Palin Resigns
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
Does that mean she'll have more time to run her fuckin' mouth in public?
Palin to resign at end of month
By Reid Wilson
Posted: 07/03/09 03:28 PM [ET]
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) stunned political observers Friday by announcing she will resign the governorship after just two and a half years in office.
The first-term governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee made the announcement at her home in Wasilla. Some political observers had expected Palin to forgo an opportunity to seek re-election, but few expected Palin to resign office. Her reason for stepping down was not immediately clear.
Alaska's NBC affiliate, KTUU, was the first station to report that Palin would leave office. Her departure paves the way for Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell to be sworn in; KTUU said he would take office at the end of the month.
The move, coming nearly a year before she would be forced to reveal her plans by filing deadlines, is sure to lead to widespread speculation that Palin will devote herself full-time to a presidential bid in 2008.
And the announcement comes after a week in which Palin allies and detractors blew up a war of words that has been quietly brewing ever since the presidential ticket led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) lost in November.
An article in Vanity Fair this week featured multiple sources in the McCain campaign who told the magazine, on condition of anonymity, that Palin was not ready to be vice president. Palin allies, including conservative columnist Bill Kristol and several heavyweights in Washington, slammed the anonymous sources for cowardice and malicious intent in subsequent pieces in other publications.
Kristol has focused his fire on McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt, who he accused of running a poor campaign. On Saturday, Mark Salter, McCain's closest aide and advisor, waded into the fray to defend Schmidt against Kristol's attacks in an email exchange with The Washington Post.
Despite the tension surrounding Palin's tenure as vice presidential nominee, the Alaska governor remains one of the leading contenders for the GOP's presidential nomination in three years. She has ignited a frenzy among a Republican base that, otherwise, has been unenthusiastic about its leaders in Washington.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/palin-to-resign-at-end-of-month-2009-07-03.html
Palin to resign at end of month
By Reid Wilson
Posted: 07/03/09 03:28 PM [ET]
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) stunned political observers Friday by announcing she will resign the governorship after just two and a half years in office.
The first-term governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee made the announcement at her home in Wasilla. Some political observers had expected Palin to forgo an opportunity to seek re-election, but few expected Palin to resign office. Her reason for stepping down was not immediately clear.
Alaska's NBC affiliate, KTUU, was the first station to report that Palin would leave office. Her departure paves the way for Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell to be sworn in; KTUU said he would take office at the end of the month.
The move, coming nearly a year before she would be forced to reveal her plans by filing deadlines, is sure to lead to widespread speculation that Palin will devote herself full-time to a presidential bid in 2008.
And the announcement comes after a week in which Palin allies and detractors blew up a war of words that has been quietly brewing ever since the presidential ticket led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) lost in November.
An article in Vanity Fair this week featured multiple sources in the McCain campaign who told the magazine, on condition of anonymity, that Palin was not ready to be vice president. Palin allies, including conservative columnist Bill Kristol and several heavyweights in Washington, slammed the anonymous sources for cowardice and malicious intent in subsequent pieces in other publications.
Kristol has focused his fire on McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt, who he accused of running a poor campaign. On Saturday, Mark Salter, McCain's closest aide and advisor, waded into the fray to defend Schmidt against Kristol's attacks in an email exchange with The Washington Post.
Despite the tension surrounding Palin's tenure as vice presidential nominee, the Alaska governor remains one of the leading contenders for the GOP's presidential nomination in three years. She has ignited a frenzy among a Republican base that, otherwise, has been unenthusiastic about its leaders in Washington.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/palin-to-resign-at-end-of-month-2009-07-03.html
<font size="3">
Well, at the conference she said:
You know change can be effected outside of government.
I never believe that I or anyone else need a title to do that.
"You are naive if you don't see on the national level there is a full court press trying to pick apart a good point guard"
</font size>
Well, at the conference she said:
You know change can be effected outside of government.
I never believe that I or anyone else need a title to do that.
"You are naive if you don't see on the national level there is a full court press trying to pick apart a good point guard"
</font size>
Well it's time for here to get her advance courses from the Heritage Foundation. This is a full time job and little things like governing the peoples business of the state of Alaska will just get in her way. Now she can get her advance degree in right wing from Exxon/Mobile, The Federalist Society and the School of the Americans. Could she be the next Ayn Rand?
Quiter! The Republican Party is taking a bunch of hits lately.
And I'm sure you will be first in line at her talk-a-thon.
I guess ya'll not happy that she resigned huh?
There's a new oxymoron...a happy liberal....
Objectively speaking shes just a bitch white cacs can gawk at behind their wives backs.
-VG
typical...
Has to be..I give it a week before the shit storm starts and it must be VERY serious for her to try to pre-empt it
Of course.
This is a first term and didn't even survive it. Probably has a lot to do with her sheer Incompetence and the billions she gave to that oil pipe line through Canada but no agreement with the oil people to use it to send oil through. Bitch is a pathetic loser.
-VG
Talk about affirmative action. She was a fraud. Good riddance.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z75QSExE0jU&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z75QSExE0jU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
at Dems getting all emotional about the resignation of Gov. Palin. Whether or not I agree with her positions hating on her serves no useful purpose.Most of the responses so far are devoid of any reasonable thought and belong on the main board.What I think she's doing is putting herself in a position to exploit any future opportunities whether it's a future run for office or as king maker of sorts with her demonstrated fund raising abilities. Smart move IMO and hell i came up with that full of Jack Daniels and finding out about an hour ago.
What I think she's doing is putting herself in a position to exploit any future opportunities whether it's a future run for office or as king maker of sorts with her demonstrated fund raising abilities. Smart move IMO and hell i came up with that full of Jack Daniels and finding out about an hour ago.
Another republican tactic. When someone makes a strong statement about a republican, they are getting "emotional." When the republicans make a statement it's principled. I could care two rat's asses about Palin's future. The right wing nuts have expended tons of resources to keep her name in the media since the election and it has backfired. She is the second GOP governor to hit the skids as of late. They party is imploding, yet they keep hoping for Obama to trip up big, instead putting forth some new ideas that will help get us out of this mess.
I don't think it was a move she discussed with the heads of the Republican Party... the Lt. Gov didn't even know what was coming until the last minute. I think she's feeling the heat as the Feds poke deeper into business actions she and her husband was involved in while she was running for the Governor's Mansion. I do agree that this is another black eye for the Republican Party. We'll see.
