Stoned Crackwhore's blog http://www.r8ny.com/blog/176/atom/feed 2008-01-23T20:18:07-05:00 OK Rock, Answer This http://www.r8ny.com/blog/stoned_crackwhore/ok_rock_answer_this.html 2008-03-31T20:30:52-04:00 2008-03-31T20:30:52-04:00 Stoned Crackwhore
Campaign Has Evolved, So Too Has
Wayne Barrett

Posted March 31, 2008 | 08:36 AM (EST)



]]>
Campaign Has Evolved, So Too Has
Wayne Barrett

Posted March 31, 2008 | 08:36 AM (EST)

Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean came out of hiding last week to announce that there is no reason to rush to resolve the fate of Florida and Michigan. He said he was confident that these delegations, disqualified in 2007 by Dean's own Rules Committee, would be seated at the August convention -- but, apparently, only after a nominee is chosen, which he predicted would occur by July 1. This modern-day Metternich, whose two-fisted handling of this two-state controversy has already had more impact on the 2008 race than his candidacy did on the race in 2004, is promising to mediate the dispute once it's already settled.

The Dean plan is that these two swing states -- big enough to decide the nomination or general election -- will eventually be granted "virtual" seats at the convention because, as Dean imaginatively put it in an AP interview, "the campaigns believe that kind of deal is premature right now." Since one campaign (Hillary Clinton's) was amenable to redoes, even financing Michigan's, and the other campaign (Barack Obama's) opposed every feasible proposition, it is, in a strange way, true that the two sides weren't collectively ready for a deal.

In all the buzz about the media's pro-Obama tilt, its indifference to his resistance to including these states in the "actual" nominating process is its most disturbing favor, especially since this brand of "conventional politics," as Obama would put it, flies in the face of his contention that "the people" should pick the nominee. Obama's only proposal so far has been to split the delegates evenly, just like he and Michelle parcel out Christmas presents to their two daughters.

Of course, the column inches and moments of air time spent on how and why these two states and their 366 delegates have been banished adds up to less than the attention devoted to, say, the Wyoming caucus, where a 2,066-vote Obama margin gave him a big enough delegate boost to virtually cancel out Hillary Clinton's 329,000-vote margin in the five March races.

The body count that the mainstream media has regurgitated out of Florida and Michigan is that 2.3 million Democrats voted in primaries that broke the rules, leaving the DNC with no choice but to level both villages, even if the collateral damage might include the party's prospects of carrying those disenfranchised states in November. The DNC and the MSM appear to have simultaneously concluded that even Clinton's 300,000-vote win in Florida, where both candidates competed on a level playing field, shouldn't be counted in the popular vote tally, a calculation that appears nowhere in DNC rules and turns 1.7 million Democratic voters into ghosts.

The irony is that the drumbeat for Clinton's withdrawal -- coming on the heels of her recent wins and right before what may be her biggest in Pennsylvania -- is rooted in the collapse of the effort to redo Michigan and Florida. The theory is that she should quit because there is no way she can win, and that there is no way she can win because two states she could win, at least one of which she actually did win, will not be counted until she gets out. Barack Obama would thus become the nominee -- not because of an honestly earned if precariously narrow lead in the final national vote, but because of two elections he would not let happen.

If that sounds like a curious way to end a nominating contest that 30 million to 33 million voters will participate in before it's done, even stranger is that the DNC is following only some of its rules -- and that the real culprits who caused this debacle are Republicans, who are now relishing the catfight they provoked.

Dems Take the Hit for the GOP

The Republican role is not some irrelevant anecdote. The DNC is charged, under its rules, to determine whether the Democrats in a noncompliant state made a "good faith" effort to abide by the party's electoral calendar, and to impose the full weight of its available penalties, namely a 100 percent takedown of a state's delegation, only if Democratic leaders in that state misbehaved. So the fact that it was Republicans who fomented the move-up of primaries in both these states to dates out-of-line with the DNC calendar is at the heart of the matter.

The rules also demand that the DNC's 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee conduct "an investigation, including hearings if necessary" into these matters. The purpose of such a probe is to figure out if Democratic leaders in a state that did move up "took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith" to either "achieve legislative changes" to bring a state into compliance or to "prevent legislative changes" that took a state out of compliance. A DNC spokesman could not point to any real "investigation" the party conducted of the actions of "relevant Democratic party leaders or elected officials," as the rules put it. All that happened with Florida, for example, was that two representatives of the state party made a pitch for leniency immediately before the Rules Committee voted for sanctions.

What a probe might have discovered was a rationale for doing, at worst, what the RNC did to its own overeager primary schedulers in the same two states -- cutting the delegations by half. That's precisely the penalty specified in DNC rules, but the committee, exercising powers it certainly had the legal discretion to exercise, upped the ante as far as it could. In a bizarre reversal of public policy, the RNC, surely aware that the principal miscreants in both states were Republicans, applied a sane yet severe sanction. The Democrats opted for decapitation.

The presumption of much of the national coverage about Michigan, to start with, has been that the Dems did this one to themselves -- a presumption based, in large part, on Democratic governor Jennifer Granholm's endorsement of a January 15 vote, a date far ahead of the anticipated February 9 primary. All Clinton-backer Granholm did, however, was a sign a bill. The bill originated in a Republican-controlled Senate and passed by a 21-to-17 straight party-line vote -- with every Democrat casting a no vote.

Florida's Republican governor, Charlie Crist, is, like Granholm, seen as a prime player behind the state's acceleration of the primary calendar. But Crist isn't half the Florida story; Marco Rubio, a Jeb Bush protégé who runs the nearly 2-to-1 Republican Florida House, drove that bill through the legislature like it was a tax cut limited by law to top GOP donors.

