Become a part of the TranceAddict community!Frequently Asked Questions - Please read this if you haven'tSearch the forums
TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > Why should Hillary leave the race?
Pages (23): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 »   Last Thread   Next Thread
Share
Author
Thread    Post A Reply
DJ Eco
in yo mouf



Registered: May 2004
Location: Dirty Jersey

quote:
Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
25% OF DEMOCRATS first of all (though the article says "white Democrats, so that does lower the number for this statistic). I did research and found that the figure is from Pew Research (which I'd argue is one of the more reputable polling organizations, though I'd entertain arguments to the contrary) - http://people-press.org/reports/dis...p3?ReportID=407



I won't question the pollster company itself, as I've never heard of it and know nothing about it. But it's very significant to say that these numbers are from a month and a half ago. It's a totally different ballgame now, as the Wright situation is still over Obama as a darker cloud than ever. This was also before the Pennsylvania victor, which, agree or disagree, was a boost of momentum. There are a lot of numbers now that I could pull out (if I cared enough, but like I've said many times, I don't trust these polls whether they support my candidate or not) to show how some of those views have changed.

I don't know what your point is with the Muslim thing, please explain? Ask the entire country who the Vice President is, and I'm sure you can find 25% that don't know it's Dick Cheney. I don't see this Muslim issue as relevant. If you're insinuating that they're uninformed, you may just be right. But I don't think there's ever been an election in this country where even a majority of the country has been well-informed. For godsakes, we barely reach the 50% of voter turnout, you really expect people everyone to know everything? If you're insinuating that the average Hillary supporter is a racist or ignorant, well I don't know what to tell you. I can find just as many people who view Hillary as unfavorable for no other reason than "she's a bitch," not like they have anything to go by, facts, figures, or anything she's done in the past. Because you have an opinion of her based on past actions she's made, doesn't mean everyone does.


quote:
she's the one out there saying "He's not a Muslim, AS FAR AS I KNOW."


They're both constantly taking subtle jabs at each other, it's nothing new. An Obama supporter can view that as a slap in the face, while a non-Obama supporter can view that as her making light of the issue, like that's the most important issue in the presidential race, like she should have been doing months-long research on his background. It's all about perception. For example, when Michelle Obama was asked if she would vote for Hillary if Obama were not the candidate, she answered, "I would have to think about supporting Clinton if she were the nominee." Or the time she alluded to Clinton when she said that if a woman couldn't control her household, then she can't control the White House. C'mon, there's so many subtle things said by both campaigns, this should be nothing new to you. By all characteristics, this has been a very clean race. Please look several years ago when the Bush campaign brought out the whole "McCain's illegitimate black child" issue, THAT was something that thros the party under the bus. Man up.


___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

Old Post May-03-2008 14:59  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for DJ Eco Click here to Send DJ Eco a Private Message Visit DJ Eco's homepage! Add DJ Eco to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
DJ Eco
in yo mouf



Registered: May 2004
Location: Dirty Jersey

quote:
Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Also, you pointed out that you disagree with the assertion that it's a mathematical impossibility. I asked last week for you to present a mathematical scenario that allows her to win, since we've seen so many showing how she can't. I'm still waiting for a response to that challenge.



The fact that she can win with superdelegates throws your "impossibility" idea out the window. Forget this whole "pledged superdelegates" business, they can change their minds. As we get closer to the electioni, the superdelegates will take more into account who is more electable against McCain and you can see some of those change.


quote:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is making a stealth play for Oregon, where a primary win next month — combined with her two strongest remaining states, West Virginia and Kentucky — may open up a pathway to the Democratic ticket by convincing superdelegates that she deserves the nomination.

http://washingtontimes.com/article/...9679173/0/METRO


You're failing to see that a smaller margin than expected in N. Carolina, and a win in some of the states mentioned in the above article, that alone is capable of convincing a good number of superdelegates who the winner could be in November. Nothing can be "proven" on either side of the argument, as the idea of superdelegates fucks up any mathematical analysis of the situation. That, alone, means it's not impossible. And you may say "well, superdelegates would have to go against the voice of the people," but that's what they're there for, "those are the rules" (like Michigan and Florida).


