HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » madfloridian » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 83 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: Florida
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 86,339

About Me

Retired teacher who sees much harm to public education from the "reforms" being pushed by corporations. Privatizing education is the wrong way to go. Children can not be treated as products, thought of in terms of profit and loss.

Journal Archives

College town hall. These passionate young people...will the party embrace them?

There are videos in the Video forum, in the Bernie forum, and a really powerful one here in the Primaries forum.

This was a town hall originating at George Mason University and being broadcast to other colleges. It is moving and powerful.

Since the stream kept breaking from overload, MSNBC finally picked it up.

As I watched it my mind kept coming back here to the attitude that those of us who support Bernie are not really truly real Democrats. There is some name-calling, some ridicule on both sides.....but there's recently a new theme. The underlying idea is that Bernie is not really a Democrat and is taking part in a political activity that belongs only to registered Democrats.

It has hit me that the Democrats have benefited from his votes with them, even though they did not at the beginning want him to be part of their caucus. He stands for Democratic ideals that too many in our party have moved away from through the years.

This picture hit home as did the huge crowds and enthusiasm.

About the picture:

Muslim Students Demand Bernie Sanders Denounce Islamophobia In The 2016 Race

But in one of the most emotional moments of the night, George Mason University senior Remaz Abdelgader stood up and demanded to know how Sanders would address the rising tide of Islamophobia in the U.S. Her voice breaking, she spoke of how hurt she feels when she hears anti-Muslim rhetoric from other candidates for president — including GOP frontrunners Ben Carson, who has said he doesn’t want a Muslim as president of the U.S.

“Being an American is such a strong part of my identity, but I want to create a change in this society,” she said. “I’m so tired of listening to this rhetoric saying I can’t be president one day, that I should not be in office. It makes me so angry and upset. This is my country.”

Sanders insisted she join him on stage and gave her a hug as the crowd of a couple hundred stood and cheered.

BTW that "couple of hundred" is pure baloney. Watch the videos.

Then, in response to her question, Sanders does something he rarely does: he spoke personally about his Jewish faith and family history, which includes losing relatives in the Holocaust, and said Americans need to learn from that past. “If we stand for anything we have to stand together and end all forms of racism in this country,” he said. “I will lead that effort as president.”

Sanders also talked about the ways people in power have used racism and prejudice throughout U.S. history to keep working class people from uniting.

This ridicule of us as supporters is getting worse. I would imagine the same ones would likely not be inclusive toward this crowd of enthusiastic young people, many of whom said in the comments that Bernie was the most honest man they had ever heard speak.

My late husband and I learned a lot from the Howard Dean campaign. My husband attended every DEC meeting until he got too ill to attend. I had been getting the emails from the district Democrats, but they stopped when he could not attend. We were told they were not allowed to send emails to those who missed more than 3 meetings. We did not beg for an exception because we were dealing with other stuff then.

The leaders of our strong Dean campaign here went to chair the DEC. Everytime they tried to bring even moderate change they were slapped down. You see, this area of Florida was one of the very first to embrace the then newly formed DLC. One even called it the "wind in our sails"...and he said if people didn't like it stick it to them anyway. The new chair finally stepped down when threatened with violence from the old guard here.

So it's a really simple question. Watch the video, see those wonderful young people who care about their country. Think before ridiculing those of us who support Bernie Sanders.

In my mind now it really comes down to this.

If you demand our votes for the nominee whoever it may be....then you should treat us as a respected part of the Democratic party. How you treat us is just about how you would treat those passionate young people.

Are they wanted in the party or not? It's really a simple thing to decide.

This video starts when the rally begins, before Bernie arrives. It also shows the big hug he gave Remaz Abdelgader.

Bernie Sanders at George Mason University today.

The stream at first died when it hit about 30,000 I think. Then MSNBC streamed it.

Large enthusiastic group. He announces his plan to legalize marijuana. Lots more.

Part 1

Part 2

Things are different this time.

Many times here at DU I see myself and others treated as outside the party. I see the many times it is said or implied that Bernie himself is racist. I have seen a difference between this and other primaries. There are always words between supporters, but this time there is a contempt bordering on hatred.

We are looked upon as interlopers who are meddling in party affairs that were already settled.

So many polls all at once pushing Hillary way way ahead, so many unions jumping in to support her. More congressional endorsements every day. It's like the blessings of heaven came down this week for Hillary.