Indeed, the tracks under this train wreck trace back, in each case, to Republican maneuvers in state legislatures, political no- man's-lands for all who've blithely dismissed the disenfranchisement of the millions of registered Florida and Michigan Democrats.

Michigan: Republicans on the Bench and in the Statehouse

Let's start with Michigan, whose Democratic chair Mark Brewer is a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the national party and in that capacity voted to sanction Florida -- a pretty good indication that he wasn't a great champion of challenging the DNC calendar in his own state. Brewer in fact declared the Republican-sponsored move-up bill unacceptable from the start.

When it weaved its way through the divided Michigan legislature last August, only 29 of the state's 75 Democratic legislators (in the House and Senate) supported it. A week after the bill cleared the Senate over unified Democratic objections, these 29 Democrats in the House voted for it, precisely the same number that voted against it or abstained (22 and seven). It was 38 Republican yes votes in the House that made it law. While Democrats like the governor, U.S. Senator Carl Levin, and DNC committeewoman Debbie Dingell favored moving the primary date up, it was a Republican state senator, Cameron Brown, who proposed the January 15 date. Levin and Dingell only supported that date when they concluded that the DNC was allowing other states, like New Hampshire, to defy the party's prescribed schedule while threatening Michigan with sanctions if it shifted its date.

And Levin and Dingell certainly weren't calling the shots for the Democrats in the legislature. Andy Dillon, the Democratic House speaker who'd voted for the move-up initially, walked away from the early primary in November, almost a month before the DNC voted to strip the state of its delegation. When two court rulings found the move-up bill unconstitutional for technical reasons, giving Democratic state legislators who initially voted for it a chance to reconsider, they took it. Dillon and his House Democrats refused to support a bill that would've protected the January 15 date from threatened judicial cancellation by correcting the technical deficiency. The Senate, again voting along party lines, quickly adjusted the bill to the court decisions, but Dillon refused to allow a vote in the House. All of this suggests a "good faith" effort to block an early primary -- as required by DNC rules.

Had not the state's highest court overturned the earlier decisions by a 4-to-3 vote just days before absentee ballots had to be mailed out, the early primary would not have been held. Significantly, all four of the judges who voted to allow the election were Republicans, and two of the judges who voted against it were Democrats.

In fact, it was a Democratic political consultant who brought the lawsuit that almost killed the primary. While the Republican state party filed an amicus brief in support of the bill, the Democrats took a barrage of editorial potshots in the Detroit Free Press, the Detroit News, the Flint Journal, and other papers for refusing to stand up for the state's interest. Salivating over all the attention and revenue that would come with an early primary, the papers accused Democrats of "withering," "carrying water for presidential candidates," and "blocking a bill to rescue the election." State GOP chair Saul Anuzis declared: "The Michigan Democrats and the House Democrats in particular appear willing to blow up the primary for petty, political, selfish, self-preservationist motives, to protect their hides."

Even before the court rulings, 19 Democrats in the House co-sponsored an October bill to repeal the one that authorized the election, including eight members who'd initially voted for the January 15 date. That bill was doomed from the outset since the Senate would never agree, but it was a measure of how fiercely Democrats had come to oppose the early primary. The ultimate result in Michigan, with a triumphant Clinton the only major candidate on the ballot, is, without a doubt, a Republican result.

In Florida, Crushed by a Republican Supermajority

The Republicans don't just control both houses of the Florida legislature. Their combined 103-to-57 majority allowed them to dictate the terms of the bill that moved the primary to January 29. It is true that all but one of the state's Democratic legislators supported the bill. But a closer look reveals that vote to be more an indication of a realistic and productive compromise with the ruling Republicans than any intent to breach Democratic rules.

Florida's leading news outlets, just like Michigan's, converted an early primary into a matter of state patriotism, and that point of view, coupled with the mathematical inability to even slow the Republican push, forced Democrats to roll over.

Another factor attracting Democratic votes in the legislature for the bill was one the DNC should certainly appreciate. Governor Crist threw a reform long sought by Florida Democrats into the bill: a mandatory paper trail for all votes cast in future elections. "The Democrats have been fighting for a paper trail bill since 2000," said State Senator Nan Rich, "and Governor Bush never would support it. So finally we got a governor who was willing to support it and it ended up connected to the early primary bill. That was unfortunate. If the paper trail hadn't been there, I believe we Democrats would've all voted no. Still, if all the Republicans had voted one way and all the Democrats had voted another way, the bill would've passed." (This Christmas tree bill -- whose title alone was 154 lines long -- had something special for everyone. It would even enable Crist to run as John McCain's vice presidential candidate, revoking a ban against state officials running for federal office.)

But "the driving force behind the move," as the Tampa Tribune put it, was 36-year-old House speaker Marco Rubio, who announced that pushing the primary up was a top goal before he took over the House at the start of 2006. Branded a "Jeb acolyte" by the Florida press, Rubio, a Cuban from West Miami married to a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader, was given a gold samurai sword by Bush in a passing-of-the-conservative-mantle gesture in 2005. Rubio is a member of a wired Florida law firm whose chairman is so close to Bush that he rushed down to the county jail when the governor's daughter Noelle was arrested on a drug-related charge. When Rubio's term as speaker ends later this year, he is slated to go to work for a think tank headed by a Jeb Bush business associate. The primary bill originated with Rubio and ultimately passed the House unanimously -- but only after Democrats made what they knew would be a losing effort to alter it.

Martin Kiar and Mary Brandenburg, House Democrats who were cosponsors of the bill, tried to amend it. "We offered an amendment on the floor shifting the date to one within the Democratic party rules," said Brandenburg. "The Democrats all voted for it, and Republicans all voted against it." Actually, the Kiar/Brandenburg proposal did not completely comply with DNC directives, but it was a signal of the concerns Florida Dems had about the move-up legislation. Said Kiar: "No matter what, whether we supported it or cosponsored it, the Republican majority was going to push it through."