I seem to remember after Watergate and the election of Carter there was talk of the demise of the GOP.Same thing after Bush II, or was that Reagan, was elected there was talk of the demise of the Dem party. I have no doubt that in due time a prominent Dem or 2 will fall from grace also. So what's the point of the visceral name calling directed towards your hated enemy when your side will be in the same position in the near future.
Go ahead and do what partisans do. I find it very entertaining.
What I think she's doing is putting herself in a position to exploit any future opportunities whether it's a future run for office or as king maker of sorts with her demonstrated fund raising abilities. Smart move IMO and hell i came up with that full of Jack Daniels and finding out about an hour ago.
Here, put this on.
Besides, I don't think this is a post designed for reasonable thought. Once the facts of her departure emerges, then we will have reasonable discussion. But until then. Fuck that hoe.
-VG
Here, put this on.
Besides, I don't think this is a post designed for reasonable thought. Once the facts of her departure emerges, then we will have reasonable discussion. But until then. Fuck that hoe.
-VG
Dude you funny.
what she do to you to bring that kind of hate out
I didn't hear the name Vegas Guy mentioned in any of those YouTube videos.
What you're mad at is that during the recent campaign for President she said some things about Barack Obama trying to cast him in a negative light.
That must be a capital offense in Obamaland.
Thanks for sharing the basis for your heart felt hatred VG. It was very illuminating for me.
What you're mad at is that during the recent campaign for President she said some things about Barack Obama trying to cast him in a negative light.
That must be a capital offense in Obamaland.
Thanks for sharing the basis for your heart felt hatred VG. It was very illuminating for me.
It's politics boy. Not about heart felt. But whatever makes a white boy illuminated huh?
-VG
<font size="5"><Center>
Alaska's governor Sarah Palin resigns,
dooming her presidential pipe dream</font size></center>
Sarah Palin announces that she is resigning as Governor of Alaska.
Some Republican insiders say this dooms any hopes of a presidential
bid.
New York Daily News
BY Thomas M. Defrank
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF
Saturday, July 4th 2009, 4:00 AM
Sarah Palin's bizarre bailout dooms her chances of ever being President, Republican mandarins said Friday - but she was already finished.
The Alaska governor's disastrous star turn as John McCain's running mate, followed by her lurching, controversial encore on the national scene, had already sealed her fate - except, perhaps, with the GOP's most far-right wing.
Still, the experts were unanimously stunned to hear her walk off the job with 16 months left in her term - shrinking her résumé even more and surrendering the best platform she has beyond her double-edged celebrity status.
<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">"If you aspire to the highest office in the land, then suddenly think your lieutenant governor can do a better job</span> - <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">not exactly a profile in courage,"</span> one party pro told the Daily News.
Few GOP insiders were surprised Palin decided against running for reelection. The Alaska statehouse is too isolated a locale for any politician aspiring to high national office, they said.
"You need to be in the Lower 48 to be credible politically," a senior adviser to several Republican Presidents noted.
But quitting mid-term with a rambling rant is not the way to get there.
<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">"She proved she couldn't play in the big leagues last fall and now she's proven it again," one of the party's most prominent kingmakers said. "If you can't even handle a governorship, there's no way you can handle the White House</span>.
"She couldn't win - but now she can't even run," added the official, who once was among her most fervent boosters.
"She has an incredibly thin résumé, a serious lack of gravitas, no coherent philosophy and the people around her are amateurs," another top Republican pol argued. "She's finished."
tdefrank@nydailynews.com
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ut_you_already_knew_that.html#ixzz0KHUPeoSD&C
Alaska's governor Sarah Palin resigns,
dooming her presidential pipe dream</font size></center>
Sarah Palin announces that she is resigning as Governor of Alaska.
Some Republican insiders say this dooms any hopes of a presidential
bid.
New York Daily News
BY Thomas M. Defrank
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF
Saturday, July 4th 2009, 4:00 AM
Sarah Palin's bizarre bailout dooms her chances of ever being President, Republican mandarins said Friday - but she was already finished.
The Alaska governor's disastrous star turn as John McCain's running mate, followed by her lurching, controversial encore on the national scene, had already sealed her fate - except, perhaps, with the GOP's most far-right wing.
Still, the experts were unanimously stunned to hear her walk off the job with 16 months left in her term - shrinking her résumé even more and surrendering the best platform she has beyond her double-edged celebrity status.
<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">"If you aspire to the highest office in the land, then suddenly think your lieutenant governor can do a better job</span> - <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">not exactly a profile in courage,"</span> one party pro told the Daily News.
Few GOP insiders were surprised Palin decided against running for reelection. The Alaska statehouse is too isolated a locale for any politician aspiring to high national office, they said.
"You need to be in the Lower 48 to be credible politically," a senior adviser to several Republican Presidents noted.
But quitting mid-term with a rambling rant is not the way to get there.
<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">"She proved she couldn't play in the big leagues last fall and now she's proven it again," one of the party's most prominent kingmakers said. "If you can't even handle a governorship, there's no way you can handle the White House</span>.
"She couldn't win - but now she can't even run," added the official, who once was among her most fervent boosters.
"She has an incredibly thin résumé, a serious lack of gravitas, no coherent philosophy and the people around her are amateurs," another top Republican pol argued. "She's finished."
tdefrank@nydailynews.com
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ut_you_already_knew_that.html#ixzz0KHUPeoSD&C
`
Friday July 03, 2009
Sarah Palin’s jaw-dropping announcement that she is quitting her job as
Alaska governor before finishing even her first term has divided Republican
ranks and the wider political community in a very familiar fashion.
Many establishment GOP operatives and political commentators of various
stripes were withering, both about the decision and the way she announced
it—in a jittery, hyperkinetic news conference that rambled between self-
congratulation and bitter accusations at the foes she says are eager to
destroy her.
<font size="4">On the One Hand</font size>
The performance, by these lights, adds credence to the claims of some
associates that Palin—burned by the intense scrutiny on her and the
crossfire that swirls around her—is so fed up that she's ready to get out
of elective politics. Even if it's only the small stage of Alaska politics she
hopes to escape, skeptics say Friday’s events also diminished and perhaps
even demolished what was left of her viability as a 2012 presidential candiate.
