22 posts tagged “politics”
Hey, what can I say - I'm on a roll with it.
Just came across this video, of particular relevance following the President's speech on health care on Wednesday evening. I came away with a great deal of hope and renewed energy, Mr. Wilson notwithstanding.
As I mentioned before, our health insurance premiums were jacked 56% this year, to celebrate my husband's 50th birthday. No change in our health status. No reason for the increase given. They did it because they could. We're now paying almost as much in health insurance premiums (over $1,100 dollars a month) as we are for our mortgage. We've applied for state aid, based on our incomes.
So what do I think of the yahoos who've tried to disrupt the health care reform effort? Walk a mile in my shoes...a***holes. Or at least engage your brains and civic manners before you walk into another town hall meeting.
I came across this website in my daily web browsing and almost fell off my chair. Since all the other Republicans are doing it, why don't you join the fray and apologize to Rush Limbaugh today? After all, isn't a talk radio host the best person to run the country? Oh my, oh my!
http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry
Now get in line and say you're sorry! *waves away cigar smoke, cough, cough* Was that a mirror, too?
And heartening. Makes me feel there's less bipartisanship than I'd at first though. My immediate question is: who or what are the naysayer Republicans who would have otherwise supported the bill afraid of? Rush LImbaugh or some other aspect of the right-wing media? Retaliation from their own party?
Specer: Republicans Support Stimulus, Don't Want 'Fingerprints' On It
by Ryan Grimm, Huffington Post
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who broke with his party to support President Obama's stimulus package last week, said before the final vote Friday that more of his colleagues would have joined were they not afraid of the political consequences.
"When I came back to the cloak room after coming to the agreement a week ago today," said Specter, "one of my colleagues said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' My Republican colleague said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' I said, 'Are you going to vote with me?' And he said, 'No, I might have a primary.' And I said, 'Well, you know very well I'm going to have a primary.'"
Specter, along with centrist Maine Republican Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, joined with Democrats last week to move the stimulus bill forward. Specter said he doubted there would be any more Republican votes than those three Friday night.
"I think there are a lot of people in the Republican caucus who are glad to see this action taken without their fingerprints, without their participation," he said.
Specter was asked, How many of your colleagues?
"I think a sizable number," he said. "I think a good part of the caucus agrees with the person I quoted, but I wouldn't want to begin to speculate on numbers."
Being the 60th and deciding vote isn't easy for a centrist who will likely face a more conservative primary challenger and then a more liberal general election opponent.
"I'd feel less uncomfortable about being the sixty-first and even better about being the sixty-seventh, but I'll take 'em one at a time," he said.
Specter added that his hope was that next time there would be more Republicans joining within him. But is that realistic?
"I didn't say it was my expectation, it was my hope," said Specter, before walking on to the
Republicans In The House Are Behaving Like the Collapse Of Bush's Policies Never Happened
Mitchell Bard
From The Huffington Post
Say you belonged to a charitable organization, and you and your friends were appointed to the steering committee for a big fundraiser, so you chose to have a combination bake sale and casino night. And let's say that you scheduled it on the same night as the town's homecoming football game, so nearly nobody showed up, and the peanut butter cookies in the bake sale gave the few guests that did visit salmonella. Oh, and let's say that in setting up the casino equipment, you accidentally cut off the electricity for the entire block. When the time rolled around the next year for the annual fundraiser, would you stand up and advocate a salmonella bake sale held on the same night as the big game? Of course not. You'd sit down, shut up, and wait for someone else to come up with a new idea. Even if you thought a bake sale/casino night could work under the right circumstances, you would probably be able to figure out that having overseen a colossal failure, the timing might not be right for you to pitch the same idea again.
Unless, apparently, you are a Republican member of the House.
Look, I had no illusions that everything would change the minute Barack Obama took the oath of office, and that the Republicans would immediately burn their Ronald Reagan pictures and pledge allegiance to Obama. But I did think that Obama's solid victory in November, if nothing else, would make it clear that the bankrupt (literally) policies of the last eight years would no longer be seriously considered as a solution. I certainly knew that the Republicans would try to claw their way back to power, but I never imagined they would pull a Groundhog Day, acting as if the absolute meltdown of the last eight years hadn't happened. After all, by electing Obama, the American people pretty directly rejected the failed ways of doing business.