When the DNC sanctioned Florida, it critiqued the efforts of the Democratic leaders in both houses, suggesting that they'd merely gone through the motions of feigned opposition. But the House cosponsor of the bill, David Rivera, literally laughed on the floor at the Democratic amendment, according to the House Democrats. Going through the motions was all the outgunned Democrats could do. A DNC critic of Florida Democrats was reduced in a recent New York Times op-ed to citing remarks supporting the early primary made by state leaders after it was a fait accompli, likely because she couldn't make a case about their conduct before the Republican legislature set the date.

Some Democrats Are More Equal Than Others

The Democratic national committeeman who introduced the motion on the party's Rules Committee to deprive Florida of all its delegates -- a precursor to the Michigan decision a few months later -- was Ralph Dawson, a New York lawyer who was Howard Dean's Yale roommate and an advisor to Dean's 2004 campaign. Dawson's role was seen as a signal of Dean's appetite for a kick-ass rebuke.

As much as the DNC tries to pretend otherwise, it had choices. In fact, it later showed understandable leniency to three other states who changed their primary dates--New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina -- seating all their delegates. The tough love treatment was reserved for Michigan and Florida.

The national party had tried -- before New Hampshire's case wound up on its docket -- to leave the impression that zero tolerance was automatic once violations of the schedule occur. Back in June, a DNC spokeswoman, for example, told the Associated Press that neither Dean nor the Rules Committee "has the power to waive the rules for any state," explaining that "these rules can be changed only by the full DNC." Yet a few months later, on the same day that the Rules Committee stripped Michigan of its delegates, it waived the rules for New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina, each of which had also moved up their primaries.

Though Dawson and others on Rules now say, as they did in recent interviews, that states whose contests were always scheduled before February 5 were free to shift dates without sanction, that's not what the delegate selection rules adopted in 2006 say. Those rules provided an automatic 50 percent loss of delegates for any state party that moved its contest to any day "prior to or after the dates" spelled out by the DNC.

That's why Rules powerhouse Donna Brazile said she would "grudgingly support the waiver," warning New Hampshire shortly before the December committee vote that "the days of 'privilege' may end soon."

Not only did "first-primary-or-die" New Hampshire switch from January 22 to January 8, it moved ahead of Nevada, whose January 19 caucus had been deliberately scheduled by the DNC to precede New Hampshire's. But New Hampshire's Democrats got a DNC waiver because their back was up against the wall, due to a decision by the South Carolina Republican Party to move its primary up to January 19. That unilateral decision -- which the Carolina Democrats declined to join in -- forced New Hampshire's hand. The waiver was, in other words, a reasonable response to a Republican provocation. What's unclear is why one Republican provocation is more equal than another. (Once New Hampshire moved, Iowa had to adjust as well. South Carolina Democrats ultimately made a minor switch for other reasons.)

While the DNC implicitly challenged the "good faith" of the Democratic opposition to the Republican moves in Florida and Michigan, it seemed far less interested in gauging what New Hampshire Democrats were doing. The head of the South Carolina GOP actually traveled to Concord, New Hampshire, to announce the decision to move his state's primary up. He stood in the Executive Council chambers of the statehouse with Secretary of State William Gardner and Representative James Splaine, a Democrat who led the legislative efforts to protect the state's first-primary tradition.

Democratic governor John Lynch was at a funeral when the press conference occurred, but his spokesman said Lynch "has faith in Bill Gardner" and "supports whatever Bill decides." And Lynch, who had already derided the DNC decision to put Nevada ahead of New Hampshire, was clearly pleased that the acceleration of the South Carolina Republican primary date was giving Gardner all the justification he needed to squeeze back ahead of Nevada. New Hampshire officials even called the maneuver an "alliance" with South Carolina Republicans. Gardner promptly chose a new date 11 days before Nevada, defying the schedule that the DNC had issued.

The RNC, a veritable model of consistency in these matters, stripped New Hampshire of half its delegates over the date change, even though it was unmistakably prompted by the Republican maneuver in South Carolina. But Howard Dean and company held their fire this time, examining extenuating circumstances with an understanding they refused to extend to Michigan and Florida. In the end, they changed the rules in the middle of the game, throwing the book at some states and discarding it altogether for others.

The inconsistency on New Hampshire aside, DNC officials have come up with one other argument for why they were so tough on Michigan and Florida. Dean's spokesman Damien LaVera said in an email to Huffington Post that, despite the unmistakable references in the rules to testing the "good faith" of a state's "elected officials" and examining a state's "legislative" efforts, the DNC's rules "apply to a state party plan, not state legislatures or elected officials." LaVera insisted that the only standard their Rules Committee judges compliance by is what state parties do, and that the parties in Michigan and Florida had options other than the state-designated primaries. A DNC official claimed that the Michigan party had sponsored so-called "firehouse caucuses" in the past and could have set their own date and done them again, ignoring the state-run January 15 primary. The Florida party, the DNC source added, was "offered $880,000" by the DNC to host their own caucus on a date in compliance with the DNC schedule and chose to participate, instead, in the state-financed primary, a "bad faith" decision.

But Florida party officials said the $880,000 would've only covered the cost of 150 caucus sites, with the capacity to draw a maximum of 150,000 voters out of the state's 4 million Democrats. "It wasn't a real offer," a spokesman said. Michigan's party would have had to self-finance caucuses, which, even with added Internet and mail voting, drew only 165,000 voters in 2004, a fraction of the 600,000 who voted in 2008. Stripping both states of their full delegations because the state parties in each refused to run these limited-participation caucuses--which would have occurred a couple of weeks after an official, state-financed primary -- is a bit like punishing Democrats because they like democracy.

