Arkansas Blog

Sorta explains why Hillary would lower herself to meet with the old bastard, that Family Values bastard currently going through a very very nasty divorce cause his wife didn't learn to have Christian love for his young girlfriend. The old bastard who recently said monogamy was in his vocabulary.

I'm sure Hillary's skin was burning, but what's better for America than to do anything to get the support of the vast rightwing conspiracy crowd? Once you get them in your camp you can work on changing them or at least have them close enough to club to death. No doubt Hillary knew the old bastard was caving and that's why she sprayed herself with a double coating of OFF and went to his yellow paper.

Both candidate have to do anything they can to ward off a 3rd term for George W. Bush in the form of Grandpa Munster. Leadership is being willing to sit down with someone you'd rather drown for the good of the country. Ohhhh...if I believed in Hell I'd so imagine Richard Mellon Scaife burning there!

Scaiffe, Limbaugh, Murdoch.. in bed with the Clintons.. There is no low the Clintons won't strive for..anyone else and i would be willing to say they hit bottom...but if there is another worm under the snake belly, they will find it and embrace without a doubt.

Of course Scaife is going to promote Hillary right now.. She's 10 points behind Obama and at least 12 behind McCain.. Scaife will promote the loser and promote the D party infighting simultaneously.. because it helps Republican McChenyCain.. No spotlight on McCheney now and the polls have almost always said the Republican nominee has the best chance of beating Hillary..they certainly say it now.

Obama manages to SAY more nice things about Republicans than I would prefer, but Hillary and Bill DO and always have treated them all like they are the big Daddy's who always abuse, but can never do wrong. Then the Clintins go so far via the DLC to screw the D party with their ardent support of the inside traitors - Lieberman's and Pryor's Ross's and Fords of the world.

If you have a traitor in your home or office, do you ask them which party they are in before you eject them? Frankly a D traitor like the Clinton DLC needs to go just as much as the Republicans! A traitor is a traitor... and Hillary is no better than a traitor of her own integrity, much more the party and the nation when she coddles the Scaife's of the world.

Enough!

my "irony-meter" does not go to "11" (but this story/week sure does)

What Eureka said.

Let's not forget, either, the huge bucks that Scaife's "Institute on Religion and Democracy" (IRD) has dropped into the effort to take over the governing structure of Hilary's United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church of America, and the Presbyterian Church USA.

From 1985 to 2001, the Scaife Family Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $1.6 million to the IRD. The IRD received $225,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation in 2002.

This overtly political right-wing action group is seeking to counteract the moderate progressivism of mainline Protestant churches in the U.S. by creating quasi-religious "renewal groups" among politicians (hint: check out the prayer breakfasts and clusters of right-wing religious groups meeting in D.C. to "renew" the churches and the political life of the nation--and who attends these).

As United Methodist minister Andrew J. Weaver notes in a 10 July article published in the newsletter of the Univ. of Chicago's Martin Marty Center Institute for the Advanced Study of Religion,

"Why are these secular right-wing foundations interested in gaining influence in the United Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal and other mainstream Protestant denominations?

The answer is that, although the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, and the Episcopal Church total only about 14 million in membership, they have been and remain a powerful and influential voice for moderate and progressive social values in American society. Almost 30 percent of the members of the U.S. Congress belong to one of these three denominations as well as disproportionate numbers of well-educated and progressive leaders who advocate for the poor, civil and human rights, environmental protection, and a responsible foreign policy. The activities and leadership of mainline Protestant churches are linked to the social conscience of the nation and contribute to civil discourse.

The political right seeks to gain top leadership positions in the church by spreading misleading information and incendiary allegations against organizations and individuals. These groups employ the propaganda method of 'wedge issues' like abortion and homosexuality to cause confusion, dissension, and division. Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard and one of the 'godfathers' of the political right, summed up this strategy in the Wall Street Journal: 'Attack the integrity, not the words, of those with whom you disagree.' "

Anybody wonder what Hilary promised Scaife and represents to him, in contrast to Obama? Anybody wonder where the ultimate funding for the big Rev. Wright furor came from?

The answer lies in the kind of religiosity Obama represents, in contrast to Hilary--and the potential of that religiosity to issue in substantive changes in American culture that the right wing absolutely will not tolerate.