Of the myriad problems George W. Bush and his enablers in Congress left on Obama's desk, the most pressing is perceived to be the economy. So Obama's first major legislative initiative was the stimulus package. Under the market-cures-all philosophy of the last administration (and, in fairness, every administration going back to Ronald Reagan), the financial system collapsed as the greed and irresponsibility of institutions finally reached a tipping point. But what was even more acute during the last eight years was the historic and devastating redistribution of wealth, whereby Bush's tax cuts for the rich and unfailing support for corporate interests led to a situation where, as former Rep. David Bonior put it on Meet the Press on January 11:
"over the last 20 years, the top 10 percent took 90 percent of the income gains in this -- in the country. And the top 1 percent took roughly 60 percent. And the top 1/10th of 1 percent took 35 percent of that. I mean, it's skewed the wrong way."
The system of tax cuts and the like turned the surplus of the Clinton years into a massive deficit, even before the $700 billion financial bailout and current stimulus package came into play. And the Bush years allowed massive gains for the wealthy, all while middle class wages, in real dollars, fell.
So, if nothing else, we should all be in agreement that the Bush years were a debacle, and that the policies of the administration need to be rejected, much like the bake sale/casino night of my analogy.
And yet, on the first major piece of legislation that the popular new president advanced, what did the Republicans in the House do? Suggest a bake sale/casino night.
On the January 11 Meet the Press episode I mentioned above, all of the economists, liberals and conservatives, agreed that some kind of stimulus is necessary to kick-start the economy. Economists will also tell you that if you genuinely want to stimulate consumer spending, tax cuts, especially for the middle class and wealthy, are less effective than government spending, since those tax cuts are more likely to be saved than spent. Programs that aid those in trouble (like food stamps and extended unemployment insurance), as well as programs that create jobs (like infrastructure projects), are far more effective in stimulating consumer spending.
And despite all of this information, not one single Republican member of the House voted for the stimulus bill yesterday. (It still passed, 244-188, with 11 Democrats joining the 177 Republicans in opposing the bill.) Not one. Zero. Zippo. Nada. Nil. None. There wasn't one Republican in the whole House of Representatives who could see his or her way clear to support legislation to help our tanking economy, even if they thought the bill wasn't perfect. And what was the primary objection of the Republicans, based on the GOP's suggested alternative bill (that was voted down by the House)? They wanted more tax cuts.
Seriously? More freakin' tax cuts? What's next? Are they going to be asking for less regulations on Wall Street? Another invasion of Iraq? Were they not watching what happened the last eight years (and, more importantly, what the American people voted for in November)?
Th vote on the stimulus bill was not an isolated incident. The Republicans in the House made a less important but more egregious move out of the Bush-era repertoire when they killed a measure to extend the deadline for the transition from analog to digital television broadcasting. A two-thirds majority was necessary for passage in the House, but thanks to the GOP, the vote in support was only 258-168, with 155 Republicans joining 13 Democrats in opposition to the measure. It was such a noncontroversial proposal that the Senate unanimously approved it without a single objection.
In killing the extension, the Republicans in the House were choosing the bottom lines of major corporations over the day-to-day lives of, mainly, working class, elderly and poor Americans. The extension was sought because millions still do not have the adapter boxes necessary to receive digital transmissions on their analog television sets. Those affected tend to be the least well-to-do and most vulnerable citizens, those who can't afford cable television and rely on old-fashioned over-the-airways reception to watch. And the government's program to help pay for the adaptor boxes is out of money (they can't issue any new coupons until unused ones that were already issued expire). The legislation was meant to help these people avoid losing access to television.
But the Republicans in the House was more concerned that stations might lose money having to devote advertising time to announcements about the transition. It was a move right out of the Bush years, prioritizing the earnings of corporations over the lives of less-than-wealthy individuals.
The bottom line is that this country is in a very dark place right now, and the reason we're there is not a mystery. It is, in large part, the direct result of a set of policies advocated and carried out by the Bush administration. Those policies, including tax cuts for the rich and the facilitation of movement of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the upper class, have failed. While Republicans are free to oppose President Obama's solutions to this mess if they think they have better ideas, merely advocating the old failed policies should not be tolerated.
Obama deserves credit for trying to foster a bipartisan atmosphere in Washington, and I laud his efforts in this regards. But if the Republicans are going to be obstructionist, clinging to failed policies and trying to score political points by keeping the new president from passing the programs he wants (or at least making them look partisan), Obama and the Democrats have to move forward on their own. They have large majorities in both houses and, more importantly, the mandate of a solid presidential election win.