Obama's Backers--and the Road to the Nomination

The DNC critique of Florida's noncompliance included a reference to the fact that a Democratic state senator was the initial sponsor of the move-up bill in that house, which was seen as a sign of eagerness on the part of some Democratic leaders to break the rules. That senator was Jeremy Ring, an Obama supporter. Obama even named Ring's 2006 campaign manager to run his statewide Florida effort. Ring was such a champion of the early primary that when Obama, like all the other candidates, supported the sanctions and agreed not to campaign in the state, Ring withdrew his endorsement.

When Governor Crist signed the bill at a ceremony in West Palm Beach, the man at his side was Bob Wexler, the chair of Obama's Florida campaign. Wexler wasn't there because he wanted to defy Howard Dean. He was there for the same reason that almost all the Democrats in the legislature voted for the bill. He is the state's leading foe of paperless voting systems and filed two suits against them. He saw the bill as the governor's fulfillment of a campaign pledge "to make Florida a model state for the nation in terms of our election system."

Similarly, all three of the House Democrats who endorsed Obama -- Coleman Young II, Bert Johnson, and Aldo Vagnozzi -- voted in favor of the bill to push the Michigan date forward. When Obama later took his name off the Michigan ballot, Young and Johnson became sponsors of the bill to cancel the election they had just voted to authorize.

The support of Obama's principal backers in both states for the move-up bills was hardly consequential, but it does raise questions about his current opposition to any counting or recounting of these states. If bad faith is the DNC's standard, Obama doesn't have to look too far to find alleged examples of it, and to recognize that the national party might be unfairly characterizing what the leaders in these states did.

Imagining a convention without delegations from these large and politically volatile states has become the nightmare of every thinking Democrat. Polls indicate that a nominee who refuses to count the 1.7 million Floridians who voted in a level-playing field primary, or to find a way for them to vote again, will wind up wasting whatever time and money he or she spends there in the general election campaign. As close as the general election vote in Michigan has been in recent years, even a small margin of voters disgruntled by the state's Democratic lockout could push it into the GOP column. Obama's stonewalling about both states may offer short-term advantages, but two delegations denied seating because of his maneuvers may well be seen as contrary to his populist rationale now -- and crippling to his candidacy in November.

Ed Pozzuoli, the Republican chair of Broward County, recalls the Florida showdown of 2000, when he says Democrats taunted Republicans, insisting that they should "let every vote count." He gloats now: "I guess that's changed in eight years." He's hardly the only one chortling over the likely consequence of what he calls the "draconian" Democratic spiking of his state's delegation.

What started out years ago as Howard Dean's 50-state organizing strategy for the national party now looks like a 48-state electoral one. Michigan and Florida could become the Ralph Nader of 2000, the great regret that delivers the country once again to four years of darkness


]]> Note To EnWhySeaWonk: Tighten The Screws, Now http://www.r8ny.com/blog/stoned_crackwhore/note_to_enwhyseawonk_tighten_the_screws_now.html 2008-01-27T21:06:39-05:00 2008-01-27T21:09:09-05:00 Stoned Crackwhore So, a day after Rock promises to post articles only once a week, he posts another piece about (SUPRISE!). Obama; this time, without the simple reality check of a comments section. Thus, we are forced to hear John Kerry's endorsement called significant, with no place to laugh out loud. As to Teddy Kenndy, does anyone really believe that, if he'd endorsed Hillary, you wouldn't be hearing Rock re-hashing every detail of Chappaquidick, complete with comparisons to Juanita Broderick's alleged rape by Billary?  

Once again, those with something to say about Rock's work are invitied to post here. Don't be shy; don't feel you need to say anything novel, interesting, clever, or even sensible.



]]> So, a day after Rock promises to post articles only once a week, he posts another piece about (SUPRISE!). Obama; this time, without the simple reality check of a comments section. Thus, we are forced to hear John Kerry's endorsement called significant, with no place to laugh out loud. As to Teddy Kenndy, does anyone really believe that, if he'd endorsed Hillary, you wouldn't be hearing Rock re-hashing every detail of Chappaquidick, complete with comparisons to Juanita Broderick's alleged rape by Billary?  

Once again, those with something to say about Rock's work are invitied to post here. Don't be shy; don't feel you need to say anything novel, interesting, clever, or even sensible.

Hell, it never stopped Rock.  


]]> You Can Run, But You Can't Hide http://www.r8ny.com/blog/stoned_crackwhore/you_can_run_but_you_cant_hide.html 2008-01-26T14:41:11-05:00 2008-01-26T15:30:12-05:00 Stoned Crackwhore Feel free to post comments to Rock's Column Here



]]> Feel free to post comments to Rock's Column Here


]]> Billary Will Burn in Hell With The Sodomites http://www.r8ny.com/blog/stoned_crackwhore/billary_will_burn_in_hell_with_the_sodomites.html 2008-01-22T22:54:00-05:00 2008-01-26T13:26:23-05:00 Stoned Crackwhore
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The AP Wire Reports that this piece was posted from the author's blackberry seconds before he was apprehened by the police outside of a gay nightclub in Chelsea, shouting at passer-bys, asking which one of them was EnWhySeaWonk. Police said that while searching him, attendent to an arrest for public drunkeness and disturbing the peace, they found three Saturday Night Specials, an Uzi submachine gun, a box of condoms, a tube of KY Jelly and handwritten list of names which included EnWhySeaWonk, Yoda, Gatemouth, JP, Cynical Negro, Politiko, Kevin Parker, Charlie Rangel, Jacob Walthour, Matthieu Eugene and Yvette and Una Clarke.]