___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

Old Post May-03-2008 15:13  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for DJ Eco Click here to Send DJ Eco a Private Message Visit DJ Eco's homepage! Add DJ Eco to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Lebezniatnikov
Stupidity Annoys Me



Registered: Feb 2004
Location: DC

quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
I won't question the pollster company itself, as I've never heard of it and know nothing about it. But it's very significant to say that these numbers are from a month and a half ago. It's a totally different ballgame now, as the Wright situation is still over Obama as a darker cloud than ever. This was also before the Pennsylvania victor, which, agree or disagree, was a boost of momentum. There are a lot of numbers now that I could pull out (if I cared enough, but like I've said many times, I don't trust these polls whether they support my candidate or not) to show how some of those views have changed.

I don't know what your point is with the Muslim thing, please explain? Ask the entire country who the Vice President is, and I'm sure you can find 25% that don't know it's Dick Cheney. I don't see this Muslim issue as relevant. If you're insinuating that they're uninformed, you may just be right. But I don't think there's ever been an election in this country where even a majority of the country has been well-informed. For godsakes, we barely reach the 50% of voter turnout, you really expect people everyone to know everything? If you're insinuating that the average Hillary supporter is a racist or ignorant, well I don't know what to tell you. I can find just as many people who view Hillary as unfavorable for no other reason than "she's a bitch," not like they have anything to go by, facts, figures, or anything she's done in the past. Because you have an opinion of her based on past actions she's made, doesn't mean everyone does.




They're both constantly taking subtle jabs at each other, it's nothing new. An Obama supporter can view that as a slap in the face, while a non-Obama supporter can view that as her making light of the issue, like that's the most important issue in the presidential race, like she should have been doing months-long research on his background. It's all about perception. For example, when Michelle Obama was asked if she would vote for Hillary if Obama were not the candidate, she answered, "I would have to think about supporting Clinton if she were the nominee." Or the time she alluded to Clinton when she said that if a woman couldn't control her household, then she can't control the White House. C'mon, there's so many subtle things said by both campaigns, this should be nothing new to you. By all characteristics, this has been a very clean race. Please look several years ago when the Bush campaign brought out the whole "McCain's illegitimate black child" issue, THAT was something that thros the party under the bus. Man up.


Two comments:

1. I fail to see how blind intuition is a better support for an argument than polling data. Whether you trust them or not, aggregate data has a strong correlation with how things turn out (one of the main reasons polls are still relevant in political discourse).

2. What attacks by Obama against Clinton? Pointing to things Michelle Obama says are akin to pointing to things that Bill Clinton has said, and that's a can of worms I'm sure you do not want to open. Strictly speaking about the candidates themselves and not the people that support them, when has Barack Obama said anything negative about the character of Hillary Clinton? You're fooling yourself if you think her campaign has been as clean as his has.


___________________

Old Post May-03-2008 15:31  United Nations
Click Here to See the Profile for Lebezniatnikov Click here to Send Lebezniatnikov a Private Message Add Lebezniatnikov to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Lebezniatnikov
Stupidity Annoys Me



Registered: Feb 2004
Location: DC

quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
The fact that she can win with superdelegates throws your "impossibility" idea out the window. Forget this whole "pledged superdelegates" business, they can change their minds. As we get closer to the electioni, the superdelegates will take more into account who is more electable against McCain and you can see some of those change.




You're failing to see that a smaller margin than expected in N. Carolina, and a win in some of the states mentioned in the above article, that alone is capable of convincing a good number of superdelegates who the winner could be in November. Nothing can be "proven" on either side of the argument, as the idea of superdelegates fucks up any mathematical analysis of the situation. That, alone, means it's not impossible. And you may say "well, superdelegates would have to go against the voice of the people," but that's what they're there for, "those are the rules" (like Michigan and Florida).


Two more comments:

1. Hillary has herself pledged that they are not going to try and recruit superdelegates that have already pledged for Obama.

2. Do you have any conception of how many of those superdelegates would actually have to switch in order to make her candidacy viable again?


___________________

Old Post May-03-2008 15:33  United Nations
Click Here to See the Profile for Lebezniatnikov Click here to Send Lebezniatnikov a Private Message Add Lebezniatnikov to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
jerZ07002
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Dec 2006
Location:

quote:
Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Also, you pointed out that you disagree with the assertion that it's a mathematical impossibility. I asked last week for you to present a mathematical scenario that allows her to win, since we've seen so many showing how she can't. I'm still waiting for a response to that challenge.


he has addressed that several times. if CNN is correct about delegate counts, here's a scenario: hilary gets the 428 delegates and obama gets 270. Maybe that is improbable, but it's certainly not impossible.