Obama stands today for what they feared (needlessly) in the Clintons over a decade ago. This is a no-brainer choice for Scaife and his cronies. Hilary will keep the course. The constant, concerted, nasty attack on movements with the Methodist, Episcopal, and Presbyterian churches to steer a more progressive course in American culture and politics--attacks that occur with the full complicity of the mainstream media--won't be significantly deterred by a Hilary presidency.

They just might be an Obama presidency. And that's something the Scaifes and their sleazy ilk fear more than anything at all.

The article I cite above is at http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/sightings/archive_2003/0710.shtml

Corrections:

"a 10 July article" should read "a 10 July 2003 article"

"They just might be an Obama presidency" should read "They just might by an Obama presidency."

Re: Obama's church, the United Church of Christ, check out Neela Banjeree's "Liberal Denomination Fires Salvos at Right" in the NY Times 7 April 2007.

As Banjeree states, "The United Church of Christ appears to be battling two trends: the influence of the Institute of Religion and Democracy within mainline denominations and the influence of the religious right, particularly its influence with the news media."

Banjeree also notes," Financed in part by wealthy religious conservatives, the Institute for Religion and Democracy provides information to so-called renewal groups made up of conservative dissenters within the mainline churches. Mr. Rempe [an IRD spokesman interviewed by Banjeree] played down its efforts, saying it included an annual meeting 'and some press releases and a couple of traded e-mails.'

But experts on American Protestantism argue that the institute plays a far greater role in nurturing dissent and organizing a broader movement across denominational lines to battle leaders of the mainline churches."

The money of the Scaifes was, in large part, the seed money that set up the IRD. The IRD has done all it can do in recent years to bring Obama's church into line with its conservative political goals.

To its credit, the United Church of Christ has not caved in, just as the Episcopal church refused to do when it chose Katharine Jefferts Schori as its presiding bishop and ordained Gene Robinson a bishop.

But as anyone who reads the news is aware, the Episcopal Church has paid a high price for these actions, with worldwide pressure, fueled by right-wing money in the U.S. and elsewhere.

The United Methodist church has been more pliable, more "moderate," more willing to mute its political and social criticism, less willing to take prophetic social stands, more willing to distance itself from its Social Principles.

Where does Hilary stand theologically?

Well, for one thing, she has said that the United Methodist church has over-emphasized its Social Principles and has downplayed individual conversion as the basis of social conversion--lines right out of the IRD playbook.

Given a choice, is Scaife going to put his money on someone from the feisty United Church of Christ group which has resisted the IRD, or someone from the wishy-washy United Methodist group that's willing to get in bed with big right-wing money?

I think the answer is pretty clear. Also explains A LOT why so many Arkansas "Democrats" lean towards Hilary; not only are many of us plain tone-deaf to issues like race, sexism, and homophobia, but we're actually regressive on those issues--though we won't admit it.

I ask again: where has all the money come from to fund the big anti-Rev. Wright media feeding frenzy? Anyone who cares about the future of democracy ought to be digging for that answer--and I think you might be surprised if you dig hard enough. The fingerprints of groups like IRD are all over that media feeding frenzy--the press is perfectly willing to feed at the trough of Scaife and his ilk.

Why is Hilary doing so?

"...Anybody wonder what Hilary promised Scaife and represents to him, in contrast to Obama? Anybody wonder where the ultimate funding for the big Rev. Wright furor came from?..."--muddlingthrough

No, I don't wonder 'cause I figure all of em, including Obama, will say/do pretty much anything to get elected. And if you start thinking your politician is god's gift to earth and can't find a single bad thing to say about em, then you're looking for someone who doesn't exist: A perfect Presidential candidate.

I hope Hillary didn't drain her coffers buying those Rev. Wright CDs...sheesh. I wish Obama's fans would quit making Hillary the scapegoat for the Wright crap. He's Obama's preacher and it was Obama who sat his butt in those pews for twenty something years and embraced Wright as his mentor. It was Obama who first said he wasn't aware of the good Reverend's penchant for, well, the outlandish and then changed his story. It was Obama who based his campaign on everything the good Reverend evidently isn't. Hillary has enough of her own crap to answer for without Obama conspirators throwing his crap on her pile.

Zelda, you may be right when you say, No, I don't wonder 'cause I figure all of em, including Obama, will say/do pretty much anything to get elected."