As my daddy used to say, “Man plans and God laughs”; just when you think you are on top of the world you get bowled a googly. Nonetheless, there is a third point to the hat trick: “Man plans, God laughs, but Stoned Crackwhore prognosticates”. When it comes to saying sooth and speaking truth, old Nostradomus is to ole Stone as a one hit wonder like Smiley Culture is to the Mighty Mighty Sparrow. But while Uncle Stoney is channeling Sparrow, all the other bloggers are eating crow. Maybe they should try it jerked (no pun intended Wonk). LOL!



]]>
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The AP Wire Reports that this piece was posted from the author's blackberry seconds before he was apprehened by the police outside of a gay nightclub in Chelsea, shouting at passer-bys, asking which one of them was EnWhySeaWonk. Police said that while searching him, attendent to an arrest for public drunkeness and disturbing the peace, they found three Saturday Night Specials, an Uzi submachine gun, a box of condoms, a tube of KY Jelly and handwritten list of names which included EnWhySeaWonk, Yoda, Gatemouth, JP, Cynical Negro, Politiko, Kevin Parker, Charlie Rangel, Jacob Walthour, Matthieu Eugene and Yvette and Una Clarke.]

As my daddy used to say, “Man plans and God laughs”; just when you think you are on top of the world you get bowled a googly. Nonetheless, there is a third point to the hat trick: “Man plans, God laughs, but Stoned Crackwhore prognosticates”. When it comes to saying sooth and speaking truth, old Nostradomus is to ole Stone as a one hit wonder like Smiley Culture is to the Mighty Mighty Sparrow. But while Uncle Stoney is channeling Sparrow, all the other bloggers are eating crow. Maybe they should try it jerked (no pun intended Wonk). LOL!

I am not overrating myself; I am just giving you the FACTS. I am quite safe in who I am. It is always easy after the event to say and call it; but were you (anyone) brave enough to go out on a limb, over and over, while being unafraid of risking credibility. That's the point here; and the main point here. I have been in political trenches all my life and in the womb; plus I studied political science and graduated from an ivy league university. It is easy for most folks to put down; but somehow it is difficult to build up or give credit where it was due. Some people need to go back and look at their respective responses to my observations and / or predictions here. It could be quite edifying.


It is always easy after the event to call the winner. Why didn't ANYONE ANYWHERE call Iowa the way I did; and also when I did. Not even Tim Russert, Donna Brazille, Chris Matthews, any member of the McLaughlin crew, or ANY heavyweight in mainstream media,call it: EVEN UP TO ELECTION DAY. I called it almost two months before the race; and I had the article submitted to my editors in time for Thanksgiving (GO CHECK). The article appeared on Room8, Daily Gotham, and was further linked to Politico and other national blogs; plus it was carried in the Politicker (Daily Observer) and Daily News blogs (go check for yourself).

I based my prediction on inside info (I would say no more on this one); plus personal analysis based on observations (something developed over a lifetime of political involvement/activism, and including of a degree in political science-from an ivy-league university that is one of Barack Obama's alma maters); plus dissection of media reports; plus scouring through conventional and unconventional media sources (internet included); plus discussions with many people; plus historically analyzing mainstream media trends; plus analyzing polling info (also in historical context); plus getting reports from the ground/trenches; plus sticking close to the national and regional blogs; plus studying intently Obama's moves and strategies; plus being involved with and close to many of his organizations (members and campaign staffers); ETCETERA; ETCETERA. Believe me when I say that more went into this call. Plus; I risked my credibility as a blogger/news reporter/ journalist/activist/ and such, by going out on a limb to make one of the gutsiest calls ever made in politics here. If you had the dope: why didn't you do it? This was one of the greatest calls (given it was historical) ever made in politics anywhere in this country.

Remember this: very few have the moral courage to support the success of others without envy I started that article first week of November and finished it around the 2nd week. I e-mailed it off to my editors here (and also those at at the Daily Gotham) before Thanksgiving. It got caught up in(and delayed because of) the holiday shuffle. It was posted on Daily Gotham somewhere around Nov. 23rd.(go see for yourself). It was put up on R8 soon after. It was first posted at least 6 full weeks before the primary. Long before any polls showing the race closing etc. It was linked to Daily News blog, Politicker, Politico and many other blogs (check them all for your self) within a few days. BUT: go back (and I hope you do this) to my article (Obama #3)of the first week of JULY. READ IT THEN TELL ME SOMETHING. I DARE YOU. I CALLED THIS LONG AGO. After you do that read Obama #s 1 and 2. GIVE ME MY DUE . BE HONEST AND FACTUAL. NO ONE CALLED THIS PHENOMENON LIKE I DID SINCE ONE YEAR AGO, AND CONTINUED TO CALL IT AS IT WAS EVOLVING.

I never said I DISTINCTLY called it prior to November, except for saying a few qualifying things like (a) if he was totally white (and not just half-white), it would be a wrap (Jan/ Feb. 2007); (2) the only things stopping him from being president are cousins: RACISM- with its octopussian tentacles; and ASSASINATION- either political or physical in nature (July 2007). With those statements in mind (almost a year now in origins), plus the depth,width,length and breadth of all my articles on him (especially the initial 3-part series of Jan, Feb and then July); WHAT THE HELL WAS I CALLING? Didn't you see my thoughts evolving as I researched and developed more info? In November I said I am willing to BET and GIVE ODDS (damn); how deep a call is that? Did anyone even suggest that? NO. NO ONE. NOWHERE. Almost two months out. There were no polls showing him winning when I did this (check for yourself/ ask my editors when I submitted my finished product). Go to the various blogs of those weeks in November. I still haven't disclosed all my reasonning for this call. I also said I wont call NH then; what do you think I was alluding to (go read the "Iowa" prediction again). It was a direct and CONFIDENT call (unambiguous, unequivocal and unqualified). I then called NH and SC ; GEEZE; what else do you want? This was one of the greatest public political calls -given its historical nature- of any political analyst in the history of this country. YOU ALL KNOW IT. If I was WHITE I would get the kudos; but I am not; so I get ragged instead (as usual). If you have read my Obama series, you will see serious analysis, observations and insight offered in a unique way; why is that so hard to admit. That's why I will be gone from here one of these days; there is no fucking appreciation for what I do here. and when i do, this site will be ten times worse than it is now.