<font size="4">On the Other Hand</font size>
But her defenders believed an unorthodox move, even if risky, has a clear
logic and may only further increase her standing with conservatives who
don’t care what establishment figures in or out of the GOP think. Leaving
the governor’s office at the end of this month leaves her free to travel the
country, command large speaking fees, and begin the process of rallying
her devotees without pesky home-state opponents criticizing every move.
<font size="4">But Others Believe</font size>
But some believe Palin, for all the loose and improvisational feel of her news
conference, was making a calculated guess that she is now bigger than
Alaska’s small and remote political stage can handle.
With a recent book deal and ability for paid speaking engagements giving
her great financial freedom, reasoned GOP communications strategist Carl
Forti, “If she wants to run for national office it makes sense to get out of
Alaska and around the lower 48. Resigning makes that possible.”
FULL STORY: http://www.nj.com/us-politics/index.ssf/2009/07/palin_resignation_splits_gop.html
`
Friday July 03, 2009
Sarah Palin’s jaw-dropping announcement that she is quitting her job as
Alaska governor before finishing even her first term has divided Republican
ranks and the wider political community in a very familiar fashion.
Many establishment GOP operatives and political commentators of various
stripes were withering, both about the decision and the way she announced
it—in a jittery, hyperkinetic news conference that rambled between self-
congratulation and bitter accusations at the foes she says are eager to
destroy her.
<font size="4">On the One Hand</font size>
The performance, by these lights, adds credence to the claims of some
associates that Palin—burned by the intense scrutiny on her and the
crossfire that swirls around her—is so fed up that she's ready to get out
of elective politics. Even if it's only the small stage of Alaska politics she
hopes to escape, skeptics say Friday’s events also diminished and perhaps
even demolished what was left of her viability as a 2012 presidential candiate.
<font size="4">On the Other Hand</font size>
But her defenders believed an unorthodox move, even if risky, has a clear
logic and may only further increase her standing with conservatives who
don’t care what establishment figures in or out of the GOP think. Leaving
the governor’s office at the end of this month leaves her free to travel the
country, command large speaking fees, and begin the process of rallying
her devotees without pesky home-state opponents criticizing every move.
<font size="4">But Others Believe</font size>
But some believe Palin, for all the loose and improvisational feel of her news
conference, was making a calculated guess that she is now bigger than
Alaska’s small and remote political stage can handle.
With a recent book deal and ability for paid speaking engagements giving
her great financial freedom, reasoned GOP communications strategist Carl
Forti, “If she wants to run for national office it makes sense to get out of
Alaska and around the lower 48. Resigning makes that possible.”
FULL STORY: http://www.nj.com/us-politics/index.ssf/2009/07/palin_resignation_splits_gop.html
`
BigUNC
Don't bother debating Vegas, and Thought. They will NEVER be happy with anything that goes on at Washington. Liberals have to have a demon to fight to gain popularity, and power amongst the ranks of every day Americans. They can't just be happy that they got a political victory. Liberals are not on track for the pursuit of happiness, rather the pursuit of overwhelming power. That is why people like Vegas, and Thought will never be happy with the current situation.
Don't bother debating Vegas, and Thought. They will NEVER be happy with anything that goes on at Washington. Liberals have to have a demon to fight to gain popularity, and power amongst the ranks of every day Americans. They can't just be happy that they got a political victory. Liberals are not on track for the pursuit of happiness, rather the pursuit of overwhelming power. That is why people like Vegas, and Thought will never be happy with the current situation.
source: The Consortium News
And I will bet money that the GOP had something to do with that Honduran coup!
You are incredible! You know what this is called in psychology? It is called projecting. You are projecting the exact same things that the conservative republicans do on someone else. The way the GOP lambasted Clinton over Monica Lewinsky. The way they tried to destroy Hillary during the Clinton administration, the New York Senate race and during the 2008 presidential race. The way they made light of John Kerry's and Max Cleland's military service. They way Bill Bennet said "You could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." They way they said President Obama attended a madrasa, he as wasn’t born in the US and Michelle Obama was an angry militant. Have you forgotten? Talk about needing an enemy.
Ass, don’t you think that the GOP played you all for a fool? Even thought I do not agree with most of what they say, don’t you think that one of your Senators, Kay Bailey Hutchison or even Elizabeth Dole would have been a more legitimate choice as presidential candidate? Palin was a shell. A young attractive woman with little or no knowledge of critical national and international issues? Just a pretty face, kind of like Dan Quayle. The GOP has been caught up in selling personality for so long, that they got burn this time around. No one hates Palin. You people act as if she is above scrutiny. But of course projecting that everyone is out to get her allows the republicans to rally the faithful around another stupid issue, and deflect from that actual issues that they know they have no ideas for.
And about ultimate power as you describe it. The republicans have been plotting for 30 years to get the supreme court stacked with right wing, corporatist leaning judges ever since the civil rights era of the 1960s. The republicans rarely have a total majority in Washington, because their platform does not appeal to the majority of Americans. It's all laid out below, not by me, but by a conservative republican Supreme Court Justice Powell. Read, if you want to learn something. More projecting.
source: Reclaim Democracy.org
The Powell Memo
(also known as the Powell Manifesto)
(also known as the Powell Manifesto)
Powell Memo published August 23, 1971
This page and our introduction were published April 3, 2004
Introduction
In 1971, Lewis F. Powell, then a corporate lawyer and member of the boards of 11 corporations, wrote a memo to his friend Eugene Sydnor, Jr., the Director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The memorandum was dated August 23, 1971, two months prior to Powell's nomination by President Nixon to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Powell Memo did not become available to the public until long after his confirmation to the Court. It was leaked to Jack Anderson, a liberal syndicated columnist, who stirred interest in the document when he cited it as reason to doubt Powell's legal objectivity. Anderson cautioned that Powell "might use his position on the Supreme Court to put his ideas into practice...in behalf of business interests."
Though Powell's memo was not the sole influence, the Chamber and corporate activists took his advice to heart and began building a powerful array of institutions designed to shift public attitudes and beliefs over the course of years and decades. The memo influenced or inspired the creation of the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academe, and other powerful organizations. Their long-term focus began paying off handsomely in the 1980s, in coordination with the Reagan Administration's "hands-off business" philosophy.
