there) AJC has reported it. At that point, NOBODY would say it's biased right...

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
Time permiting, perhaps. I dunno, gang beatings aren't quite my thing.
NONO... I'm saying that there are some grumblings of the same sort of yours over there, but it is a predominantly GWB-boosting board, and there's been no real dialogue along those lines till, actually, just yesterday...

Here's a link: http://www.newsfilter.org/forum/show...&threadid=6520

The starter has the most posts on the board. You won't find yourself in a gang beating. I think you'll appreciate the effects of your input, as well... I think you'll see Newsfilter isn't as stereo-typically right is right as you might think...

I know I'M not...

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
And politicians over using the soundbite.....NEVER!
hehe... You only hear what they WANT you to hear... that's what's so funny to me about Cindy the Commie trying to spin the image she created had created for herself once voters started thinking "post 9/11"...
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:14 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.