And please don’t tell me that Hillary won New Hampshire. Next thing you’ll tell me is that Vince Foster died from self inflicted wounds, when all the evidence clearly shows otherwise:

Summaries

The Evidence

Reports

  • Fiske Report - Summary - from the Congressional Record, June 30, 1994
  • Fiske Report - Report of the Independent Counsel In Re Vincent W. Foster, Jr., Washington, D.C., June 30, 1994, Robert B. Fiske, Jr., Independent Counsel
  • Citizen's Independent Report, Material Errors, Omissions, Inconsistencies, & Curiosa, The 1994 US Senate Whitewater Hearings Documents Re: The Death of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr. - by Hugh H. Sprunt, July 20, 1995 (revised October 8, 1995)

Body in the Park (news stories)

About "60 Minutes" Story on Foster's Death

About A&E's "Investigative Reports"

  • WHITEWASH - "Investigative Reports" "Examines" Vince Foster Death (Arts & Entertainment cable TV, October 5, 1996) - by Brian Redman, "Conspiracy Nation", October 5, 1996

The Gun

The "Suicide" Note

"CW" (a confidential witness)

Patrick Knowlton (a witness)

Rifling Foster's Office for Papers

Helen Dickey's Phone Call

Jerry, Jane & Gary Parks

Secret Ties

Politicians' Comments (from the Congressional Record)

About Blood Sport and The SYSTEM

Commentaries

Conspiracy Theories

The Incarceration and Trial of Chuck Hayes

Now don’t be crying alligator tears. I never said that Billary assassinated either Foster or Obama. Who did I ever label as a murderer and where did I do that? I draw no conclusion as to who pulled either trigger. I just lay out the facts; let others draw up the indictments (though I’d be happy to administer the lethal injections – LOL).

Assuming that you know what I am thinking (and you are wrong by the way); what does it have to do with the truth? The fact is that the Daily News in a spread of many pages, claimed that no one saw it coming (the Barack Obama Iowa victory). THAT WAS A LIE. Again ; go back to my July 8th article on Obama; then go to my Novemeber 23rd article on Obama (this was printed exactly six weeks before the primary). You guys don't understand what a black man goes through every day of the week in these here United States (you just don't get it). If you read my Iowa prediction you will see that I was leaning towards this one also; and if you have been reading my Obama articles you will know this was coming. STOP HATING. I CALLED IT. NO ONE ELSE DID.

I STAND BT EVERYTHING I WROTE. TIME WILL BEAR ALL THIS OUT. THERE ARE OTHER THINGS ABOUT THE NH RACE THAT WILL SOON BE REVEALED. INCLUDING THE COUNT.

Plus folks always question my sources; why? Haven't I proven after over 120 columns here, that my sources are exceptional?

They come up here and find the nerve to call me racist, but have they ever read any of my scores of articles here before they jump to such a conclusion. If they do that first I would then take them more seriously. I am no racist. I just highlight the denial that takes place on both sides of the racial divide. I have never suggested that the color of ones skin makes them less racist than another? You couldn't have read my writings here to say this. I will elaborate on their (Clintons)behavior in another column. This Clinton civil rights thing is a myth and it is obvious that you have bought into it.

BILL CLINTON WAS CONSIDERED AMERICA'S FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT BY WHO? Not by any people I know; and I sure don't consider him that. He is a lying power hungry manipulator, who has ruthlessly hurt a lot of people with his arrogance and insensitivity. Wait for my coming columns on them you will see.

I know some would like to se me "STFU" because truth by its very nature is controversial; but it doesn't change the price of coffee. I will never be ashamed of the TRUTH. Hilary Clinton went there (with JFK,MLK and LBJ); NOT BARACK OBAMA; not anyone from his campaign team; and DEFINITELY not me. When I warned you guys in my column that she touched the "HOLY GRAIL" of blacks in this country (and she will be punished), you didn't believe me. In fact you guys attacked me. Now we see the furor it caused. I didn't cause it. I just predicted it will haappen. And I was correct (as I generally am). You guys just don't ever seem to understand these things; that's why you guys attack me here so much. You will never give me my due; you will never give me credit.

These persistent attacks on me are sad; real sad.

To further their arguments they called me: pig, delusional and ignorant. Great. And of course they do it behind their anonymous mask. NICE. Do you know why this is so troubling to them it deals with RACE. Are they having a hard time accepting that a black man can so articulately express a position on this blog as I am doing? I have over 125 columns in my archives here, do go see them. I AM ENTITLED TO MY OPINION AND I HAVEN"T CALLED YOU ANY NAMES HAVE I? You guys are so predictable; you are the only ones entitled to an opinion. You are free to disagree but are not free to sling epithets. Away with you CAN YOU APPRECIATE THIS? This is DEPRESSING. Truly. WOW!!!!!!! It shows why race just can't seem to be resolved in this country. FACE TRUTHS PEOPLE: FACE THE TRUTH. Hilary started this. Rangel was wrong; stupidity.

Can anyone tell me where in my articles or threads did I call ANYONE (specifically named) a racist? Please name the paragraph, line and verse. NOW people (observers): watch this. Bet you, that- like I have done many many times in the past- these people would be unable to do this. Why? beacuse I called NO ONE a racist. These are the perpetual lying attacks that some of you fall for from my detractors. but then you say I complain too much. GET OFF THE SIDELINES AND HELP MAKE IT STOP.