It's meant to be a turning point in the primary. It was meant to be a clear statement of the outcome.

If it turns out that way, then that's the way it is. Meanwhile it's like the polls, the union endorsements, don't include the people behind Bernie candidacy....us.

It was considered time this week to again make clear the inevitable.

Not so sure how that's going to work.

One thing esp. needs to be considered..what happens to the new folks Bernie brings in.

I am among Democrats who made a primary pick and then voted for the winner. Always.

There's something different this time. Bernie's campaign is bringing in a lot of people who are either inactive Democrats or independents who will register as Democrats in order to vote for him.

That should be considered a good thing by the national Democratic party. Yet it doesn't seem to be that way.

Unfortunately it seems that these newer voters are attacked as not being real Democrats. Bernie is more and more here being criticized for that as well. The party has been happy to get his vote through the years, but many members are not welcoming the newer people he is bringing in.

It's an important moment for Democrats. If they want these folks overall to remain as Democrats and help get the party back in control of the House and Senate....they can not ridicule, mock, or express contempt for these people.

There's a lot of back and forth on both sides, but those of us supporting Bernie are fighting against a great big huge money machine. Our candidate recently has been very outspoken against the big money control. Suddenly nearly all polls are overwhelmingly against him.

There's a lot at play, but the bottom line is that this is a chance for a big membership increase for the party. People might remain if they are treated with respect.

I believe the Democrats have gone too far to the right and away from standing for things that are good for and needed by the people of the party. I have always done the falling in line thing, but I am not sure how some of these people will handle it.

I don't talk much politics locally as my district is ultra red. But recently 4 people with almost no prompting have expressed interest in and support for Bernie Sanders. They are Republicans, nearly everyone here is one. But they like what he's saying, and they feel their own party has been taken over by extremists.

The Monmouth poll included NO new voters. Only 24% age 49 and under.

Monmouth Iowa Poll

The Monmouth University Poll
was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute from October 22
to 25, 2015 with a statewide random sample of 400 Iowa voters drawn from a list of registered Democratic voters who voted in at least one of the last two state primary elections and indicate they are likely to attend the Democratic presidential caucuses
in February 2016.
This includes 300 contacted by a live interviewer on a landline telephone and 100 contacted by a live interviewer on a cell phone, in English. Monmouth is responsible for all aspects of the survey design, data weighting and analysis. Final sample is weighted for age and gender based on state registration list information on the pool of voters who participate in primary elections. Data collection support provid
ed by Braun Research (field) and Aristotle (voter list). For
results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributab
le to sampling has a maximum margin of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points (unadjusted for sample design). Sampling error can be larger for sub-groups (see table below). In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in
conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

Also Poll Demographics indicate that only 24% of those polled were age 49 and under.

Just those two categories alone leave out many Bernie Sanders supporters.

When a poll giving Hillary a huge lead doesn't include new caucus voters, it needs to be analyzed.

The Loras survey does include more recently registered caucus voters.

Survey conducted with a random sample of registered voters, with phone numbers drawn from official Iowa Secretary of State voter files of those who voted in either the 2012 or 2014 general election or who had registered since December 1, 2014.

This poll includes more voters under age 49.... .37%, still a little under a third.

Loras poll states that only 18% of those polled own a landline. Yet 80.1% of those polled were reached by landline.

My support for Bernie Sanders is growing stronger. Seeing the under-representation of categories of his main supporters in these polls bothers me greatly.

Bernie Sanders "subtweets" Hillary. Powerful remarks about coming to fork in the road.

I don't watch events like that on TV. I wait and watch the video later or read the transcript. I have just read an article from the Washington Post, and I am so impressed by the words of Bernie Sanders. He is saying some things that needed to be said long ago, and he will catch heat for them.

Many feel like I do....that it is fine, it is okay to take heat for telling the truth.

Bernie Sanders’s speech Saturday was one long subtweet of Hillary Clinton

The writer explains subtweeting, shows some highlights from the speech that illustrate it...then he posts some paragraphs of Bernie's words.

Just a few:

The Trans-Pacific Partnership "is not now, nor has it ever been, the gold standard of trade agreements. I did not support it yesterday. I do not support it today. And I will not support it tomorrow."

People around the world are protesting it. Our media is falling down on the job.

"Today, some are trying to rewrite history by saying they voted for one anti-gay law to stop something worse. Let us be clear. That’s just not true."

