IAP Political Forum

Kinda makes ya sam Hrmmm... no? Well maybe not since the mesiah seems to be coated in teflon when it comes to stories like this.

I wonder if the rank and file members know that Obama wants to take the ability to vote for their presidnet away from them...

----------------------------

Almost every week, a new damaging story emerges about Barack Obama. Lucky for this wounded "messiah" that his disciples in the mainstream media neglect, until the last possible minute, their duty to investigate these reports. This week, there's a brand-new one, which has surfaced too late to affect the critically important Indiana and North Carolina primaries, but demands scrutiny nonetheless.

The Wall Street Journal – admittedly a mainstream media outlet, save the editorial page – has started the ball rolling on this one with a May 5 article examining the possible reasons behind the International Brotherhood of Teamsters' endorsement of Obama. We'll have to see whether Barack's disciples follow up.

The public line – both of Obama and the Teamsters – is that Obama secured the union's support by strongly condemning NAFTA, which the Teamsters believe results in the exportation of jobs. Hillary Clinton has been critical of NAFTA, as well, and even says she opposed it from the beginning. But her assertion is almost as incredible as the Bosnian sniper-fire tale, because she and her two-for-one co-president were instrumental in bringing the trade agreement to fruition.

So NAFTA might be a factor, though Obama doesn't completely toe the line on protectionism, favoring certain smaller-scale agreements the Teamsters oppose. He also opposes expanded oil drilling in Alaska against the preferences of the union and favors comprehensive immigration reform over strenuous Teamsters objection. So what does Barack have over Hillary, besides her lateness to the party in opposing NAFTA?

The Journal tells us on page A1, "Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the Obama campaign."

Whoa! What's this all about?

Well, 20 years ago, the Justice Department filed a federal civil racketeering complaint against the Teamsters, alleging the union had "made a devil's pact" with the Mafia. A year later, the union settled with the government, agreeing to a consent decree in exchange for a dismissal of the lawsuit.

The WSJ reports the decree established a three-member independent review board to investigate and monitor possible corruption within the union and "required the direct election of the union president and other officers by rank and file members, in an election overseen by a court-appointed officer." Prior to the decree, delegates elected the union president.

Teamsters President James P. Hoffa has pushed for relaxation or elimination of federal involvement since he took office in 1999, arguing that oversight is very costly and that corruption has diminished dramatically. He reportedly lobbied Obama for a year to support his position.

While officials of the oversight board agree that corruption has been reduced, they insist that if the board were eliminated, it would surely re-emerge. The union, they say, is not equipped or inclined to police itself.

Interestingly, neither the Teamsters nor Obama denies that Obama has expressed the view that the consent decree has "run its course." They just deny there was any quid pro quo between Obama's position and the Teamsters' endorsement. After all, Obama came around to his position opposing federal oversight in July or August 2007, and the union didn't endorse him until February 2008. Why the delay?

Well, the WSJ reports that fellow Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards also agreed with the union on this issue, and "when Mr. Edwards dropped out of the race in January, the union endorsed Sen. Obama in February."

The timing is undeniably curious and perhaps suspicious. But what is more troubling to me than that or even Obama's substantive position on the issue is that he has voiced a position on it at all.

The issues surrounding the consent decree are a judicial matter, outside the purview of the executive branch. It's up to a federal judge to decide whether and when the consent decree should be relaxed or withdrawn.

But sadly, Obama understands, like Bill Clinton intimately understood, that judicial affairs can be affected by the political branches, such as through sympathetic appointments to the Justice Department and the courts. So it is no small matter that a presidential candidate would consider intervening, albeit indirectly, in a judicial question, especially one involving potential corruption.

Who can say at this point whether Obama has nefarious intentions concerning this? But it is difficult to understand what benign motives would lead him to take a position against the advice of the sitting review board that corruption and elections require continued supervision, especially in light of the union's endorsement. We'll see if the "watchdog" MSM pursue this story.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=63465

 Kinda makes ya say hmmmmmmmmmm Ever get the feeling that Rushes brother posts here at IAP?

Who exactly refers to Obama as a 'messiah'?  I haven't heard any supporters say that.  Only this clown here....

It comes from a tongue and cheek article by Timothy Noah called "Obama Messiah watch"  in Slate magazine over a year ago.
 The notion is that people who are voting for Obama are not doing so out of any practical reasoning but that they are somehow caught up in a religious like fervor in worshiping the man. It serves as a constant reminder that the right wing nut jobs have little or nothing of substance to make him look bad so they make this kind of crap up. Then Idiots like bonzo here repeat it ad nauseam.

Ther eis plenty of substance but it gets ignored by the MSM. 

Teamster bask room deal...
Land deal in which he doubled his land for almost no cost..
His pork requests
the Rev white
His wife not being proud of her country
His racist use of the term "typical white people"


Its amazing how you think tghese thinsg will not be foucsed on by the RNC and indivdual state parties even if McCain is too much of a wuss to use them himself.

McCain is going to win despite doing his best to lose.

Obama is a clean slate. The right doesn't have anything on him because he has such little experience that you can't get to him on bad legislation or wrong positions.

The truth is, we don't know what we'll get.

I'm not proud of my country either. I think it's sad if anybody is.