Old Post May-03-2008 15:36  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for jerZ07002 Click here to Send jerZ07002 a Private Message Add jerZ07002 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Groundhog Boy
Stupidity Offends Me



Registered: May 2005
Location: New York, NY

quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
I won't question the pollster company itself, as I've never heard of it and know nothing about it.

How can you even claim to be remotely knowledgeable of US politics, but have never heard of Pew?

quote:
But it's very significant to say that these numbers are from a month and a half ago. It's a totally different ballgame now, as the Wright situation is still over Obama as a darker cloud than ever. This was also before the Pennsylvania victor, which, agree or disagree, was a boost of momentum. There are a lot of numbers now that I could pull out (if I cared enough, but like I've said many times, I don't trust these polls whether they support my candidate or not) to show how some of those views have changed.

The Wright situation, with the links to Farrakhan, have not helped this number.

quote:
I don't know what your point is with the Muslim thing, please explain? Ask the entire country who the Vice President is, and I'm sure you can find 25% that don't know it's Dick Cheney. I don't see this Muslim issue as relevant.

This isn't "the entire country," it's "Democrats who do not like Obama." Please read the actual argument and stop distorting it.


___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

Old Post May-03-2008 15:41  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for Groundhog Boy Click here to Send Groundhog Boy a Private Message Add Groundhog Boy to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
DJ Eco
in yo mouf



Registered: May 2004
Location: Dirty Jersey

quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
1. I fail to see how blind intuition is a better support for an argument than polling data. Whether you trust them or not, aggregate data has a strong correlation with how things turn out (one of the main reasons polls are still relevant in political discourse).


After both the Kerry and the Gore runs in 2000 and 2004, I simply don't trust polls nor do I apply them as fact. Every poll had Gore and Kerry as winning their respective elections, and that definitely didn't happen. Not to mention neither me nor anyone in my family has ever been called or asked for a poll, and I don't know anyone who has....


quote:
2. What attacks by Obama against Clinton? Pointing to things Michelle Obama says are akin to pointing to things that Bill Clinton has said, and that's a can of worms I'm sure you do not want to open. Strictly speaking about the candidates themselves and not the people that support them, when has Barack Obama said anything negative about the character of Hillary Clinton? You're fooling yourself if you think her campaign has been as clean as his has.



Here's some things he's said that can compare to GHB's "as far as I know" comment. Also, attacks on former President Clinton (after all, he said the "as far as I know" comment was throwing the Democratic Party under the bus:

- "Senator Clinton looked in her element. She was taking every opportunity to get a dig in there. That's her right to kind of twist the knife a little bit ... that's the lesson she learned when Republicans did it to her in the 1990s."
- his attacks on her for not releasing her tax returns which she did
- his attacks on Bill Clinton and his 8 years as president
- his remarks after Bhutto's assasination that said Clinton's war-vote contributed to some of the instability (there's a time and a place that's appropriate for a comment like that)
- "If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, then we have a repetition of 2000 and 2004."
- associating her being first-lady as being a supporter for a failed NAFTA (Clinton's presidency shouldn't be mentioned, unless its to prove a point made by Obama?)
- "Around election time, the candidates can’t do enough. They'll promise you anything, give you a long list of proposals and even come around, with TV crews in tow, to throw back a shot and a beer."
- saying that Hillary "is likeable enough"





Look, I'm not saying she's a saint, but he certainly isn't either. This is to show that they're both getting their jabs in, don't be so naive (directed to GHB) to think she's the only bitch of the two campaigns.


___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

Old Post May-03-2008 16:30  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for DJ Eco Click here to Send DJ Eco a Private Message Visit DJ Eco's homepage! Add DJ Eco to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
DJ Eco
in yo mouf



Registered: May 2004
Location: Dirty Jersey

quote:
Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
This isn't "the entire country," it's "Democrats who do not like Obama." Please read the actual argument and stop distorting it.



Oh I'm very aware of your argument. I simply said that there's a lot of ignorant people on both sides of the aisle. Being a "Democrat" doesn't all of a sudden make someone all-knowing, all-singing, and all-dancing. We have our idiots in this party too. I don't see what your point is with this, and I've responded to your argument in many different ways that should make sense.