Most notable about these institutions was their focus on education, shifting values, and movement-building - a focus we share, though usually with contrasting goals. One of our great frustrations is that "progressive" foundations and funders have failed to learn from the success of these corporate institutions and decline to fund the Democracy Movement that we and a number of similarly-focused organizations are attempting to build. Instead, they overwhelmingly focus on damage control, band-aids and short-term results which provide little hope of the systemic change we so desperately need to reverse the trend of growing corporate dominance.
We see depressingly little sign of change. Progressive institutions eagerly embrace tools like the web and e-mail as hopes for turning the nation in a progressive direction. They will not. They are tools that can and must be used to raise funds and mobilize people more effectively (and we rely on them heavily), but tools and tactics are no substitute for long-term vision and strategy.
So did Powell's political views influence his judicial decisions? The evidence is mixed. Powell did embrace expansion of corporate privilege and wrote the majority opinion in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, a 1978 decision that effectively invented a First Amendment "right" for corporations to influence ballot questions. On social issues, he was a moderate, whose votes often surprised his backers.
________________________________________________
Confidential Memorandum:
Attack of American Free Enterprise System
________________________________________________
Confidential Memorandum:
Attack of American Free Enterprise System
________________________________________________
DATE: August 23, 1971
TO: Mr. Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., Chairman, Education Committee, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
FROM: Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
This memorandum is submitted at your request as a basis for the discussion on August 24 with Mr. Booth (executive vice president) and others at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The purpose is to identify the problem, and suggest possible avenues of action for further consideration.
Dimensions of the Attack
No thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack.1 This varies in scope, intensity, in the techniques employed, and in the level of visibility.
There always have been some who opposed the American system, and preferred socialism or some form of statism (communism or fascism). Also, there always have been critics of the system, whose criticism has been wholesome and constructive so long as the objective was to improve rather than to subvert or destroy.
But what now concerns us is quite new in the history of America. We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts.
Sources of the Attack
The sources are varied and diffused. They include, not unexpectedly, the Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system, both political and economic. These extremists of the left are far more numerous, better financed, and increasingly are more welcomed and encouraged by other elements of society, than ever before in our history. But they remain a small minority, and are not yet the principal cause for concern.
The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism come from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians. In most of these groups the movement against the system is participated in only by minorities. Yet, these often are the most articulate, the most vocal, the most prolific in their writing and speaking.
Moreover, much of the media-for varying motives and in varying degrees-either voluntarily accords unique publicity to these "attackers," or at least allows them to exploit the media for their purposes. This is especially true of television, which now plays such a predominant role in shaping the thinking, attitudes and emotions of our people.
One of the bewildering paradoxes of our time is the extent to which the enterprise system tolerates, if not participates in, its own destruction.
The campuses from which much of the criticism emanates are supported by (i) tax funds generated largely from American business, and (ii) contributions from capital funds controlled or generated by American business. The boards of trustees of our universities overwhelmingly are composed of men and women who are leaders in the system.
Most of the media, including the national TV systems, are owned and theoretically controlled by corporations which depend upon profits, and the enterprise system to survive.
Tone of the Attack
This memorandum is not the place to document in detail the tone, character, or intensity of the attack. The following quotations will suffice to give one a general idea:
William Kunstler, warmly welcomed on campuses and listed in a recent student poll as the "American lawyer most admired," incites audiences as follows:
"You must learn to fight in the streets, to revolt, to shoot guns. We will learn to do all of the things that property owners fear."2 The New Leftists who heed Kunstler's advice increasingly are beginning to act -- not just against military recruiting offices and manufacturers of munitions, but against a variety of businesses: "Since February, 1970, branches (of Bank of America) have been attacked 39 times, 22 times with explosive devices and 17 times with fire bombs or by arsonists."3 Although New Leftist spokesmen are succeeding in radicalizing thousands of the young, the greater cause for concern is the hostility of respectable liberals and social reformers. It is the sum total of their views and influence which could indeed fatally weaken or destroy the system.
A chilling description of what is being taught on many of our campuses was written by Stewart Alsop:
"Yale, like every other major college, is graduating scores of bright young men who are practitioners of 'the politics of despair.' These young men despise the American political and economic system . . . (their) minds seem to be wholly closed. They live, not by rational discussion, but by mindless slogans."4 A recent poll of students on 12 representative campuses reported that: "Almost half the students favored socialization of basic U.S. industries."5
A visiting professor from England at Rockford College gave a series of lectures entitled "The Ideological War Against Western Society," in which he documents the extent to which members of the intellectual community are waging ideological warfare against the enterprise system and the values of western society. In a foreword to these lectures, famed Dr. Milton Friedman of Chicago warned: "It (is) crystal clear that the foundations of our free society are under wide-ranging and powerful attack -- not by Communist or any other conspiracy but by misguided individuals parroting one another and unwittingly serving ends they would never intentionally promote."6
Perhaps the single most effective antagonist of American business is Ralph Nader, who -- thanks largely to the media -- has become a legend in his own time and an idol of millions of Americans. A recent article in Fortune speaks of Nader as follows:
"The passion that rules in him -- and he is a passionate man -- is aimed at smashing utterly the target of his hatred, which is corporate power. He thinks, and says quite bluntly, that a great many corporate executives belong in prison -- for defrauding the consumer with shoddy merchandise, poisoning the food supply with chemical additives, and willfully manufacturing unsafe products that will maim or kill the buyer. He emphasizes that he is not talking just about 'fly-by-night hucksters' but the top management of blue chip business."7
A frontal assault was made on our government, our system of justice, and the free enterprise system by Yale Professor Charles Reich in his widely publicized book: "The Greening of America," published last winter.
The foregoing references illustrate the broad, shotgun attack on the system itself. There are countless examples of rifle shots which undermine confidence and confuse the public. Favorite current targets are proposals for tax incentives through changes in depreciation rates and investment credits. These are usually described in the media as "tax breaks," "loop holes" or "tax benefits" for the benefit of business. * As viewed by a columnist in the Post, such tax measures would benefit "only the rich, the owners of big companies."8
It is dismaying that many politicians make the same argument that tax measures of this kind benefit only "business," without benefit to "the poor." The fact that this is either political demagoguery or economic illiteracy is of slight comfort. This setting of the "rich" against the "poor," of business against the people, is the cheapest and most dangerous kind of politics.