This type of "meet in the middle" or take the position of the other side before they can make a worse decision...is absolutely wrong. And not just anti-gay laws. One of the very worst anti-abortion bills ever presented was by the Democratic minority leader, Tom Daschle, with the okay of President Clinton.

This is a Democrat bragging that his bill is stricter than the GOP bill.

SENATOR SPENCER ABRAHAM, (R) Michigan: We should be able to end this process, and we should be able to end it in the context of this legislation, which provides, I think, protections for the life of the mother in sufficient fashion to meet whatever standards society might demand.

KWAME HOLMAN: A Democratic amendment was briefly considered and rejected, giving way to the major alternative of the abortion debate. The bill by Minority Leader Tom Daschle has attracted support of Republicans and yesterday the endorsement of President Clinton.

SENATOR TOM DASCHLE, Minority Leader: That is really the fundamental difference between the two pending bills. We ban abortion; they ban a procedure. They allow all the other abortive procedures available--dilation and evacuation, induction, hysterotomies, hysterectomies--those are still legally available. What we ban are all of those procedures--all of them.

Also last night Bernie Sanders says the Keystone pipeline was a no-brainer.

If you agree with me about the urgent need to address the issue of climate change, then you would know immediately what to do about the Keystone pipeline. Honestly, it wasn’t that complicated. Should we support the construction of a pipeline across America and accelerate the extraction of some of the dirtiest fossil fuel in the world? To me, that was a no-brainer.

Hillary finally announced her opposition to it. Last night Bernie said it was about time.

Bernie talks about the decision to invade Iraq.

"If you go to my website, you can see exactly what I said at that point and the fears that I had about the destabilization of that region if we invaded Iraq. It gives me no joy to say that I was largely right about the war. I am proud to tell you when I came to that fork in the road I took the right road even though it was not the popular road at the time."

The anti-war protestors the media refused to cover were absolutely totally right about the harm done to the middle east.

From a Guardian blogger in 2014:

I have encountered no sense of vindication, no "I told you so", among veterans of the anti-war protest of 15 February 2003 in response to the events in Iraq. Despair, yes, but above all else, bitterness – that we were unable to stop one of the greatest calamities of modern times, that warnings which were dismissed as hyperbole now look like understatements, that countless lives (literally – no one counts them) have been lost, and will continue to be so for many years to come.

....The catastrophic results of the Iraq invasion are often portrayed as having been impossible to predict, and only inevitable with the benefit of hindsight. If only to prevent future calamities from happening, this is a myth that needs to be dispelled. The very fact that the demonstration on that chilly February day in 2003 was the biggest Britain had ever seen, is testament to the fact that disaster seemed inevitable to so many people.

And one more paragraph with Bernie's words last night.

"Those are the choices I made when I came to the forks in the road. I think they tell you a lot about the choices I will make as president. And my message to you today is the same as it was yesterday, and will be tomorrow."

I saw in a thread here today someone was saying that he lied. Things like that are making it painful to even come to this forum. Same with attacking Hillary personally. It should not happen.

Issues are fair game, and I was impressed.

1997 Daschle's very bad abortion bill to stop another very bad abortion bill. Bad idea.

The war on women, the war on the reproductive choices of women, the abortion wars have gone on for years.

So often the Democrats have tried to compromise with the GOP's extremists on this and other issues.

I wonder if instead of trying to compromise with those who tolerate no compromise....that we stood our ground and made clear that some rights do not fall within the realm of government control in a democratic society. Take a firm stand instead of offering alternatives that were just a little less bad than those of the opponents.

From CNN 1997:

Clinton May Compromise On Abortion Bill. Daschle proposal is the key

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, May 13) -- White House officials say President Bill Clinton could accept a Democratic compromise to limit late-term abortions. The proposal is an alternative to Republican legislation that the president has threatened to veto.

Last week Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) introduced an alternative to the contentious abortion bill banning any kind of abortion if the fetus is viable, unless the mother's life is at risk or if the procedure will protect her from "grievous injury."

Daschle's less restrictive bill could serve as a buffer to a bill sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), which is expected to come up for debate in the Senate later this week. Santorum's bill makes no exception for a woman's health, but would allow abortions if the mother's life is at risk. The legislation has already passed the House.

Here are a lot more details about this very bad bill of Tom Daschle.