Especially ALL OF EM who are in bed with Richard Mellon Scaife. As a 2 August 2004 article by Andrew J. Weaver and Nicole Seibert at Media Transparency's website, re: Scaife's attempt through IRD to buy off the leadership in churches, says,

"In the early 1970s Scaife was recruited as a front man and bankroller for the CIA's London-based 'news service', Forum World Features (Conason and Lyons, 2000). At Forum, Scaife sponsored and directed what his long-time CIA friend who recruited him, Frank Barnett, calls 'political warfare.' Barnett wrote:

'Political warfare in short, is warfare--not public relations. It is one part persuasion and two parts deception.... The aim of political warfare...is to discredit, displace, and neutralize an opponent, to destroy a competing ideology, and to reduce the adherents to political impotence. It is to make one's own values prevail by working the levers of power, as well as by using persuasion.'(Barnett, 1961)."

Deception. Discrediting and neutralizing opponents, working the levers of power to make your own values prevail.

I'm beginning to understand quite a bit that has eluded me lately as I watch the Clintons battle Obama--the Clintons for whom I voted and whom I used to admire.

I now understand all those references of Bill Clinton to "the real world" and "this is not a fairy tale." I also understand the allusions to Niebuhr and the neo-orthodox Realpolitik.

Sorry, but I choose to look at politics and religion very differently. You're making an ad hominem argument--one the Hilary folks make quite glibly--when you imply that I think Obama is god's gift to the earth.

I didn't say that. I've said the contrary in a number of postings on threads you read. You know where I stand there.

But one can believe that any politician is flawed, willing to bend and compromise, and still believe that one politician is better than another--a better human being.

I judge human beings as better, who don't engage in deception, in political warfare designed to neutralize opponents, in pulling the levers of political machinery to force one's values to prevail.

I've come to the conclusion, watching this campaign, that Obama is simply a better person than Hilary and Bill. Period. That's why he has my support now that Edwards dropped out.

If I need to cite any further evidence, HILARY IS NOW BEING ENDORSED BY RICHARD MELLON SCAIFE. With whom she just met. She's rubbing shoulders with some of the worst monied political operatives in our nation.

And I decidedly did not say or seek to imply that Hilary has funded the Wright media feeding frenzy. I was very explicit about whose fingerprints I think is all over the dirty money that fed that frenzy.

Please do me the decency, as a fellow Democrat, of responding at least to the words I write, and not engaging in ad hominem attacks against me, simply because we have chosen different candidates. I believe one can work for progressive change without being a messianist--but to do so, one also has to break with the kind of religious worldview that makes anything possible in the name of political expediency.

Url for the article I cite is http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=42.

You liberal kooks are incredible. Hillary is behind, so she has to take what she can get for press coverage. Don't forget that Obama appeared on the Sean Hannety program to defend his ties to Reverend Wright.

Don't forget that Obama appeared on the Sean Hannety program to defend his ties to Reverend Wright.<<

I'm not sure who's the "kook" here. By contrast was it wrong for all those R's to appear on CNN?
.

I think you may have been inferring that both candidates seek the crossover voter which is true. This year crossover voters will be a deciding element. I think that undecided 20% ,who decided the last two presidential elections, will be critical.

Is that what you meant.

I think Scaife is covering his ass. He will be wide open to investigations of his "donations."
.

"...Sorry, but I choose to look at politics and religion very differently. You're making an ad hominem argument--one the Hilary folks make quite glibly--when you imply that I think Obama is god's gift to the earth..."--muddlingthrough

Well there's nothing glib about my assertion that most of the coverage, individually/collectively, of Obama's campaign oozes sainthood and relentlessly blames Hillary for EVERY political sin under the sun. You can split hairs, muddlingthrough, about where you placed blame for the Wright stuff, but I'd argue you implied much with your statements. But, to be fair, I could have been more precise and said: '...if people start thinking their politician is god's gift to earth and that they can't find a single bad thing to say about em, then they're looking for someone who doesn't exist: A perfect Presidential candidate.

"...Please do me the decency, as a fellow Democrat, of responding at least to the words I write, and not engaging in ad hominem attacks against me, simply because we have chosen different candidates. I believe one can work for progressive change without being a messianist--but to do so, one also has to break with the kind of religious worldview that makes anything possible in the name of political expediency..."--muddlingthrough

I was responding to your words. I find it one-sided of you to excuse through innuendo/omission Wright's stuff because his church disagreed with the Scaife's of the world, but then condemn/question Hillary's 'theological leanings' because she used two lines right out of his group's book and received his endorsement. And I can say all this and agree with much of what you've said about how the MSM works and how people like Scaife are behind much of the crap that's allowed Monkeyboy et al to destroy our country.