The Apathy and Default of Business
What has been the response of business to this massive assault upon its fundamental economics, upon its philosophy, upon its right to continue to manage its own affairs, and indeed upon its integrity?
The painfully sad truth is that business, including the boards of directors' and the top executives of corporations great and small and business organizations at all levels, often have responded -- if at all -- by appeasement, ineptitude and ignoring the problem. There are, of course, many exceptions to this sweeping generalization. But the net effect of such response as has been made is scarcely visible.
In all fairness, it must be recognized that businessmen have not been trained or equipped to conduct guerrilla warfare with those who propagandize against the system, seeking insidiously and constantly to sabotage it. The traditional role of business executives has been to manage, to produce, to sell, to create jobs, to make profits, to improve the standard of living, to be community leaders, to serve on charitable and educational boards, and generally to be good citizens. They have performed these tasks very well indeed.
But they have shown little stomach for hard-nose contest with their critics, and little skill in effective intellectual and philosophical debate.
A column recently carried by the Wall Street Journal was entitled: "Memo to GM: Why Not Fight Back?"9 Although addressed to GM by name, the article was a warning to all American business. Columnist St. John said:
"General Motors, like American business in general, is 'plainly in trouble' because intellectual bromides have been substituted for a sound intellectual exposition of its point of view." Mr. St. John then commented on the tendency of business leaders to compromise with and appease critics. He cited the concessions which Nader wins from management, and spoke of "the fallacious view many businessmen take toward their critics." He drew a parallel to the mistaken tactics of many college administrators: "College administrators learned too late that such appeasement serves to destroy free speech, academic freedom and genuine scholarship. One campus radical demand was conceded by university heads only to be followed by a fresh crop which soon escalated to what amounted to a demand for outright surrender."
One need not agree entirely with Mr. St. John's analysis. But most observers of the American scene will agree that the essence of his message is sound. American business "plainly in trouble"; the response to the wide range of critics has been ineffective, and has included appeasement; the time has come -- indeed, it is long overdue -- for the wisdom, ingenuity and resources of American business to be marshalled against those who would destroy it.
Responsibility of Business Executives
What specifically should be done? The first essential -- a prerequisite to any effective action -- is for businessmen to confront this problem as a primary responsibility of corporate management.
The overriding first need is for businessmen to recognize that the ultimate issue may be survival -- survival of what we call the free enterprise system, and all that this means for the strength and prosperity of America and the freedom of our people.
The day is long past when the chief executive officer of a major corporation discharges his responsibility by maintaining a satisfactory growth of profits, with due regard to the corporation's public and social responsibilities. If our system is to survive, top management must be equally concerned with protecting and preserving the system itself. This involves far more than an increased emphasis on "public relations" or "governmental affairs" -- two areas in which corporations long have invested substantial sums.
A significant first step by individual corporations could well be the designation of an executive vice president (ranking with other executive VP's) whose responsibility is to counter-on the broadest front-the attack on the enterprise system. The public relations department could be one of the foundations assigned to this executive, but his responsibilities should encompass some of the types of activities referred to subsequently in this memorandum. His budget and staff should be adequate to the task. Possible Role of the Chamber of Commerce
But independent and uncoordinated activity by individual corporations, as important as this is, will not be sufficient. Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.
Moreover, there is the quite understandable reluctance on the part of any one corporation to get too far out in front and to make itself too visible a target.
The role of the National Chamber of Commerce is therefore vital. Other national organizations (especially those of various industrial and commercial groups) should join in the effort, but no other organizations appear to be as well situated as the Chamber. It enjoys a strategic position, with a fine reputation and a broad base of support. Also -- and this is of immeasurable merit -- there are hundreds of local Chambers of Commerce which can play a vital supportive role.
It hardly need be said that before embarking upon any program, the Chamber should study and analyze possible courses of action and activities, weighing risks against probable effectiveness and feasibility of each. Considerations of cost, the assurance of financial and other support from members, adequacy of staffing and similar problems will all require the most thoughtful consideration.
The Campus
The assault on the enterprise system was not mounted in a few months. It has gradually evolved over the past two decades, barely perceptible in its origins and benefiting (sic) from a gradualism that provoked little awareness much less any real reaction.
Although origins, sources and causes are complex and interrelated, and obviously difficult to identify without careful qualification, there is reason to believe that the campus is the single most dynamic source. The social science faculties usually include members who are unsympathetic to the enterprise system. They may range from a Herbert Marcuse, Marxist faculty member at the University of California at San Diego, and convinced socialists, to the ambivalent liberal critic who finds more to condemn than to commend. Such faculty members need not be in a majority. They are often personally attractive and magnetic; they are stimulating teachers, and their controversy attracts student following; they are prolific writers and lecturers; they author many of the textbooks, and they exert enormous influence -- far out of proportion to their numbers -- on their colleagues and in the academic world.
Social science faculties (the political scientist, economist, sociologist and many of the historians) tend to be liberally oriented, even when leftists are not present. This is not a criticism per se, as the need for liberal thought is essential to a balanced viewpoint. The difficulty is that "balance" is conspicuous by its absence on many campuses, with relatively few members being of conservatives or moderate persuasion and even the relatively few often being less articulate and aggressive than their crusading colleagues.
This situation extending back many years and with the imbalance gradually worsening, has had an enormous impact on millions of young American students. In an article in Barron's Weekly, seeking an answer to why so many young people are disaffected even to the point of being revolutionaries, it was said: "Because they were taught that way."10 Or, as noted by columnist Stewart Alsop, writing about his alma mater: "Yale, like every other major college, is graduating scores' of bright young men ... who despise the American political and economic system."
As these "bright young men," from campuses across the country, seek opportunities to change a system which they have been taught to distrust -- if not, indeed "despise" -- they seek employment in the centers of the real power and influence in our country, namely: (i) with the news media, especially television; (ii) in government, as "staffers" and consultants at various levels; (iii) in elective politics; (iv) as lecturers and writers, and (v) on the faculties at various levels of education.
Many do enter the enterprise system -- in business and the professions -- and for the most part they quickly discover the fallacies of what they have been taught. But those who eschew the mainstream of the system often remain in key positions of influence where they mold public opinion and often shape governmental action. In many instances, these "intellectuals" end up in regulatory agencies or governmental departments with large authority over the business system they do not believe in.
