Hundreds boo former Bush chief of staff at University of Massachusetts commencement ceremony

In video, booing is at 1:52 remaining in the video

Andrew Card, President George W. Bush’s former Chief of Staff, was showered with a chorus of boos and catcalls from students and faculty of the University of Massachusetts while receiving an honorary degree Friday. Protesters, who caught the embarrassing scene on video, attached anti-Card signs to their robes and drowned out Provost Charlena Seymour’s remarks about Card’s “public service.” Even faculty sitting on stage joined in on the action, screaming their disapproval while holding signs that read “Card: No Honor, No Degree.”

Card, obviously shaken by the commotion, managed a slight grin while Seymour spoke. He later raised his hand in recognition but sat down without speaking at any length.

After the ceremony, he refused to acknowledge the protests, only saying, “It was a great honor and a privilege to be here.”

The university community was upset with the school’s decision to award Card an honorary degree, given his involvement in spinning intelligence in the lead up to the war in Iraq. Even before the ceremony began, 100 faculty members and students sang anti-war songs, handed out leaflets and waved signs outside the arena where commencement was held.

A graduate of the University of South Carolina, Card was a supporter of UMass in his days as a Massachusetts lawmaker. He served as Bush’s chief of staff from the president’s first inauguration through 2006.

The video below was created by the protesters.

It’s a relief when we see that students and faculty are able to stand up to a decision at a major University and not suffer any punishment. However, the fact that Andrew Card was still given the degree is a bit sick.

Is there any way that he could walk away feeling good about that honorary degree? I would have refused it! The students and faculty made it clear that they did not want him to have that degree, and they are the meat of any University not the administration who make these boneheaded decisions.

One more semi-victory for the good guys.

Source: Raw Story 

Hate Crime Media Cover Up?

I’m not sure what to think about this, I’ll just leave it up to you to decide.

Giuliani to Paul: ‘Take back’ 9/11 comments

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Why did terrorists attack the U.S. on 9/11?

According to Texas Congressman Ron Paul, “They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East.”

Restrained, but clearly angry, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani jumped in, calling Paul’s statement “extraordinary.”

“As someone who lived through the attack of September 11 — that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq — I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th,” he said.

Giuliani’s fiery response prompted applause and the following demand from the former mayor: “I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.”

In response, Paul stood by his comments and said that “if we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem … They come and they attack us because we’re over there.”

Giuliani isn’t grounded in reality.

Source: CNN 

The Ron Paul Effect

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who barely registers in public opinion polls of the Republican presidential field, won last Thursday night’s debate.

That was the unmistakable conclusion of the online poll posted by debate sponsor MSNBC, which registered Paul with higher positive ratings and lower negative numbers than any of the other nine candidates on the stage.

ABC’s post-debate Internet survey showed an even clearer victory for Paul, with the congressman taking more than 9,400 of 11,000 votes as of 12:30 p.m. Monday. (Rudy Giuliani is the next ranked candidate, with barely 150 votes.)

So are the polls missing a Paul boomlet? Is the famously contrarian ob-gyn — a libertarian nicknamed “Dr. No” because of his propensity to vote against anything he believes contradicts the Constitution’s original intent — poised to surge into contention in the GOP field?

Not likely. What’s more likely, based on Web traffic over the past week, is that Paul supporters have mastered the art of “viral marketing,” using Internet savvy and blog postings to create at least the perception of momentum for his long-shot presidential bid.

The Ron Paul Effect

Since online polls aren’t scientific — people choose to take them, and many people vote multiple times — doing well in them doesn’t necessarily mean a campaign is on the move.

But Internet buzz can have a carry-over effect, said Peter Greenberger, an online strategist at New Media Strategies and a former Democratic political operative.

“It’s evidence of something — either passionate supporters, active supporters, or just one very savvy supporter who’s able to vote several thousand times,” Greenberger said. “If it leads to one or two stories in the mainstream media, that could lead to a bounce online, and could lead to some fundraising successes.”

With strong support among libertarians who are unhappy with the top-tier Republican contenders, Paul has a robust online presence.

His MySpace profile boasts nearly 12,000 “friends.” Today, his name ranks in the Top 10 among blog search terms at Technorati.com, behind Paris Hilton but ahead of Mario Lopez.

After Thursday night’s debate, the comment sections of several major news organizations — including ABC’s — were inundated with pro-Paul messages.

Viewers raved about Paul’s commitment to abolishing the IRS, his steadfast opposition to a national ID card, and a forthright tone that bloggers said set him apart from the other candidates onstage.

The Paul campaign did not immediately respond to a phone call and e-mail message seeking comment.

ABC and other major news sources are downplaying the effect that congressmen Ron Paul’s victory might have. They constantly say “He can’t win”, and that the polls are a fluke.

Is the news media that far into  someones pocket that they need to toss in their opinions on politics in order to prevent Ron Paul from even having a chance? This is a sick and disgusting practice that needs to be turned around because it crushes the spirit of democracy.

I don’t know what’s going to happen in the next few weeks, but something is going to have the change in the way the news media presents these candidates…. declaring “HE CAN’T WIN” this early because he hasn’t been in the national spot light yet isn’t conjecture…. it’s  just ignorance.

Source: ABCNews