Wright's current problems (and thus his church's problems) are of his own making and he can't effectively battle people like Scaife by saying things that are every bit as bad as the words of a Scaife/Roberts/Falwell or Hagee. Plus, Wright's words and Obama's association with him would have come out regardless of Scaife or any other Republican supported swiftboating gang.. It wasn't like it was a big secret and/or it took expensive investigative reporting to dig it up. Like much of Hillary's crap, it's Obama/Wright's own words/actions that taint them.

Zelda, I wasn't questioning your assertion that "most of the coverage, individually/collectively, of Obama's campaign oozes sainthood and relentlessly blames Hillary for EVERY political sin under the sun."

I was questioning the implication that I have chosen Obama becamse I believe he oozes sainthood.

Actually, now that you bring it up directly, I do tend to question the assumption that "most of the coverage, individually/collectively, of Obama's campaign oozes sainthood and relentlessly blames Hillary for EVERY political sin under the sun."

I've never bought into that messianic analysis of Obama's leadership appeal. From the moment I first listened to him on t.v. and read about him, there were things about him that grated against me.

Even so, I have decided that, among an assortment of flawed human beings--which is all we'll ever get when we make political choices--he's the most promising of the lot. In my view, Hilary has pretty well demonstrated her character flaws, without any help from Obama's campaign. I'm a little dismayed to realize that I haven't seen some of what the Clinton critics have been saying for a long time, until this campaign. My eyes just weren't open.

And I can still listen to Hilary and come away convinced she'd make a fairly good president, though I have some real qualms about her character, given what I've seen going on in this election process.

I didn't excuse what Wright said through innuendo/omission. In fact, on these threads, I've stated my own opinion about the Wright debacle several times. Personally, I don't find what Wright said all that shocking or blameworthy.

I find it curious that we single out this kind of minister and this kind of theologian to lambast, when some of the ministers and theological advisors of the other candidates are, in my view, REALLY dangerously wrongheaded and REALLY malicious.

You say, "Wright's current problems (and thus his church's problems) are of his own making and he can't effectively battle people like Scaife by saying things that are every bit as bad as the words of a Scaife/Roberts/Falwell or Hagee."

Every bit as bad? No ma'am. I just can't agree with you there. Scaife's money has been funneled into an organization that has fought tooth and nail against churches trying to better the living conditions of folks in Latin America. The activities of Scaife and the Institute of Religion and Democracy have been more than nefarious, ugly, cynical, mean-spirited, based on lies. They've actively aided and abetted the oppression of some of the poorest folks in the world.

And Robertson (I assume this is who you mean), Falwell, and Hagee: those are really spiteful, really mean-spirited, really malicious men who have done much to promote hate. Wright? I don't agree. If he were in their league, would Clinton have invited him to the White House, and would Hilary have been seated at a table with him?

Unless you mean that the Clintons were already selling out to these hate-mongering abusers of scripture even earlier than we used to think, given what we now know about Hilary's willingness to accept Scaife's endorsement?

Elwood, you say in response to Severus, "I'm not sure who's the 'kook' here."

Actually, I'm pretty sure Severus was talking about me.

And I'll gladly take the title. Being called a kook by the Severi of the world is a badge of honor to me.

Window dressing:

"In the late 1990s, during the height of the Clinton scandals, Scaife nevertheless continued to provide more than $1 million to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the prime benefactor of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). His donations to restore and beautify the White House led to an invitation by Hillary Clinton for a black-tie celebration. She warmly received him and posed for a photograph on the same day her husband's sex scandal hit the press. Scaife told the New York Post that he appreciated Mrs. Clinton's invitation. 'I'm honored,' he said. 'Lord knows, it's more than I got from George Bush.' " [Wikipedia]

Funny how ol' DBI will take Obama getting Republican support as a sign that he can't be trusted, but when Hillary gets an endorsement from one it's a sign she's going to change them. I do believe DBI might have himself a case of the racial willies.

"...And Robertson (I assume this is who you mean), Falwell, and Hagee: those are really spiteful, really mean-spirited, really malicious men who have done much to promote hate. Wright? I don't agree. If he were in their league, would Clinton have invited him to the White House, and would Hilary have been seated at a table with him?..."--muddlingthrough

Yes, I my mind thought Robertson, but my fingers typed otherwise...thanks for the correction.