If the foregoing analysis is approximately sound, a priority task of business -- and organizations such as the Chamber -- is to address the campus origin of this hostility. Few things are more sanctified in American life than academic freedom. It would be fatal to attack this as a principle. But if academic freedom is to retain the qualities of "openness," "fairness" and "balance" -- which are essential to its intellectual significance -- there is a great opportunity for constructive action. The thrust of such action must be to restore the qualities just mentioned to the academic communities.
What Can Be Done About the Campus
The ultimate responsibility for intellectual integrity on the campus must remain on the administrations and faculties of our colleges and universities. But organizations such as the Chamber can assist and activate constructive change in many ways, including the following:
Staff of Scholars
The Chamber should consider establishing a staff of highly qualified scholars in the social sciences who do believe in the system. It should include several of national reputation whose authorship would be widely respected -- even when disagreed with.
Staff of Speakers
There also should be a staff of speakers of the highest competency. These might include the scholars, and certainly those who speak for the Chamber would have to articulate the product of the scholars.
Speaker's Bureau
In addition to full-time staff personnel, the Chamber should have a Speaker's Bureau which should include the ablest and most effective advocates from the top echelons of American business.
Evaluation of Textbooks
The staff of scholars (or preferably a panel of independent scholars) should evaluate social science textbooks, especially in economics, political science and sociology. This should be a continuing program.
The objective of such evaluation should be oriented toward restoring the balance essential to genuine academic freedom. This would include assurance of fair and factual treatment of our system of government and our enterprise system, its accomplishments, its basic relationship to individual rights and freedoms, and comparisons with the systems of socialism, fascism and communism. Most of the existing textbooks have some sort of comparisons, but many are superficial, biased and unfair.
We have seen the civil rights movement insist on re-writing many of the textbooks in our universities and schools. The labor unions likewise insist that textbooks be fair to the viewpoints of organized labor. Other interested citizens groups have not hesitated to review, analyze and criticize textbooks and teaching materials. In a democratic society, this can be a constructive process and should be regarded as an aid to genuine academic freedom and not as an intrusion upon it.
If the authors, publishers and users of textbooks know that they will be subjected -- honestly, fairly and thoroughly -- to review and critique by eminent scholars who believe in the American system, a return to a more rational balance can be expected.
Equal Time on the Campus
The Chamber should insist upon equal time on the college speaking circuit. The FBI publishes each year a list of speeches made on college campuses by avowed Communists. The number in 1970 exceeded 100. There were, of course, many hundreds of appearances by leftists and ultra liberals who urge the types of viewpoints indicated earlier in this memorandum. There was no corresponding representation of American business, or indeed by individuals or organizations who appeared in support of the American system of government and business.
Every campus has its formal and informal groups which invite speakers. Each law school does the same thing. Many universities and colleges officially sponsor lecture and speaking programs. We all know the inadequacy of the representation of business in the programs.
It will be said that few invitations would be extended to Chamber speakers.11 This undoubtedly would be true unless the Chamber aggressively insisted upon the right to be heard -- in effect, insisted upon "equal time." University administrators and the great majority of student groups and committees would not welcome being put in the position publicly of refusing a forum to diverse views, indeed, this is the classic excuse for allowing Communists to speak.
The two essential ingredients are (i) to have attractive, articulate and well-informed speakers; and (ii) to exert whatever degree of pressure -- publicly and privately -- may be necessary to assure opportunities to speak. The objective always must be to inform and enlighten, and not merely to propagandize.
Balancing of Faculties
Perhaps the most fundamental problem is the imbalance of many faculties. Correcting this is indeed a long-range and difficult project. Yet, it should be undertaken as a part of an overall program. This would mean the urging of the need for faculty balance upon university administrators and boards of trustees.
The methods to be employed require careful thought, and the obvious pitfalls must be avoided. Improper pressure would be counterproductive. But the basic concepts of balance, fairness and truth are difficult to resist, if properly presented to boards of trustees, by writing and speaking, and by appeals to alumni associations and groups.
This is a long road and not one for the fainthearted. But if pursued with integrity and conviction it could lead to a strengthening of both academic freedom on the campus and of the values which have made America the most productive of all societies.
Graduate Schools of Business
The Chamber should enjoy a particular rapport with the increasingly influential graduate schools of business. Much that has been suggested above applies to such schools.
Should not the Chamber also request specific courses in such schools dealing with the entire scope of the problem addressed by this memorandum? This is now essential training for the executives of the future.
Secondary Education
While the first priority should be at the college level, the trends mentioned above are increasingly evidenced in the high schools. Action programs, tailored to the high schools and similar to those mentioned, should be considered. The implementation thereof could become a major program for local chambers of commerce, although the control and direction -- especially the quality control -- should be retained by the National Chamber.
What Can Be Done About the Public?
Reaching the campus and the secondary schools is vital for the long-term. Reaching the public generally may be more important for the shorter term. The first essential is to establish the staffs of eminent scholars, writers and speakers, who will do the thinking, the analysis, the writing and the speaking. It will also be essential to have staff personnel who are thoroughly familiar with the media, and how most effectively to communicate with the public. Among the more obvious means are the following:
Television
The national television networks should be monitored in the same way that textbooks should be kept under constant surveillance. This applies not merely to so-called educational programs (such as "Selling of the Pentagon"), but to the daily "news analysis" which so often includes the most insidious type of criticism of the enterprise system.12 Whether this criticism results from hostility or economic ignorance, the result is the gradual erosion of confidence in "business" and free enterprise.
This monitoring, to be effective, would require constant examination of the texts of adequate samples of programs. Complaints -- to the media and to the Federal Communications Commission -- should be made promptly and strongly when programs are unfair or inaccurate.
Equal time should be demanded when appropriate. Effort should be made to see that the forum-type programs (the Today Show, Meet the Press, etc.) afford at least as much opportunity for supporters of the American system to participate as these programs do for those who attack it.
Other Media
Radio and the press are also important, and every available means should be employed to challenge and refute unfair attacks, as well as to present the affirmative case through these media.
The Scholarly Journals
It is especially important for the Chamber's "faculty of scholars" to publish. One of the keys to the success of the liberal and leftist faculty members has been their passion for "publication" and "lecturing." A similar passion must exist among the Chamber's scholars.