___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

Old Post May-03-2008 16:34  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for DJ Eco Click here to Send DJ Eco a Private Message Visit DJ Eco's homepage! Add DJ Eco to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Lebezniatnikov
Stupidity Annoys Me



Registered: Feb 2004
Location: DC

quote:
Carl Bernstein
The Question of Hillary Clinton's Guilt-By-Association Tactics
Posted May 2, 2008 | 09:22 PM (EST)


For several weeks, the Clinton campaign has been distributing literature and disseminating incendiary notions -- which figured significantly in Pennsylvania, and are now central to the candidate's message in Indiana and North Carolina -- assailing Barack Obama for his association with Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground, the radical, violent organization responsible for bombing several government buildings in the early 1970s.

In their debate in Philadelphia, after moderator George Stephanoplous had raised the question of Obama's relationship with Ayers, Hillary Clinton elaborated on the subject, seeking to add to its significance:

SEN. CLINTON: ...I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position. And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died. So it is -- you know, I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about.

Whether this is 21st century McCarthyism--as argued by several important commentators not publicly allied with Obama -- among them Stanley Fish in the New York Times (who has written several admiring columns about her candidacy) and Rick Hertzberg of the New Yorker -- is a matter readers will have to decide.

Whatever name it is called, Hillary Clinton, perhaps better than any contemporary political figure of our time, knows the insidious nature of this kind of guilt by association, for she (like Bill Clinton) has been a victim of it herself over a political lifetime.

Precisely because she knows the destructive power of such assertions and how unfair they can be, she has sought for a quarter-century to hide and minimize her own activities, associations, student fascination, and personal history with the radical Left. Those associations -- logical, explicable, and (her acolytes have always maintained) even character-building in the context of the times -- are far more extensive than any radical past that has come to be known about Barack Obama.

Which raises the question: Is the Clinton campaign's emphasis on the Ayers-Obama connection significantly different or less spurious than the familiar (McCarthyite?) smears against Hillary, particularly those promulgated and disseminated by the forces she labeled "the vast right-wing conspiracy" in the 1990s?

Like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton has (at least so far as this reporter and biographer has been able to determine) consistently rejected the ideological rigidity of the radical Left and -- especially -- the notion of revolutionary violence as a means of political change in contemporary America, despite claims to the contrary by the VRWC. Like Obama -- and John McCain for that matter -- she has valued her friendships with individuals who figured in the Left-wing and anti-war movements of the 60s and Vietnam era. And like Obama and McCain, she has never wavered from her belief and faith in establishment politics, within the two-party system.

But her past associations -- and her evasions about them -- may tell us much about the formation of Hillary Clinton, both as a product of her youthful time -- the sixties and seventies, when radical student movements and the anti-war movement were a hugely potent force on campus and in American politics generally -- and as a presidential candidate. The facts are fairly simple:

In the 60s, as an undergraduate at Wellesley, she exhibited an academic fascination with the Left and radicalism; rejected more extreme forms of political protest and violence as a student leader (there is no evidence I know that Obama has ever done anything but the same); wrote her senior thesis on the radical Chicago community-organizer Saul Alinsky (whose best-known philosophical mantra was, "Whatever works to get power to the people, use it."); and then, during the 1992 presidential campaign and White House years, insured that the thesis was locked up in the Wellesley archives and unavailable to reporters.

At Yale law school she embraced some leftist causes she perhaps wishes she hadn't today (the Black Panthers' claim that they couldn't get a fair trial, more about which later); worked in the most important radical law firm of the day -- Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, in Oakland, which represented the Communist Party and defended the Panthers in their murder trials; and became associate editor of an alternative law review at Yale which ran stories and pictures depicting policemen as pigs and murderers.

In her 2003 "memoir," Living History, Hillary mentions not a word about her role in the Panther trial in New Haven--during which she directed Yale law students monitoring the proceedings for evidence of government misconduct in its prosecution of the Panthers accused of murder. "It meant going in and out of the Black Panther headquarters to obtain documentation and other information," a classmate told Donnie Radcliff of the Washington Post, quoted in Hillary Rodham Clinton: A First Lady For Our Time. "Hillary's job was to organize shifts for her classmates and make certain no proceeding went unmonitored...[for] civil rights abuses..."