It's time for the House Republicans to offer something useful or shut up and let the rest of us try and undo the mess they helped make. We're just not interested in their bake sale/casino night ideas. I'm not sure we can survive another salmonella outbreak or blackout. We're still picking up the pieces from the last ones.
Republicans In The House Are Behaving Like the Collapse Of Bush's Policies Never Happened
Mitchell Bard
From The Huffington Post
Say you belonged to a charitable organization, and you and your friends were appointed to the steering committee for a big fundraiser, so you chose to have a combination bake sale and casino night. And let's say that you scheduled it on the same night as the town's homecoming football game, so nearly nobody showed up, and the peanut butter cookies in the bake sale gave the few guests that did visit salmonella. Oh, and let's say that in setting up the casino equipment, you accidentally cut off the electricity for the entire block. When the time rolled around the next year for the annual fundraiser, would you stand up and advocate a salmonella bake sale held on the same night as the big game? Of course not. You'd sit down, shut up, and wait for someone else to come up with a new idea. Even if you thought a bake sale/casino night could work under the right circumstances, you would probably be able to figure out that having overseen a colossal failure, the timing might not be right for you to pitch the same idea again.
Unless, apparently, you are a Republican member of the House.
Look, I had no illusions that everything would change the minute Barack Obama took the oath of office, and that the Republicans would immediately burn their Ronald Reagan pictures and pledge allegiance to Obama. But I did think that Obama's solid victory in November, if nothing else, would make it clear that the bankrupt (literally) policies of the last eight years would no longer be seriously considered as a solution. I certainly knew that the Republicans would try to claw their way back to power, but I never imagined they would pull a Groundhog Day, acting as if the absolute meltdown of the last eight years hadn't happened. After all, by electing Obama, the American people pretty directly rejected the failed ways of doing business.
Of the myriad problems George W. Bush and his enablers in Congress left on Obama's desk, the most pressing is perceived to be the economy. So Obama's first major legislative initiative was the stimulus package. Under the market-cures-all philosophy of the last administration (and, in fairness, every administration going back to Ronald Reagan), the financial system collapsed as the greed and irresponsibility of institutions finally reached a tipping point. But what was even more acute during the last eight years was the historic and devastating redistribution of wealth, whereby Bush's tax cuts for the rich and unfailing support for corporate interests led to a situation where, as former Rep. David Bonior put it on Meet the Press on January 11:
"over the last 20 years, the top 10 percent took 90 percent of the income gains in this -- in the country. And the top 1 percent took roughly 60 percent. And the top 1/10th of 1 percent took 35 percent of that. I mean, it's skewed the wrong way."
The system of tax cuts and the like turned the surplus of the Clinton years into a massive deficit, even before the $700 billion financial bailout and current stimulus package came into play. And the Bush years allowed massive gains for the wealthy, all while middle class wages, in real dollars, fell.
So, if nothing else, we should all be in agreement that the Bush years were a debacle, and that the policies of the administration need to be rejected, much like the bake sale/casino night of my analogy.
And yet, on the first major piece of legislation that the popular new president advanced, what did the Republicans in the House do? Suggest a bake sale/casino night.
On the January 11 Meet the Press episode I mentioned above, all of the economists, liberals and conservatives, agreed that some kind of stimulus is necessary to kick-start the economy. Economists will also tell you that if you genuinely want to stimulate consumer spending, tax cuts, especially for the middle class and wealthy, are less effective than government spending, since those tax cuts are more likely to be saved than spent. Programs that aid those in trouble (like food stamps and extended unemployment insurance), as well as programs that create jobs (like infrastructure projects), are far more effective in stimulating consumer spending.
And despite all of this information, not one single Republican member of the House voted for the stimulus bill yesterday. (It still passed, 244-188, with 11 Democrats joining the 177 Republicans in opposing the bill.) Not one. Zero. Zippo. Nada. Nil. None. There wasn't one Republican in the whole House of Representatives who could see his or her way clear to support legislation to help our tanking economy, even if they thought the bill wasn't perfect. And what was the primary objection of the Republicans, based on the GOP's suggested alternative bill (that was voted down by the House)? They wanted more tax cuts.
Seriously? More freakin' tax cuts? What's next? Are they going to be asking for less regulations on Wall Street? Another invasion of Iraq? Were they not watching what happened the last eight years (and, more importantly, what the American people voted for in November)?