Incentives might be devised to induce more "publishing" by independent scholars who do believe in the system.
There should be a fairly steady flow of scholarly articles presented to a broad spectrum of magazines and periodicals -- ranging from the popular magazines (Life, Look, Reader's Digest, etc.) to the more intellectual ones (Atlantic, Harper's, Saturday Review, New York, etc.)13 and to the various professional journals.
Books, Paperbacks and Pamphlets
The news stands -- at airports, drugstores, and elsewhere -- are filled with paperbacks and pamphlets advocating everything from revolution to erotic free love. One finds almost no attractive, well-written paperbacks or pamphlets on "our side." It will be difficult to compete with an Eldridge Cleaver or even a Charles Reich for reader attention, but unless the effort is made -- on a large enough scale and with appropriate imagination to assure some success -- this opportunity for educating the public will be irretrievably lost.
Paid Advertisements
Business pays hundreds of millions of dollars to the media for advertisements. Most of this supports specific products; much of it supports institutional image making; and some fraction of it does support the system. But the latter has been more or less tangential, and rarely part of a sustained, major effort to inform and enlighten the American people.
If American business devoted only 10% of its total annual advertising budget to this overall purpose, it would be a statesman-like expenditure.
The Neglected Political Arena
In the final analysis, the payoff -- short-of revolution -- is what government does. Business has been the favorite whipping-boy of many politicians for many years. But the measure of how far this has gone is perhaps best found in the anti-business views now being expressed by several leading candidates for President of the United States.
It is still Marxist doctrine that the "capitalist" countries are controlled by big business. This doctrine, consistently a part of leftist propaganda all over the world, has a wide public following among Americans.
Yet, as every business executive knows, few elements of American society today have as little influence in government as the American businessman, the corporation, or even the millions of corporate stockholders. If one doubts this, let him undertake the role of "lobbyist" for the business point of view before Congressional committees. The same situation obtains in the legislative halls of most states and major cities. One does not exaggerate to say that, in terms of political influence with respect to the course of legislation and government action, the American business executive is truly the "forgotten man."
Current examples of the impotency of business, and of the near-contempt with which businessmen's views are held, are the stampedes by politicians to support almost any legislation related to "consumerism" or to the "environment."
Politicians reflect what they believe to be majority views of their constituents. It is thus evident that most politicians are making the judgment that the public has little sympathy for the businessman or his viewpoint.
The educational programs suggested above would be designed to enlighten public thinking -- not so much about the businessman and his individual role as about the system which he administers, and which provides the goods, services and jobs on which our country depends.
But one should not postpone more direct political action, while awaiting the gradual change in public opinion to be effected through education and information. Business must learn the lesson, long ago learned by labor and other self-interest groups. This is the lesson that political power is necessary; that such power must be assidously (sic) cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination -- without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.
As unwelcome as it may be to the Chamber, it should consider assuming a broader and more vigorous role in the political arena.
Neglected Opportunity in the Courts
American business and the enterprise system have been affected as much by the courts as by the executive and legislative branches of government. Under our constitutional system, especially with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.
Other organizations and groups, recognizing this, have been far more astute in exploiting judicial action than American business. Perhaps the most active exploiters of the judicial system have been groups ranging in political orientation from "liberal" to the far left.
The American Civil Liberties Union is one example. It initiates or intervenes in scores of cases each year, and it files briefs amicus curiae in the Supreme Court in a number of cases during each term of that court. Labor unions, civil rights groups and now the public interest law firms are extremely active in the judicial arena. Their success, often at business' expense, has not been inconsequential.
This is a vast area of opportunity for the Chamber, if it is willing to undertake the role of spokesman for American business and if, in turn, business is willing to provide the funds.
As with respect to scholars and speakers, the Chamber would need a highly competent staff of lawyers. In special situations it should be authorized to engage, to appear as counsel amicus in the Supreme Court, lawyers of national standing and reputation. The greatest care should be exercised in selecting the cases in which to participate, or the suits to institute. But the opportunity merits the necessary effort.
Neglected Stockholder Power
The average member of the public thinks of "business" as an impersonal corporate entity, owned by the very rich and managed by over-paid executives. There is an almost total failure to appreciate that "business" actually embraces -- in one way or another -- most Americans. Those for whom business provides jobs, constitute a fairly obvious class. But the 20 million stockholders -- most of whom are of modest means -- are the real owners, the real entrepreneurs, the real capitalists under our system. They provide the capital which fuels the economic system which has produced the highest standard of living in all history. Yet, stockholders have been as ineffectual as business executives in promoting a genuine understanding of our system or in exercising political influence.
The question which merits the most thorough examination is how can the weight and influence of stockholders -- 20 million voters -- be mobilized to support (i) an educational program and (ii) a political action program.
Individual corporations are now required to make numerous reports to shareholders. Many corporations also have expensive "news" magazines which go to employees and stockholders. These opportunities to communicate can be used far more effectively as educational media.
The corporation itself must exercise restraint in undertaking political action and must, of course, comply with applicable laws. But is it not feasible -- through an affiliate of the Chamber or otherwise -- to establish a national organization of American stockholders and give it enough muscle to be influential?
A More Aggressive Attitude
Business interests -- especially big business and their national trade organizations -- have tried to maintain low profiles, especially with respect to political action.
As suggested in the Wall Street Journal article, it has been fairly characteristic of the average business executive to be tolerant -- at least in public -- of those who attack his corporation and the system. Very few businessmen or business organizations respond in kind. There has been a disposition to appease; to regard the opposition as willing to compromise, or as likely to fade away in due time.
Business has shunted confrontation politics. Business, quite understandably, has been repelled by the multiplicity of non-negotiable "demands" made constantly by self-interest groups of all kinds.
While neither responsible business interests, nor the United States Chamber of Commerce, would engage in the irresponsible tactics of some pressure groups, it is essential that spokesmen for the enterprise system -- at all levels and at every opportunity -- be far more aggressive than in the past.
There should be no hesitation to attack the Naders, the Marcuses and others who openly seek destruction of the system. There should not be the slightest hesitation to press vigorously in all political arenas for support of the enterprise system. Nor should there be reluctance to penalize politically those who oppose it.