Daschle Abortion Bill 1997

NOW denounced the bill.

NOW Executive Vice President Kim Gandy said today that abortion ban legislation prepared by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., is a politically expedient compromise that seriously imperils women's lives and health and expands government intrusion into private medical matters.

"We believe the Daschle approach is unconstitutional, as is the Republican ban that denies a woman the right to an abortion to preserve her health -- a right that Roe v. Wade and other cases have consistently protected," Gandy said.

"Daschle's so-called compromise bill, as quoted in the New York Times, permits an exception to the ban for `a severely debilitating disease or impairment specifically caused by the pregnancy (emphasis added),' but makes no provision for a pre-existing, life- and health-threatening `debilitating disease or impairment' that is being exacerbated by the pregnancy. This could include kidney disease, severe hypertension and some cancers. Nor does the Daschle bill allow for an abortion in cases of severe fetal abnormality where it is unlikely the fetus would live long outside the womb, even with technological support.

"The physician certification requirement and the potential loss of a medical license in the Daschle language invites government scrutiny of private medical matters and threatens doctor-patient confidentiality. The intent of this and other abortion ban bills is to control women and to limit their ability to make critical reproductive decisions that affect their families, their health and their lives. These bills represent the ultimate in Congressional arrogance," Gandy charged.

More from the link:

Daschle proudly pointed out in an NPR interview in 1997 that his bill was even more restrictive than that of the GOP. Yet it had started out as a defensive bill to stop a worse bill.

SENATOR SPENCER ABRAHAM, (R) Michigan: We should be able to end this process, and we should be able to end it in the context of this legislation, which provides, I think, protections for the life of the mother in sufficient fashion to meet whatever standards society might demand.

KWAME HOLMAN: A Democratic amendment was briefly considered and rejected, giving way to the major alternative of the abortion debate. The bill by Minority Leader Tom Daschle has attracted support of Republicans and yesterday the endorsement of President Clinton.

SENATOR TOM DASCHLE, Minority Leader: That is really the fundamental difference between the two pending bills. We ban abortion; they ban a procedure. They allow all the other abortive procedures available--dilation and evacuation, induction, hysterotomies, hysterectomies--those are still legally available. What we ban are all of those procedures--all of them.

That is a Democratic minority leader saying those words. He was proud of his bill banning more stuff than the Republican bill.

It would have caused physicians to lose their licenses if they did not follow the details of this invasive law.

We can not compromise with extremists. We do better when we take strong stands and speak out for what is right.

Let's talk Third Way. Some links about its founding and the founders.

One link I found at The Guardian in 2003 recounts the founding and purpose from the point of view of Tony Blair.

A brief history of the third way

What was the third way all about?
The so-called third way is New Labour's attempt to build itself an ideological foundation. In the face of accusations that the decision to re-christen the party and re-write clause IV was motivated purely by electoralism, Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson sought to prove their ideological convictions.

.....Wasn't Bill Clinton involved?
Bill Clinton's electoral success after renaming his party the New Democrats was an inspiration to Mr Blair and his fellow Labour modernisers. Both shared the belief that a new ideological compass was needed.

In September 1998, Mr Clinton and Mr Blair held a conference in New York to officially launch their new ideology. Both said they rejected the neo-liberal belief that everything can be left to the market, but also saw the traditional left-of-centre faith in state intervention in the economy as outdated.

.....What's the state of play now?
Three years on, however, the outlook for the third way looks bleak. A Republican is in the White House and Mr Schröder has turned away from his earlier fascination with the Clinton-Blair outlook towards a more traditional leftwing stance.

TIME carried an article about this in 1998. They called it the Third Way Wonkfest. The link is still there, but it's behind a firewall. I saved a few paragraphs.

Tony Blair, the New Dems and the Third Way Wonkfest 1998.

After Bill Clinton and Tony Blair finish with the elegant dinners and toasts at the G-8 summit this week in England, the real fun begins: the two leaders will lock themselves in a room with a clutch of top officials to talk about government policy for four or five hours. The Sunday meeting at Chequers, the Prime Minister's country mansion north of London, will be the third such bilateral seminar, following one at the White House, when Blair visited in February, and the inaugural 12-hr. "wonkathon" at Chequers in November, when Hillary Clinton sat in for her husband.