As for her summer at the law firm, Hillary's one-sentence mention of it in Living History gives the impression that Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein might as well been handling postal rate increases, rather than defending the Panthers, members of the communist party, and accepting cases that mainstream lawfirms were afraid to take -- particularly civil liberties cases -- in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. "I told Bill about my summer plans to clerk at Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, a small law firm in Oakland California, and he soon said he would like to go to California with me."

That is the total verbiage expended on so formative an experience, and the lasting -- but distant friendship -- she maintained for the next twenty-some years with Bob Treuhaft and his wife, the muckraking journalist (and, like her husband) former communist party member Jessica Mitford.

"The reason she came to us," Treuhaft told me [the quotation is in my biography of Hillary Clinton, A Woman In Charge] "the only reason I could think of, because none of us knew her, was because we were a so-called "Movement law firm at the time. There was no reason except politics for a girl from Yale" to intern at the firm. "She certainly... was in sympathy with all the Left causes, and there was a sharp dividing line at the time. We still weren't very far out of the McCarthy era."

And might not still be, to judge from the 2008 presidential campaign.

In the 1980s, Jessica Mitford visited the Clintons at the governor's mansion in Little Rock. She and Treuhaft had left the communist party in 1958, years after the revelation of Stalin's murderous crimes, but -- Jessica Mitford wrote in her memoir, A Fine Old Conflict, she quit "not primarily over some issue of high principle, but because it had become dull....boring. Rather like London's debutante circuit."

When Jessica Mitford died in 1996, Hillary Clinton wrote Bob Treuhaft a lovely condolence letter from the White House, characteristically filled with the kind of heart-felt personal touches that the senator's friends have always remarked upon.

Which, of course, no more raises the question "Is Hillary Clinton a Stalinist?," or a communist sympathizer, than "Is Barack Obama a Weatherman?" or a weatherman sympathizer, because of his association with Bill Ayers.

Aside from the candidate herself, her prime-most abettor in pushing the Bill Ayers-Weatherman-Obama line is, inevitably, Sidney Blumenthal, who has also been distributing many other questionable allegations about Obama he has plucked from and disseminated to, at times, of all places--organs of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

As in the Clinton White House, where he was the archivist of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy's plots, Blumenthal is no independent operator. He maintains an ongoing personal and strategic dialogue with his patrons, Hillary and Bill Clinton.

- -

One of Hillary Clinton's most winning attributes -- and Bill Clinton's too -- has always been their understanding of the complexity of American politics, and the danger of ideological demagoguery (witness their fight against the "vast right-wing conspiracy" and excesses). The resort by Hillary and her campaign to guilt-by-association--of which the Bill Ayers allegations are but one example: see Louis Farrakhan, or a comparatively-obscure African-American writer and perhaps -- communist party member named Frank Marshal Dixon, whom Obama knew in high school in Hawaii -- is, even for some of her most steadfast advocates, particularly dismaying. Like Gov. Bill Richardson and Senator Christopher Dodd, among others who have abandoned the Clintons, many old Clinton hands had hoped, judging from Hillary's triumphant and collegial senate years, that she -- and Bill -- had left behind such tactics when the Clinton Presidency ended in 2001 and the Right-wing threat to the Clintons' tenure in the White House had abated.

"The sad irony," noted Jonathan Alter in Newsweek, "is that these are the same [guilt-by-association] attacks used against her husband in the elections of the 1990s. The GOP tried to destroy Bill Clinton for his relationships (much closer than Obama's tangential connections) with Arkansas crooks, sleazy fund-raisers and unsavory women. But 'The Man From Hope,' while seen as less honest than Bush or Bob Dole, bet that issues and uplift were more important to voters than his character. He won...."

- -

"Shame on you, Barack Obama," said Hillary Clinton in Ohio, asserting that the Obama campaign had misrepresented her health-care plan.

Shame indeed.

- -

Carl Bernstein is, most recently, the author of A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton, published in paperback in 2008 by Vintage, and a CNN political analyst.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-...in_b_99912.html


___________________

Old Post May-03-2008 18:27  United Nations
Click Here to See the Profile for Lebezniatnikov Click here to Send Lebezniatnikov a Private Message Add Lebezniatnikov to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
DJ Eco
in yo mouf



Registered: May 2004
Location: Dirty Jersey

Well, maybe she feels that Barack making a big deal (10 debates ago, when he practically picked this issue up out of nowhere) about her being on the board of Wal-Mart qualifies as fair-game for her to, now, point out his association on the board of the Woods Foundation. It's a two-way street you know. And ask yourself, is she correct in what she said? Is it it "an issue people will be asking about"? Sure it is, she's right.