Of course the Clintons would've done just that...they will, like so many others, do whatever it takes to win political office. And that's one of the main reasons I think she has a better chance of beating Bush 2. What I heard Wright say, and despite the whole context argument, was spiteful, mean spirited and conspiracy gone overboard (and I believe our government, especially under Republican Rule is pretty much capable of many things). But I wouldn't hold Wright's words against him, as a flawed human like the rest of us; but my vote is not what's going to keep Eternal War McCain out of office. Wright's words will play in November over and over again, and to an audience who is much less tolerant/open than you/me, muddlingthrough. Just hearing a preacher say GD America will send most of middle America into a conniption...and they won't stop to hear context/nuance or his body of good works.

I share your goal, Zelda, and hope we both will keep it in mind: the goal we want at all costs is not to replicate the Bush presidency.

Personally, I think Obama is more electable than Hilary, except in places like Arkansas--which Eureka has pointed out again and again is not the whole world and the entire Democratic party. Thankfully, there are Democrats around the nation who would find some of the suggestions of Democrats on these AR Times threads strange, indeed---such as the suggestion that, because the right-wing noise machine is telling folks Obama is a Muslim, we ought to prefer Hilary.

Really? Keep on giving in to those monsters? Haven't we done that enough?

And my reading of the polls is that they indicate the Wright thing did not significantly budge American opinion about Obama. Maybe, just maybe, people are waking up to what's been going on with folks like Scaife and his IRD--at long last waking up to the way in which we've been jerked about by people who claim to be promoting values they themselves don't have a clue about.

So we agree to disagree, respectfully. And I say again what I have said before: if Hilary is the candidate chosen by my party, I intend to vote for her, though I have come to prefer Obama, and am more decidedly in favor of him the more I read some of the tripe that Hilary's Arkansas supporters (not referring to you here) keep churning out on this blog.

Glad I could provide you with a good laugh Prouster, but you're mixing up what I've said in the past. I didn't say I didn't trust Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. because he got Republican support, I said wonder what the Republicans think they know that we don't know? Why have Republicans crossed the line to vote for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. in the primaries and caucuses? Is it pure Hillary hatred or do they think they have some plan to get Methuselah McCain elected? Very curious. I only barked at Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. when he said the Republicans had all the big ideas in the last 20 years. I still think that's a pretty stupid compliment to give the worst vermin on earth.

I don't like Hillary Clinton meeting with Richard Mellon Schite either, but if you aim to win the most important election since 1932, I guess you'd be stupid to not pull out all the stops. And I get a little nauseous when anyone pulls out all the stops. Screw the Democratic Party I say let our candidates battle all the way up to the convention and may the best person win. Calling a halt to the vote counting is a Republican trick. If our party is too weak to let politics play out, then let the foreskin slip on up over our heads and smother us. At least we'd miss the 3rd term of John W. McCheney.

We've been too lazy to stop the neo-cons from stealing out government. We're too tired to protest the war for oil. We can't seem to manage honest elections and now people are too fraidy to let the Democratic process proceed to the natural end. I think I can see what's wrong with America from my worn out leather office chair.

If we'll just keep loving on our 2 candidates by the end of August we'll have a team that can devour Grandpa Munster and his party of the criminally insane. I don't give a damn about Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.'s preacher, and if the Clintons have to make a deal with the devil to rid us of Cheney-Bush....where do I co-sign? I'll be very happy to vote for either Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. or Hillary Clinton or both this November 4th!

Is this the same Richard Scaife that graduated from Hall High School in 1966?

No, he's pure Yankee through and through.

The poor Obamists are just jealous because Hilliary can reach across the dividing lines he professes he can despite the fact that he is viewed in the Senate as one of its most doctrinare left wing members. Bring us together Barak, yes you can. HA! Your entire campaign is an illusion for the delusional.

"The poor Obamists are just jealous because Hilliary can reach across the dividing lines he professes he can despite the fact that he is viewed in the Senate as one of its most doctrinare left wing members. Bring us together Barak, yes you can. HA! Your entire campaign is an illusion for the delusional."

How can you make such blatantly uninformed comments? Do you have any scruples? Do facts mean anything to you? Like how Obama's numbers are stronger vs. McCain than Hillary.