Th vote on the stimulus bill was not an isolated incident. The Republicans in the House made a less important but more egregious move out of the Bush-era repertoire when they killed a measure to extend the deadline for the transition from analog to digital television broadcasting. A two-thirds majority was necessary for passage in the House, but thanks to the GOP, the vote in support was only 258-168, with 155 Republicans joining 13 Democrats in opposition to the measure. It was such a noncontroversial proposal that the Senate unanimously approved it without a single objection.
In killing the extension, the Republicans in the House were choosing the bottom lines of major corporations over the day-to-day lives of, mainly, working class, elderly and poor Americans. The extension was sought because millions still do not have the adapter boxes necessary to receive digital transmissions on their analog television sets. Those affected tend to be the least well-to-do and most vulnerable citizens, those who can't afford cable television and rely on old-fashioned over-the-airways reception to watch. And the government's program to help pay for the adaptor boxes is out of money (they can't issue any new coupons until unused ones that were already issued expire). The legislation was meant to help these people avoid losing access to television.
But the Republicans in the House was more concerned that stations might lose money having to devote advertising time to announcements about the transition. It was a move right out of the Bush years, prioritizing the earnings of corporations over the lives of less-than-wealthy individuals.
The bottom line is that this country is in a very dark place right now, and the reason we're there is not a mystery. It is, in large part, the direct result of a set of policies advocated and carried out by the Bush administration. Those policies, including tax cuts for the rich and the facilitation of movement of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the upper class, have failed. While Republicans are free to oppose President Obama's solutions to this mess if they think they have better ideas, merely advocating the old failed policies should not be tolerated.
Obama deserves credit for trying to foster a bipartisan atmosphere in Washington, and I laud his efforts in this regards. But if the Republicans are going to be obstructionist, clinging to failed policies and trying to score political points by keeping the new president from passing the programs he wants (or at least making them look partisan), Obama and the Democrats have to move forward on their own. They have large majorities in both houses and, more importantly, the mandate of a solid presidential election win.
It's time for the House Republicans to offer something useful or shut up and let the rest of us try and undo the mess they helped make. We're just not interested in their bake sale/casino night ideas. I'm not sure we can survive another salmonella outbreak or blackout. We're still picking up the pieces from the last ones.
Well, my cardamom coffee cake didn't quite turn out as hoped. I obviously didn't grease the pan well enough, although I thought I'd managed to get shortening into every little divet and squiggle. It's one of my favorite coffee cakes: rich, but not too rich, sweet, but not too sweet and redolent of cardamom. You'd never think it would work, but it does. It really does.
I'm making a slow-cooker meal as well, a Beef Stroganoff, which won't be ready for the sour cream for at least another hour. I'll bide my time and enjoy that tomorrow night.
But, sigh, that poor cake. I let it cool for the requisite 10 minutes in the pan, then flipped it over.
Nothing. It just stuck right to the pan. Dang.
I jiggled. I poked. I pried away more from the side. No dice. Finally I just dug in there with a knife, feeling terribly guilty about what I was doing. Darn it, cake, you're supposed to come RIGHT OUT of the pan. What are you doing anyway? Finally, a portion of the cake started to come loose after all the jiggling and shaking and poking. It came out first, and the rest of the cake stayed right where it was.
I poked at it some more, trying gently to shake it from from the confines of the bundt pan. Finally: rrrrrrrrrrrr...boom!
Out it came. Most of it. I dug the rest out with my fingernail and put all the fragments onto the cooling rack.
It still smelled wonderful and tasted even better though. The taste was completely unaffected by the lame greasing job I'd obviously done. It was about that time my husband and I started listening to an NPR radio show about the first 100 days of the Obama administration. I looked at that sad little cake, all pieced together in a lumpy pile on a plate. I figured that's probably what the wish list in DC is going to look like in 100 days: kinda beat up but still holding its head up proudly. But, if the first 100 days come out as tasty as my cake, I'll still consider it a victory for all the beating up it'll no doubt endure.
My husband LOVED the cake. The next 100 days? We shall see.
So many other bloggers have said it already, so I'll just add my warmest welcomes to the throng. For a moment, I could forget the wolves at my door and concentrate on my future - and on my country's future.
I am proud of what happened today. I saw the millions of people on the mall, standing out there in the cold. I heard the roars - the absolute roars - when Obama walked up those stairs. He fumbled through the Oath of Office, flustered perhaps or overwhelmed in his own way. Justice Roberts ran through the declarations mechanically and I wondered if he was performing his duty through gritted teeth. But, President Obama reclaimed the national spirit in his speech to the nation. It was beautiful to hear, and as honest as it was uplifting.