Why?

Wow, do I need to mention all the reasons I dip my head in shame?

Well, you can give me your top 3.

1. Double standards of illegal/legal substances
2. Leaders who care more about money than their country
3. My rights being infringed on every second

That enough? Or should I still wave my flag to John Mellencamp songs?

You hang your head over those things?

Really?



I won't try and talk you out of it. You think voting a black man into office is going to take away that guilt and hurt? Many do, I suppose.


I don't.

Yeah, those things don't really make me feel awesome. And also, I'm not an Obama supporter. I was just showing how people take things like "Obama's wife hates America" and try to make him look like a terrorist. People like Reaganite.

I think it's a shame she feels that way. We are not perfect but, then again, when was the last time we saw military vehicles rolling the streets looking to put down a riot. We don't have torture chambers and rape rooms. We don't pull people out of churches for worshiping the wrong God.

We have it SO good in this country I can only compare it to a rich kid who is jerked for getting a BMW when he explicitly asked for a Hummer.

It is too easy to take what we have for granted.

Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, extraordinary rendition, ...

Since I don't have the energy to go down that road, let's keep the discussion domestic and to Americans.

Wow you surprise me NR ...do you really think every one who is voting for Obama is "voting for a black man"??
 There are perhaps some who are but I am looking for someone who is willing to return the democracy to a representative government that is sensitive and responsive to the needs and the will of the people. The ethnicity of the person that message comes from has NOTHING to do with why I support him. Apparently all you see when you look at Obama is a black man??? And we support him to erase some kind of guilt about how blacks are treated?? You are closer to Reaganite than I imagined ...you are being racist. I said I would call it when I saw it... I just didn't think it would be you.

Really.. Is that why he is working on a back room deal to actually take away a representative leadership from the teamsters?  A deal that will allow them to return to the 60's and 70's where they were basically the funding source and money washers for the mob?

No sir. I have seen over and over (mostly from the Hillary supporters, of course) his race coming up. And I absolutely do believe that his race has had an impact. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, the huge minority turnout was one of the big reasons he won NC by the margin he did. It has been reported as so.

Am I saying people are casting votes for him because of his race? Absolutely I am. I don't know how that makes me a racist, though.

No. And he's not coated in teflon it's just that Bush set a new bar for bullcrap. So the teamsters like him. So what?

So his preacher is a big mouth. So what?

So he rides the SUV provided for him by the secret service. So what?

All this "mud" and "damaging stories" are pretty laughable, even without comparing to Bush. Like I say, if this is the best you guys can come up with Obama will be the next prez and McCain will go back to meaning "french fry".


Ahk

No the teamsters dont like him persay the teamsters have him in thier pocket.. he has promised to let them go back to their glory days of corruption.

Obama is not going to be running againts Bush, so ANYONE BUT BUSH is not a good way to go abou this race.

i agree, but that's not what I said. You can't just bury the nightmare because he can't run any longer. I believe Bush & Co and the last 8 years have eclipsed both McCain and Obama. Obama may not really be a Messiah but McCain's going to have to start looking like one before the, "inspector Crusoe-meets-Darth Vader", persona can be wiped off the rep. Party.

Just an honest observation/appraisal. Naturally I could be wrong.


Ahk

understood, but remeber Mr McCain has gone against Bush and against his own Party.  he almost left his party in 2002!!  If he is smart enough to pick and OUTSIDE washington VP.. he can structure this campaign as real change...  he can say - "i am not afraid of confrontation! I an not afraid to go againt what my party leaders may have thought was best when I think its good for america!"  and Obama cannot... he has never voted in opposition to his party on any bill, and has a 100% liberal rating!

Obama will have to pick someone like god forbid  Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Gore etc etc etc... he needs and established person like clinton needed in 1992.   which makes him the Washington candidate.... 

Lets look at this "substance" they choose to ignore
Wow Barack is in favor of working people having unions
He must have taken one of those infomercial seminars on late night TV
This would prove he is not a Muslim (they don't eat pork)
All reved up and no traction
I always understood that pride was a sin ...anyway its not him its his wife!
Its the phraseology, Had he said "average non ethnic Americans" reaganites feelings probably wouldn't have been hurt so badly.

 If these are the substantive issues in a presidential election then the National Enquirer must be important classical literature to Bonzonite.
 

I don't compare us to the worst of the world, or to anybody else for that matter. I hold this country, and its leaders, to the highest of standards. Hell, we don't even measure up to the standards this country was built upon.

So spare me the "we have it so good" crap. A lot of people in this country can't say that.

Some people base their pride on just being born on a chunk of land and others base their pride on what the people and leaders of that chunk do or don't do. There are plenty of Afghanis who are proud of their country. Doesn't mean it is a good country.

I've got a friend from Iran you should talk to. Our 'poor' on the world stage is a joke. 'Poor' here means you've only got one car and two color TVs.

The world stage is a joke. Like I said, my standards are higher than the basement of the world. And considering what we could do, we are executing poorly.

I'm glad they are higher...so are mine. We can work together to build this country a little better every day. If one is a 'producer', he is helping build this country bigger and better. If one is a 'non-producer', then he is making this country weaker.

We need more 'producers.'

Agreed.