Lessons can be learned from organized labor in this respect. The head of the AFL-CIO may not appeal to businessmen as the most endearing or public-minded of citizens. Yet, over many years the heads of national labor organizations have done what they were paid to do very effectively. They may not have been beloved, but they have been respected -- where it counts the most -- by politicians, on the campus, and among the media.
It is time for American business -- which has demonstrated the greatest capacity in all history to produce and to influence consumer decisions -- to apply their great talents vigorously to the preservation of the system itself.
The Cost
The type of program described above (which includes a broadly based combination of education and political action), if undertaken long term and adequately staffed, would require far more generous financial support from American corporations than the Chamber has ever received in the past. High level management participation in Chamber affairs also would be required.
The staff of the Chamber would have to be significantly increased, with the highest quality established and maintained. Salaries would have to be at levels fully comparable to those paid key business executives and the most prestigious faculty members. Professionals of the great skill in advertising and in working with the media, speakers, lawyers and other specialists would have to be recruited.
It is possible that the organization of the Chamber itself would benefit from restructuring. For example, as suggested by union experience, the office of President of the Chamber might well be a full-time career position. To assure maximum effectiveness and continuity, the chief executive officer of the Chamber should not be changed each year. The functions now largely performed by the President could be transferred to a Chairman of the Board, annually elected by the membership. The Board, of course, would continue to exercise policy control.
Quality Control is Essential
Essential ingredients of the entire program must be responsibility and "quality control." The publications, the articles, the speeches, the media programs, the advertising, the briefs filed in courts, and the appearances before legislative committees -- all must meet the most exacting standards of accuracy and professional excellence. They must merit respect for their level of public responsibility and scholarship, whether one agrees with the viewpoints expressed or not.
Relationship to Freedom
The threat to the enterprise system is not merely a matter of economics. It also is a threat to individual freedom.
It is this great truth -- now so submerged by the rhetoric of the New Left and of many liberals -- that must be re-affirmed if this program is to be meaningful.
There seems to be little awareness that the only alternatives to free enterprise are varying degrees of bureaucratic regulation of individual freedom -- ranging from that under moderate socialism to the iron heel of the leftist or rightist dictatorship.
We in America already have moved very far indeed toward some aspects of state socialism, as the needs and complexities of a vast urban society require types of regulation and control that were quite unnecessary in earlier times. In some areas, such regulation and control already have seriously impaired the freedom of both business and labor, and indeed of the public generally. But most of the essential freedoms remain: private ownership, private profit, labor unions, collective bargaining, consumer choice, and a market economy in which competition largely determines price, quality and variety of the goods and services provided the consumer.
In addition to the ideological attack on the system itself (discussed in this memorandum), its essentials also are threatened by inequitable taxation, and -- more recently -- by an inflation which has seemed uncontrollable.14 But whatever the causes of diminishing economic freedom may be, the truth is that freedom as a concept is indivisible. As the experience of the socialist and totalitarian states demonstrates, the contraction and denial of economic freedom is followed inevitably by governmental restrictions on other cherished rights. It is this message, above all others, that must be carried home to the American people.
Conclusion
It hardly need be said that the views expressed above are tentative and suggestive. The first step should be a thorough study. But this would be an exercise in futility unless the Board of Directors of the Chamber accepts the fundamental premise of this paper, namely, that business and the enterprise system are in deep trouble, and the hour is late.
Footnotes[
1 . Variously called: the "free enterprise system," "capitalism," and the "profit system." The American political system of democracy under the rule of law is also under attack, often by the same individuals and organizations who seek to undermine the enterprise system.
2 . Richmond News Leader, June 8, 1970. Column of William F. Buckley, Jr.
3 . N.Y. Times Service article, reprinted Richmond Times-Dispatch, May 17, 1971.
4 . Stewart Alsop, Yale and the Deadly Danger, Newsweek, May 18. 1970.
5 . Editorial, Richmond Times-Dispatch, July 7, 1971.
6 . Dr. Milton Friedman, Prof. of Economics, U. of Chicago, writing a foreword to Dr. Arthur A. Shenfield's Rockford College lectures entitled "The Ideological War Against Western Society," copyrighted 1970 by Rockford College.
7 . Fortune. May, 1971, p. 145. This Fortune analysis of the Nader influence includes a reference to Nader's visit to a college where he was paid a lecture fee of $2,500 for "denouncing America's big corporations in venomous language . . . bringing (rousing and spontaneous) bursts of applause" when he was asked when he planned to run for President.
8 . The Washington Post, Column of William Raspberry, June 28, 1971.
9 . Jeffrey St. John, The Wall Street Journal, May 21, 1971.
* . Italic emphasis added by Mr. Powell.
10 . Barron's National Business and Financial Weekly, "The Total Break with America, The Fifth Annual Conference of Socialist Scholars," Sept. 15, 1969.
11 . On many campuses freedom of speech has been denied to all who express moderate or conservative viewpoints.
12 . It has been estimated that the evening half-hour news programs of the networks reach daily some 50,000,000 Americans.
13 . One illustration of the type of article which should not go unanswered appeared in the popular "The New York" of July 19, 1971. This was entitled "A Populist Manifesto" by ultra liberal Jack Newfield -- who argued that "the root need in our country is 'to redistribute wealth'."
14 . The recent "freeze" of prices and wages may well be justified by the current inflationary crisis. But if imposed as a permanent measure the enterprise system will have sustained a near fatal blow.
Last edited:
We can debate, just don't come in her unarmed. You used to have valid points but now all you have is hate speeches and disjointed dialog straight from wingnut central.
-VG
i still have valid points. Haven't what I said came to past, in regards to this administration? If I really wanted to sound like an ideologue I would simply say that Obama want this country to fail, but I'm still giving him a chance.
BTW, why saying the truth about a situation is called "hate speech"? Am I telling people to kill liberals? Have I threaten you, or thought by any means? Understand this, debating you, thought, or whoever subscribe to the liberal philosophy rarely become personal on my end. If you wanted to come and have a good time in Dallas, I would welcome you like a brother. That goes for everyone on here. I think a lot of the time, people take what I say to heart because I'm attacking their politics. So, it's easy to say that "actin is a hate monger". Me disagreeing with your politics do not make me hate you. In fact, of all things, you should embrace the challenge I give you. Unless, you not that confident in your politics. Now that's another story...