I want an end to divisiveness and to greed masquerading as free market patriotism. I want us all in this together, without sneers and derision. I hope we've taken the first step on that journey. I know that, as of today at noon or thereabouts, I stand with, and behind, MY president. And he is - my president. At last.
From The Onion:
Supreme Court Overturns Bush v. Gore
WASHINGTON—In an unexpected judicial turnaround, the Supreme Court this week reversed its 2000 ruling in the landmark case of Bush v. Gore, stripping George W. Bush of his earlier political victory, and declaring Albert Arnold Gore the 43rd president of the United States of America.
President Gore, retroactively determined by the Supreme Court to be the winner of the 2000 election, is sworn in for his six-week term.
The court, which called its original decision to halt manual recounts in Florida "a ruling made in haste," voted unanimously on Wednesday in favor of the 2000 Democratic nominee.
Gore will serve as commander in chief from Dec. 10 to Jan. 20.
"Allowing this flaw in judgment to stand would set an unworkable precedent for future elections and cause irreparable harm to the impartiality of this court," said Chief Justice John G. Roberts in his majority opinion. "Furthermore, let me be the first to personally congratulate President Gore on his remarkable come-from-behind victory. May he guide us wisely into this new millennium."
Former Texas Rangers owner George W. Bush gets some much-needed rest Monday after his 2000 presidential campaign loss to rival Al Gore.
Added Roberts, "The system works."
Moments after the court's noontime announcement, Gore was flown to Washington, D.C. aboard Air Force One, sworn in on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, and immediately escorted to a brief victory rally at the National Mall. By 4:30 p.m., his 15 cabinet appointees had been vetted, contacted, and brought to Washington, where they were all simultaneously approved by a majority vote in the Senate.
Gore then delivered the first of seven consecutive State of the Union addresses.
Shortly after being notified of the court's historic decision, a gracious George W. Bush appeared at a press conference with four hastily packed suitcases to congratulate his 2000 opponent on the decisive victory.
"Al Gore has fought a strong and patient campaign, and he has prevailed," said the former Republican candidate and Texas governor. "I wish him nothing but the best, and hope that his leadership will help see this nation through a catastrophic recession, an unending war in Iraq, and the single largest housing crisis in history. Congratulations, Mr. President."
In his first and last 42 days as president, Gore will reportedly visit U.S. troops overseas, meet with dignitaries from France, Great Britain, China, Azerbaijan, Japan, and Eastern Europe, formalize a plan to bail out the struggling airline and automotive industries, sign the Kyoto Protocol, take a photo of himself and wife Tipper in front of the White House Christmas tree, and ensure a smooth transition between his own administration to that of incoming president-elect Barack Obama.
"Great humility, honor, I'm President," Gore said to a crowd of tourists hastily shuffled into a White House corridor to hear the president deliver his acceptance speech. "Thanks, bye."
According to political analysts, the road ahead for President Gore is not an easy one. During his first conference call with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, NATO, OPEC, and the United Nations, Gore admitted that making good on his campaign promises in the next six to eight weeks might be difficult. The president noted his pledge to provide affordable health care to every single child in the U.S. by 2004 as "specifically in need of possible amending."
Gore also withdrew his intentions to pay off the national debt by 2012.
Although the president has already instituted a number of impressive environmental initiatives, he has drawn criticism from Republicans who claim that he is completely unprepared to deal with the current national climate.
"Throughout the entirety of his 2000 campaign, never once did Gore mention the tragedy of 9/11, or our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan," Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said. "Does he not care about our national security? Does Al Gore plan to ignore the needs of our brave men and women on the ground? What kind of world does Al Gore think we still live in?"
President Gore will not be the only new arrival in the White House to face criticism, however. Joseph Lieberman—the former independent senator from Connecticut who in just two months has gone from the short list of possible Republican running mates to nearly being ousted from the Democratic Caucus to becoming the first Jewish Vice President—will also have much to answer for.
"Uhh," Lieberman said in his first official address Wednesday. "Umm…yeah." 
U.S. Economy Continues Campaigning For Barack Obama
WASHINGTON—Nearly a month after Barack Obama was elected the 44th
president of the United States, the nation's economy is still going
strong in its efforts to secure him the highest office in the land.