Whenever I ask any of my detractors here to show where I said the things claimed (paragraph and line)they never respond. WHY? Simple: I never wrote the things they claim. It's the lies I hate here most, from all these anonymous attackers. I don't mind the discourse but damn this is so tired. And to think that one of my biggest attackers here (WonK) says I am not being attacked here. Yoda does it sneakily; Wallner does it regularly; JP well he went way overboard with his lies, threaths and implications (in a column too); there are others with handles who do it also. And of course there are the many many anonymous ones who do it from behind their KKK white sheets. Then someone had the nerve on this thread right now to imply I do it all myself: so I attack myself with stuff like this: STFU (go see). IS THIS ALL BECAUSE I AM THE ONLY BLACK GUY SO PROLIFIC ON THE BLOGS OF NY (AND AUDACIOUS TOO)? COULD IT BE THAT? NAH. I am sure it can't be that. It is never about race; right?

Does anyone really think that a man who has taken on powers and potentates all my life-in USA and Trinidad- is afraid of criticism. Gimme a break. I have been in this rough and tumble world of politics all my life. I have taken on more powerful people than you can ever believe; WITHOUT FEAR. I am no coward and you fucking know this by now; so stop. I have done that (facing down powerful people) here and in real life; over and again. The point that I try to make, that they ignore the TRUTH behind my pointing out these incessant attacks. This is the "typical caucasian-denial" thing that I have tried to point out many times here. That's why I will highlight my successes here over and over. If I beat my own drum: fine; because it is my only way of getting back at all you cowards who attack me from behind the anonymous masks. It's like sticking out my middle finger at all of you hateful, vicious, spiteful and envious fools; some of whom I suspect are racists and are angry at this lil black coconut making these political calls with the high percentage success rate that I own. Now : go away.

I specifically stated from the jump I never called her (HRC)a racist or a murderer -but they said I did. Same for crook, dishonest and such. I laid my argument out and they distorted, embellished and exaggerated my words or points to try to smear me. They also said that it was libelous. Given the many lawyers at the Clinton's disposal do you think I wouldn't have been sued by now; given all the writings I have laid out here for years? They joined in the attack as blindly as bats fly. With each passing day media sources confirm the basic premise(s) of my columns; but they have never been honest enough to say: well, maybe we jumped to judgement and rushed to conclusions. Now we see that the re-count officials are admitting election irregularities. TOO MUCH FOR THEM TO CONCEDE THAT STONED WASN'T JUST SPEWING SOUR GRAPES AND THAT HIS SOURCES ARE GENERALLY ACCURATE. I said "HRC assassinated Obama", with her dirty campaign.

They dislike me because I am a black man who is brave enough to take a public position against gay marriage. All sorts of threaths from anonymous people. enough already. I get the most comments here, and I defend my columns more than anyone else here; and this isn't even up for discussion. I get more comments by maybe twenty times or more my nearest comparitive fellow blogger on Room 8. And yet they make this preposterous claim that I do not defend what I write. WHY? Because I choose too ignore those who try to denigrate me, or those who I find intellectually dishonest. They also hate the fact that I am the most popular blogger here; it galls them. They try to put my writings down in subtle and not too subtle ways. But guess what: they all are so friggin fascinated with the varied stuff I write that they read it voraciously.

I have been targeted on these blogs for years now. So the question became: what do I do in return. I chose to hit back (my perogative); some of you don't like this; fine (your perogative). I also chose to rub their noses in the sand whenever my predictions came true (again my perogative), because it was my only other way of hiting back. If my ego was so whacked as you imply, I would sinply stop writing and not take this abuse; but through calls and e-mails, scores of people have begged me over and over to stay wriitng. I am dissappointed in the fact that you guys see the attacks but close your eyes. You see the truth but yet you close your eyes. They have been ganging up on me here for years. Maybe you don't get it. Question: is it because of my race and/ or ethnicity? I try not to go there but sometimes I wonder.

 

(Commissioned Photos by Felix Wonker; portraits a specialty)

Rockina


]]> A Christmas Pantomime: LOL! The Adventures of Stoned Crackwhore, Brooklyn’s All-Knowing Political Pundit http://www.r8ny.com/blog/admin/a_christmas_pantomime_lol_the_adventures_of_stoned_crackwhore_brooklyn_s_all_knowing_political_pundit.html 2006-12-24T00:24:51-05:00 2008-01-23T20:18:07-05:00 Stoned Crackwhore

 

The Coca Vine #22

Let us reflect, during this season of our Lord, upon the awesome and mighty power of Assemblyman Dov Hikind, whose strenuous efforts contributed mightily to Hillary Clinton’s landslide victory. Especially notable was Hillary’s stunning victory over John Spencer in Hikind’s own 48th AD, where Clinton got 5878 votes out of the 11,755 cast, for a daunting 50.00% of the total vote and an insurmountable margin over John Spencer of 167 votes. LOL!



]]>

 

The Coca Vine #22

Let us reflect, during this season of our Lord, upon the awesome and mighty power of Assemblyman Dov Hikind, whose strenuous efforts contributed mightily to Hillary Clinton’s landslide victory. Especially notable was Hillary’s stunning victory over John Spencer in Hikind’s own 48th AD, where Clinton got 5878 votes out of the 11,755 cast, for a daunting 50.00% of the total vote and an insurmountable margin over John Spencer of 167 votes. LOL!