___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

Old Post May-03-2008 20:36  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for DJ Eco Click here to Send DJ Eco a Private Message Visit DJ Eco's homepage! Add DJ Eco to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Groundhog Boy
Stupidity Offends Me



Registered: May 2005
Location: New York, NY

quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
Well, maybe she feels that Barack making a big deal (10 debates ago, when he practically picked this issue up out of nowhere) about her being on the board of Wal-Mart qualifies as fair-game for her to, now, point out his association on the board of the Woods Foundation. It's a two-way street you know. And ask yourself, is she correct in what she said? Is it it "an issue people will be asking about"? Sure it is, she's right.

If the Woods Foundation were known as one of the biggest anti-union organizations in the country, that would be equivalent.

No one cared that Hillary was on the board because of who some other member was. They cared because of the agendas that Wal-Mart, on the decisions of the board members, pursued then and still pursues today.


___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

Old Post May-03-2008 20:49  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for Groundhog Boy Click here to Send Groundhog Boy a Private Message Add Groundhog Boy to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart



Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City

Oops:

quote:
Hoosier Responsible?
Clinton Decries China's Acquisition of Indiana Company -- Ignoring Her Husband's Role in the Sale
By JAKE TAPPER

Apr. 30, 2008—

As she campaigns throughout Indiana, Sen. Hillary Clinton has been talking quite a bit about Magnequench, a Valparaiso, Ind., factory that moved to China.

"We've got to elect a president next January who's going to remember Magnequench," Clinton told voters in Valparaiso on April 12.

It seems, however, that when it comes to Magnequench there's quite a bit that Clinton has conveniently forgotten.

Watch "World News with Charles Gibson" TONIGHT at 6:30 p.m. ET for the full report.

"We went to Valparaiso," Clinton told voters in Princeton, Ind., last night, "where there used to be a plant called Magnequench that made the magnets that helped to guide the precision-guided missiles, the so-called smart bombs. You've seen those  they take off, they go down the chimney, they were incredibly sophisticated and these magnets, you know  not the kind you put on the refrigerator, like we all do  but these really sophisticated magnets were instrumental making that happen."

Clinton continued, saying, "Well, a Chinese company bought Magnequench and then they decided that they were going to move the whole company from Indiana to China. Now the president of the United States has the authority to veto that kind of a move, but Senator [Evan] Bayh begged the Bush administration not to export it  it was going to lose jobs but it was also going to lose the know-how, the technical sophistication that created those magnets. President Bush and his administration wouldn't, basically wouldn't even give Evan Bayh the time of day. Those jobs left, and along with them went the savvy to make the magnets."

What Clinton doesn't tell voters is that Magnequench was originally sold to Chinese interests during her husband's administration, which okayed the move despite concerns about national security and eventual job loss. Experts say the Chinese acquired the "technical sophistication" that created the magnets long before George W. Bush took office.

Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind,, Clinton's top surrogate in the state, often joins her on the stump in bashing the president for allowing Magnequench to move abroad. What Bayh doesn't tell voters these days is that he has blamed the company's moving on a 1995 decision made by Clinton's husband's administration.

Andy Albers, a former vice president of Magnequench, said he received a phone call from Clinton's campaign to go over key details of Clinton's Valparaiso event before it happened on April 12.

"I told them all the truth, but it didn't go anywhere," Albers told ABC News. "Evan Bayh and Hillary Clinton are living in some false reality here, making all these false accusations."

In Piittsburgh on April 14, Clinton told voters that "not only did the jobs go to China, but so did the intellectual property and the technological know-how to make those magnets."

Albers says no secrets or intellectual property transferred to China when Magnequench moved in 2003, despite the claims of these politicians.

"Right here, over 200 Hoosiers built parts that guided our military's smart bombs to their targets&.George Bush could have stopped it, but he didn't," Clinton says in a TV ad airing in Indiana, presumably referring to the president's ability to use the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an interagency board chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury responsible for analyzing national security implications when foreign entities take over domestic companies.

Experts say Bill Clinton could have stopped it as well.