The lofty chatfests symbolize the intimate political relationship between Clinton, a "new Democrat," and Blair, creator of new Labour. Each claims to embody a type of politics that is not just a poll-driven centrism but a "third way," a favorite Blair slogan and a phrase that Clinton highlighted in this year's State of the Union message. "Both governments have to react to challenges like globalization and better education for workers, and we have similar perspectives on what's needed," says White House aide Sidney Blumenthal, who organizes the meetings with his British counterpart, David Miliband, Blair's policy chief.

On the agenda for Chequers are social security, welfare, crime, health policy and education, with eight to 10 participants from each side.

The DLC, a very strong think tank at the time, were very pleased that Tony Blair was in support of the Iraq War. In fact they even named the Democrats who voted for the war the "Blair Democrats."

From the WP

The Blair Democrats: Ready for Battle

Will Marshall May 1, 2003

The U.S.-led coalition's stunning success in liberating Iraq is undoubtedly a triumph for President Bush. But Karl Rove shouldn't get too giddy, because it may be a boon for some Democrats, too.

After all, four of the leading Democratic presidential contenders -- Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. Joseph Lieberman, John Kerry and John Edwards -- not only voted to support the war but also joined British Prime Minister Tony Blair in demanding that Bush challenge the United Nations to live up to its responsibilities to disarm Iraq. This position put these "Blair Democrats" in sync with the vast majority of Americans who said they would much rather attack Saddam Hussein's regime with United Nations backing than without it. And it puts them at odds with what Kerry called the "blustery unilateralism" of the president, which combined with French obstructionism to rupture not only the United Nations but the Atlantic alliance as well.

Like Bush, these Democrats did not shrink from the use of force to end Hussein's reign of terror. Like Blair, they saw the Iraq crisis as a test of Western resolve and the United Nations' credibility as an effective instrument of collective security.

And from Lee Fang at The Nation in 2013:

GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party

Third Way, a centrist think tank that portrays itself as a Democratic group, has some advice for the party: avoid economic populism at all costs. In a column for The Wall Street Journal today, the group argues that the party should steer clear of creating a strong safety net, and criticizes Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio’s call for universal pre-K funded through an upper-income tax increase as a foolhardy idea for national Democrats.

......Buried inside the annual report for Third Way is a revelation that the group relies on a peculiar DC consulting firm to raise half a million a year: Peck, Madigan, Jones & Stewart. Peck Madigan is no ordinary nonprofit buckraiser. The group is, in fact, a corporate lobbying firm that represents Deutsche Bank, Intel, the Business Roundtable, Amgen, AT&T, the International Swaps & Derivatives Association, MasterCard, New York Life Insurance, PhRMA and the US Chamber of Commerce, among others.

The two organizations complement each other well. Peck Madigan signs as a lobbyist for the government of New Zealand on the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade deal; Third Way aggressively promotes the deal. Peck Madigan clients push for entitlement cuts, and so does Third Way.

Notice that Humana, a major health insurance company, lists its $50,000 donation to Third Way not as a donation to a think tank but as part of its yearly budget spent on lobbying activity, up there with the Florida Chamber and other trade associations. The company views financial gifts to Third Way as part of its strategy for increasing its profit-making political influence.

What’s more, Third Way’s leadership has tenuous connections to the Democratic Party it hopes to shape. Daniel Loeb, a hedge fund manager listed as a trustee on Third Way’s 2012 annual disclosure, bundled $556,031 for Mitt Romney last year. Third Way board member Derek Kaufman, another hedge fund executive, also gave to Romney.

They call themselves "progressives", but they are not at all.

They represent everything that Bernie Sanders is opposing right now.

Bill Clinton was there at the founding of the DLC as well. The founder, Al From, made it clear they wanted to have a "bloodless revolution" in our Democratic Party.

The DLC group is sometimes portrayed as a pro-Wall Street set of lobbyists. And From did recruit hedge fund legends like Michael Steinhardt to fund his movement. But to argue these people were corrupt or motivated by a pay to play form of politics is wrong. From is clearly a reformer and an ideologue, and his colleagues believed they were serving the public interest. “Make no mistake about it,” wrote From in a memo about his organization’s strategy, “what we hope to accomplish with the DLC is a bloodless revolution in our party." It is not unlike what the conservatives accomplished in the Republican Party during the 1960s and 1970s.

Al From's words to Bill Clinton about NAFTA show whose interests the DLC and its new form, the Third Way, had in mind.