Another Orthodox Jewish political powerhouse is Harry Schiffman, a former Mark Green aide most famous for joining Manhattan’s Gay and Lesbian Independent Democrats to support Green for Mayor at the behest of Allen Roskoff, political operative and diva extraordinaire. Harry’s always willing to bend over backwards for a friend. LOL! Maybe Harry thought Allen said “Lebanese”---No, that would have been even worse. LOL! Harry is also well known for attending a famous lobster dinner where the food was the most kosher item on the bill of fare, or should I say unfair? We still don't know who paid the bill, though the DA says the case is closed. LOL! Harry now works for Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center, a hospital most notable for having zero Jewish patients. But does anyone have the patience for Harry? LOL!

Harry is currently waving his lulav in the direction of Yvette Clarke’s recently vacated seat on the City Council, hoping to pull a David Yassky. Memo to Harry: Yassky lost. LOL!

A further consideration: Harry’s wife Lorin is up for re-election in two years for a Countywide seat on the Civil Court bench. Does she really want to run in 2009 Brooklyn as the wife of the guy who tried to colonize “Our Council Seat”? Yes, Harry, goats have split hooves and chew their cud, but can you find one in all of Brooklyn which is both kosher and curried? Perhaps it is you. As Bugs Bunny would say, “What a Maroon!” LOL!

Meanwhile rumors abound that a well known political blogger will be joining the campaign of Council hopeful Wellington Sharpe, whose string of humiliating defeats finally came to an end last year when he had the good luck to be knocked off the ballot. LOL! Hint: the blogger ain’t Gatey, who was last seen looking for the still missing specs filed against Wellington’s petitions in 2000. Hint: maybe they are to be found next to the last accurate assertion in one of Hackshaw’s columns. Good luck finding that. LOL! And Gatey, stop being angry about Chris Owens’new blog; if you were jobless, you could have your own website too. Here's hoping you get the chance. LOL! 

Those looking for the best Christmas displays in Brooklyn usually confine themselves to the vicinity of Dyker Heights, which, despite its name, is not home to many Lebanese; LOL! However, nearly as legendary is the yearly Christmas display at the Canarsie home of Kings County Surrogate Frank “Santa” Seddio, one of the last places in the neighborhood where one can celebrate a truly "White Christmas". LOL!

Seddio himself makes a wonderful Kris Kringle, or as we Caribs like to say, Daddio-Christmas; he’s fat and jolly, and it is not hard to picture him reading his list and checking it twice in order to find out who’s naughty or nice. Leave it to the cynics to determine which category receives the better gifts, or whether he compiles the list himself. LOL!

But Santa has apparently been unhappy. There has been a much ballyhooed investigation into two possibly impermissible campaign contributions by Seddio’s former Assembly campaign committee. Recent reports in the New York Law Journal and elsewhere strongly suggest that, in the end, this report will lead to little more than a private letter of warning, if that. So, why the sad face, Frankie? LOL!Seddio is apparently bored out of his mind, and tired of living on a fixed income. Being forced to work with Brooklyn’s other Surrogate, Margarita Lopez-Torres, has hardly been his idea of a good time either. Whatsa matter Frank, would you rather look at Adele Cohen? LOL! Word is he wants out, and he’s not been quiet about it.

Because of Santa’s discontents, visions of sugarplumbs are once more dancing in the heads of every ambitious Brooklyn judge. LOL! Thanks to Lopez-Torres and the Brennan Center, three Brooklyn Supreme Court Judges, Priscilla Hall, Larry Martin and Al Tomei, have been thrown to the winds of fortune, forced to seek their renominations in a primary next year. Unfamiliar with the political turf they’ve avoided for 14 long years, they are almost literally at the mercy of every two bit “consultant” and con-artist, and in Brooklyn it’s hard to tell the difference. Now that “Mitch the bitch” is an unindicted co-conspirator, one can chose Musa or Tahaka or literally hold one’s nose for Gary Tilzer. LOL! Faced with such a choice one might well conclude, “Hell, if I’ve got to run anyway, why not run for Surrogate?” Tomei, who’s already held the job as an interim replacement, even has a famous niece to campaign with him. Maybe she can bring in “My Cousin Vinny” to campaign for “Her Uncle Al”. LOL! Surely, the losers from last time, Larry Knipel and Diana Johnson have not given up upon their ambitions either. LOL!

And such ambitions are not restricted to the bench. One local attorney, previously the talented legal eagle behind the Dov Hikind acquittal, has already been telling all who’ll listen that he will have a leg up on all the competition when Governor Spitzer appoints him to Seddio’s unexpired term. Surely others have their fantasy scenarios as well. Is recently free and clear Judge Michael Garson, an expert at innovations in estate administration, far behind? LOL! If Lew Fidler were dead, he would be turning over in his grave, and Mike would be robbing it. LOL!

But, as Go-go Gomez and Joe Jitsu used to say, “Hold Everything!” It’s time for a reality check. LOL!

While his closest political associates from the venerable Thomas Jefferson Club may not be successful in their efforts to persuade Seddio not to abandon ship, does anyone believe they are going to be without influence on the crucial matter of timing? Seddio is a man of many virtues; including affability, humor and generosity, but foremost among his good qualities is loyalty; Seddio will always give the first and last dance to those who brung him. LOL!

There is a date enshrined in the election law which will determine the timing of Seddio’s resignation, should such a resignation occur. A resignation by Seddio before that date would require that the candidate for the Democratic nomination for a new 14 year term as Surrogate be determined in the Democratic Primary being held next September. A resignation after that date would allow the selection for such a nomination to be made, as it was previously for Seddio, by the Party’s executive committee. Does anyone really believe that, in the event of a Seddio resignation, a primary will ever be held? I don’t hear nobody laughing now. LOL!

Well those are all the pipedreams for today; I’ve run out of Rock. LOL!

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good life! LOL!!

Stoned Crackwhore, Brooklyn’s All-knowing Political Pundit– Available For Hire--As If! LOL!
 


]]>