Through its trifecta of moribund housing prices, a wildly fluctuating
stock market, and an unprecedented credit crisis, the U.S. economy
helped propel Obama past rival John McCain in polls leading up to the
Nov. 4 election—a helpful boost the nation's financial system has since
supplemented with the imminent collapse of the Big Three auto
manufacturers and looming fears of a long-term depression. "Thanks to
the disastrous efforts of our economy, Obama would be virtually
unbeatable were he to run again in December or January," CNN political
analyst Pat Harris said. "According to the most recent data, Obama's
edge continues to grow among those who just lost their jobs and have no
idea how they're going to feed their children, as well as among
citizens who are freezing to death on the streets at this very moment."
The outspoken U.S. economy, which has already been campaigning for
months in Iceland and South America, reportedly plans to spend the next
10 to 15 years spreading its message to every single country on the
globe.
Tee Hee!!!!!
From the Associated Press. Sad, really. I've been occasionally checking out right-wing websites as well (Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc.,) and finding the level of invective disturbingly high. Sarah Palin certainly hasn't helped, either.
As if we didn't already have enough trouble. Why don't these folks try to help out instead of wave their hate around and threaten a person lawfully and duly elected to the Presidency?
Obama has more threats than other presidents-elect
WASHINGTON – Threats against a new president historically spike right after an election, but from Maine to Idaho law enforcement officials are seeing more against Barack Obama than ever before. The Secret Service would not comment or provide the number of cases they are investigating. But since the Nov. 4 election, law enforcement officials have seen more potentially threatening writings, Internet postings and other activity directed at Obama than has been seen with any past president-elect, said officials aware of the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity because the issue of a president's security is so sensitive.
Earlier this week, the Secret Service looked into the case of a sign posted on a tree in Vay, Idaho, with Obama's name and the offer of a "free public hanging." In North Carolina, civil rights officials complained of threatening racist graffiti targeting Obama found in a tunnel near the North Carolina State University campus.
And in a Maine convenience store, an Associated Press reporter saw a sign inviting customers to join a betting pool on when Obama might fall victim to an assassin. The sign solicited $1 entries into "The Osama Obama Shotgun Pool," saying the money would go to the person picking the date closest to when Obama was attacked. "Let's hope we have a winner," said the sign, since taken down.
In the security world, anything "new" can trigger hostility, said Joseph Funk, a former Secret Service agent-turned security consultant who oversaw a private protection detail for Obama before the Secret Service began guarding the candidate in early 2007.
Obama, of course, will be the country's first black president, and Funk said that new element, not just race itself, is probably responsible for a spike in anti-Obama postings and activity. "Anytime you're going to have something that's new, you're going to have increased chatter," he said.
The Secret Service also has cautioned the public not to assume that any threats against Obama are due to racism.
The service investigates threats in a wide range. There are "stated threats" and equally dangerous or lesser incidents considered of "unusual interest" — such as people motivated by obsessions or infatuations or lower-level gestures such as effigies of a candidate or an elected president. The service has said it does not have the luxury of discounting anything until agents have investigated the potential danger.
Racially tinged graffiti — not necessarily directed at Obama — also has emerged in numerous reports across the nation since Election Day, prompting at least one news conference by a local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in Georgia.
A law enforcement official who also spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly said that during the campaign there was a spike in anti-Obama rhetoric on the Internet — "a lot of ranting and raving with no capability, credibility or specificity to it."
There were two threatening cases with racial overtones:
• In Denver, a group of men with guns and bulletproof vests made racist threats against Obama and sparked fears of an assassination plot during the Democratic National Convention in August.
• Just before the election, two skinheads in Tennessee were charged with plotting to behead blacks across the country and assassinate Obama while wearing white top hats and tuxedos.
In both cases, authorities determined the men were not capable of carrying out their plots.
In Milwaukee, police officials found a poster of Obama with a bullet going toward his head — discovered on a table in a police station.
Chatter among white supremacists on the Internet has increased throughout the campaign and since Election Day.
One of the most popular white supremacist Web sites got more than 2,000 new members the day after the election, compared with 91 new members on Election Day, according to an AP count. The site, stormfront.org, was temporarily off-line Nov. 5 because of the overwhelming amount of activity it received after Election Day. On Saturday, one Stormfront poster, identified as Dalderian Germanicus, of North Las Vegas, said, "I want the SOB laid out in a box to see how 'messiahs' come to rest. God has abandoned us, this country is doomed."
It is not surprising that a black president would galvanize the white supremacist movement, said Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who studies the white supremacy movement.
"The overwhelming flavor of the white supremacist world is a mix of desperation, confusion and hoping that this will somehow turn into a good thing for them," Potok said. He said hate groups have been on the rise in the past seven years because of a common concern about immigration.