Clinton Administration 'Approved the Sale'

In 1995, China National Non-Ferrous Metals, headquartered in Beijing, and San Huan New Material High-Tech Inc, funded by the Chinese government, joined with other interests to purchase the Anderson, Ind.-based Magnequench, which made Neo powder for use in magnets.

The two Chinese companies were headed by the husbands of the first and second daughters of then-Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping. One of those daughters was at that time "vice minister of China's State Science and Technology Commission, whose responsibilities included acquiring military technologies by whatever means necessary," according to David Cay Johnston in "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Corporations Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You With the Bill)."

"Complaints about the sale of Magnequench were made to the U.S. government because of the military applications for the magnets," Johnston reports. "Still, the Clinton administration, an ardent proponent of globalization, approved the sale."

The Clinton administration requested that the technology and production remain in the U.S.

"If we believe this was truly a national defense issue, the company should not have been allowed to be sold in 1995, to the group it was sold to, which was backed by the Chinese government and Chinese entrepreneurs," says Virginia Shingleton, head of the economics department at Valparaiso University for the past 12 years.

A memo prepared for Bayh by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service earlier this year stated that the Clinton administration could have objected to the sale under CFIUS, but it did not, and that the consortium promised to keep those Anderson, Ind., jobs in the U.S. only until 2005.

An Oct. 6, 2005, press release from Bayh noted that he asked for the Government Accountability Office to study "concerns over foreign takeovers of American companies with national security implications & after an Indiana company called Magnequench closed thanks to a 1995 decision by CFIUS to approve a Chinese consortium's takeover. At the time, Magnequench made 85 percent of the magnets used to guide U.S. smart bombs."

Said Bayh, in the release: "The committee responsible for providing this protection does not have a good track record, as I saw myself when it allowed an Indiana company that made smart bomb magnets to be purchased by a foreign business. When it comes to protecting our national security interests, we should be doing more, not less."

But Bayh now glosses over the outrage he once expressed at the Clinton administration's approval of that 1995 sale, emphasizing instead the fact that there are currently no companies in the U.S. that manufacture Neo magnets.

Did Chinese Already Have the Know-How?

In 2000, also during Bill Clinton's presidency, Magnequench purchased from UGIMAG the factory in Valparaiso that manufactured the Neo magnets.

President Clinton's administration took no steps to stop the purchases in 2000, either.

Around that time, Shingleton says, "there was talk about the national security issue and the loss of jobs because they were leaving. Some of the higher-wage jobs left immediately [in 2000]. I knew personally some people who were managers and who lost their jobs."

The Anderson plant was sold in 2001. The Valparaiso plant closed in 2003. In 2005, Magnequench merged with AMR Technologies, based in Canada, creating a new firm  Neo Material Technologies.

Do the Chinese now have "the intellectual property and technological know-how to make these magnets" as a result of the 2003 move, as Clinton claims?

"That's patently false," Albers says. "There was nothing new that the Chinese didn't already know about. They already had the equipment and the technology and the know-how."

The intellectual property, Albers says, "remains in the United States and was not transferred."

When the Clinton campaign called Albers two days before her Valparaiso event, he says, "They asked me to explain to the about Magnequench and the closing and did any technology go to China that would hurt the military & and I explained that that was not the case."

As for the jobs issue, Shingleton says she's "befuddled" because of the support for free trade and globalization seen in Bill Clinton's administration, which resulted in much larger job losses in the region.

"I just don't get it," says Shingleton. "NAFTA was passed under President Clinton, there's been a movement to open for free trade & Look at all the steel jobs that were lost in Northwest Indiana. If you want to look at the attrition of jobs, look at the steel industry. The question to ask her is what happened to all the other industries that shipped their jobs overseas before 2000?"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote...=4757257&page=1


Umm, uhh, HEY LOOK, OVER THERE WORKING CLASS FOLK, IS THAT REVEREND WRIGHT?!?!?!


___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Old Post May-03-2008 21:45  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for MisterOpus1 Click here to Send MisterOpus1 a Private Message Add MisterOpus1 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message

TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > Why should Hillary leave the race?
Post New Thread    Post A Reply

Pages (23): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 »  
Last Thread   Next Thread
Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackUnknown Tune (Corsten Playlist) [2003] [4]

Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackNeonrave - I love you [2005]

Show Printable Version | Subscribe to this Thread
Forum Jump:

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:20.

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
 
Search this Thread:

 
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict

Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
Support TA!