'“Politically, a victory on NAFTA would assert your leadership over your own party by making it clear that you, not the Democratic leadership in Congress or the interest groups, set the Democratic Party’s agenda on matters of real national importance.”

They may claim to be "progressives", but in thought and deed the two groups are/were "conservative."

Neat picture. Back to the future backstage at Jimmy Kimmel.

Charles Pierce: Obama needs to cut ties with Kevin Johnson

I agree wholeheartedly. Kevin is married to Michelle Rhee, major education "reformer", and he shares her views. Also some unpleasant things are coming out about him again.

President Obama Needs to Cut Ties with This Alleged Grifter

Charles Pierce says it much more colorfully than I would.


There is nothing redeeming about Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, and the president should cut him loose.

Getty Justin Sullivan

As I think we've mentioned several dozen times in this shebeen, the president's inexplicable sweet-tooth for the grifters, rounders, and mountebanks of the school "reform" movement is one of the most puzzling aspects of his years in office. One of the most egregious examples of this is the president's willingness to associate with Kevin Johnson, former NBA point guard, mayor of Sacramento, and husband of queen-bee grifter Michelle Rhee. On many levels, Johnson is a truly awful human being.

......Thanks to Deadspin's invaluable Dave McKenna, the onetime bane of evil-dwarf owner Dan Snyder in Washington, we are spelunking pretty regularly into the dark, dank depths of the muck that composes Kevin Johnson's political soul. What we find there is best left to the folks in the HazMat suits to handle. McKenna's most recent expedition has brought back the usual bagful of pure, foul awfulness.

Is there sexual misconduct? Judge for yourself.?

Kevin Johnson Wants Certain People To Not Talk About Kevin Johnson

It’s no secret that Kevin Johnson wants certain girls and women to keep what they have to say about him to themselves. Some of what the former NBA superstar and current scandal-magnet mayor of Sacramento, Calif. is willing to do to convince them is well-known; some less so. The more that comes to light, though, the more outrageous it seems.

Recently, one of Johnson’s attorneys tried to convince one of his many legal adversaries to stop talking to Deadspin—even going so far as to insert a “No Deadspin!” clause into a settlement offer.

This revelation comes as Johnson is in the worst spot of his three-decade run in the public eye. ESPN canceled the debut of Down in the Valley, a documentary that deified Johnson for having finagled $255 million in public money to keep the local NBA franchise in his hometown but totally ignored his well-documented dark side. The seamiest portions of Johnson’s back story involve the many allegations of sexual abuse and harassment that have come his way his way since the mid-1990s. Johnson has never been charged with a sex crime, but ESPN’s shelving the movie comes amid growing suspicions that a key reason none of the abuse claims made against him derailed his rise to power is that he made legal settlements that forced alleged victims to hush up.

....“People try to settle things because they don’t want things drawn out over long periods of time. They don’t want all this hashed out in public,” Maviglio told the Sacramento CBS affiliate last week, when asked why the mayor didn’t fight the allegations instead. “They want to settle things and move on with their lives.”

Making deals with those complaining, deals in which they can not mention any thing about him again.

The tactic of convincing accusers to stay mum appears to have served Johnson well through the years. Deadspin recently reported on Mandi Koba’s allegations that Johnson sexually abused her when she was a teenager. Koba met Johnson in Phoenix in 1995, when he was a superstar with the Phoenix Suns and she was a 15-year-old high school kid. The details of what allegedly ensued over the next several months are contained in a police report and in a video recording of police interviewing Koba. Cops at the time referred to it as an investigation into “a celebrity involved in a reported child molestation.”

Johnson is suing his own city using the name of a group that wants nothing to do with him.

Kevin Johnson Sues Sacramento, Hides Behind Group That Hates Him

Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson is suing his own city and a local reporter to prevent the release of his emails. But officials of a mayoral group that the former NBA star and controversy magnet claims to be representing in his lawsuit say they’re not on his side.

“We want nothing to do with Kevin Johnson,” says Vanessa Williams, executive director of the National Conference of Black Mayors, an Atlanta-based organization that Johnson listed as a co-plaintiff in his suit. “He’s not even a member. He tried to ruin this organization. I dare Kevin Johnson to find one person with this organization who supports him. Just one! Everybody with this organization hates Kevin Johnson. Nobody gave him permission to sue for us.”

Agree. President Obama doesn't to hang around with folks like that.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 83 Next »