Surprise, surprise!
The McCain campaign is accusing the Obama campaign (you know, the campaign with the black presidential candidate) of "playing the race card." And they're acting like victims, outraged that anyone would accuse them of doing exactly what they're doing.
Just like I'm sure the Republicans were waiting to say Harold Ford Jr. was "playing the race card" in his Senate race two years ago when his republican opponent put out the "Harold, call me" ad with the semi-naked blond implying she was fooling around with Harold. Of course, Harold was a well behaved black candidate who knew his place. He didn't complain. Nor did he complain yesterday on television when asked if he thought the Paris Hilton ad had racial overtones. "No it didn't" he dutifully said.
If anyone doesn't understand how Republicans do this - how they so skillfully use dog whistle ads and statements to appeal to racist sentiments - read this and this. Both brilliant explanations.
This is just amazing. African Americans have been victims of slavery, rape, beatings, lynchings, segregation, Jim Crow, discrimination and verbal and physical attacks of all kinds just because they are black, and a lily white politician who is older than dirt, who cannot remember what he believed yesterday, who has a losing set of policy proposals, and whose supporters have been sending out viral emails and screaming on the radio about Barack being a Muslim (translation: scary black terrorist) and preferring to play basketball (translation: the NBA is full of black guys) and being presumptious (translation: uppity negro) and associating with two young white female sex symbols (translation: the black guy wants your white woman) has the nerve to accuse the campaign of the black candidate of playing the race card?
Beyond bleeping disgusting!
Thursday, July 31, 2008
How miserable failures become president
In the most recent presidential elections (2004 and 2008) Republican presidential candidates have had nothing new and effective to run on.
In 2000, Bush took advantage of the Clinton scandal and said he would bring honor and dignity back to the White House (that's been a laugh), and added that he would have a humble foreign policy (another hearty laugh). Then he went on to add typical Republican talking points like "lower taxes," "pro-life," "free market," "balanced budget," etc. He didn't win the popular vote, but he had enough Supreme Court Justices in his pocket to steal the election.
By the 2004 election, he had indeed lowered taxes, but had run an arrogant foreign policy, increased the deficit, started an unpopular, illegal and immoral war, and shown himself to be generally incompetent. Any sensible person could see that a Democrat should have easily beaten him, just like any sensible person can see this year, with the Republican Party in tatters and Bush's popularity in the cellar, that a Democrat should easily beat John McCain.
Which is why, just like Bush in 2004, McCain and the Republicans cannot win on the issues.
However, that doesn't even slow them down. When they can't win on the issues, because they've been so incompetent and because conservative policies have been exposed as failing policies, they simply make the election about convincing the voters that their opponent is horrible, untested, liberal, elitist, arrogant, risky, un-American, exotic, unpatriotic, etc., etc.
They made Vietnam war hero John Kerry into a traitor, a medal winner who didn't deserve his medals, an elitist snob who could speak French. And it worked. The American people narrowly chose George W. Bush to continue implementing his horrible policies for four more years. They were actually fooled into choosing a man who had gone to war against a country that had not attacked us, shredded the Constitution, approved of torture, suspended Habeas Corpus, increased the wealth of the top 1% of the population, expanded the deficit, and lied to to the people, over a man who had volunteered to go to Vietnam when he could have continued his education, served for years in the Senate, and proposed policies that would have helped all Americans.
This year the supposed straight talker, the famed maverick, the promiser of a dignified campaign has decided not to debate the issues, because conservative issues are losing issues, and instead attack his opponent for being popular, accuse his opponent of wanting to lose a war, and try to portray him as disloyal to the troops. In the meantime, his supporters in talk radio and in newspaper columns are hinting that Obama is a secret, scary Muslim, a socialist, a man who is just too exotic, too arrogant, too uppity to be president. If this doesn't have racial overtones, then I don't know what does.
Republicans cannot win on the issues because their policies have all failed. The American people want something new. By every measure the American people and the country itself is much worse off today than it was during the last Democratic administration. But if McCain can only scare enough Americans to vote against the young, attractive idealist by painting him as a risky, exotic, un-American black guy, then he just might have a chance to get his sorry old bones in the oval office. If the voters are fooled again, as they were four years ago, if they have learned nothing about the Republican propaganda machine and how it distracts from the truth, then they deserve four more years of disaster.
You think things are bad now? You ain't seen nothin' yet.
In 2000, Bush took advantage of the Clinton scandal and said he would bring honor and dignity back to the White House (that's been a laugh), and added that he would have a humble foreign policy (another hearty laugh). Then he went on to add typical Republican talking points like "lower taxes," "pro-life," "free market," "balanced budget," etc. He didn't win the popular vote, but he had enough Supreme Court Justices in his pocket to steal the election.
By the 2004 election, he had indeed lowered taxes, but had run an arrogant foreign policy, increased the deficit, started an unpopular, illegal and immoral war, and shown himself to be generally incompetent. Any sensible person could see that a Democrat should have easily beaten him, just like any sensible person can see this year, with the Republican Party in tatters and Bush's popularity in the cellar, that a Democrat should easily beat John McCain.
Which is why, just like Bush in 2004, McCain and the Republicans cannot win on the issues.
However, that doesn't even slow them down. When they can't win on the issues, because they've been so incompetent and because conservative policies have been exposed as failing policies, they simply make the election about convincing the voters that their opponent is horrible, untested, liberal, elitist, arrogant, risky, un-American, exotic, unpatriotic, etc., etc.
They made Vietnam war hero John Kerry into a traitor, a medal winner who didn't deserve his medals, an elitist snob who could speak French. And it worked. The American people narrowly chose George W. Bush to continue implementing his horrible policies for four more years. They were actually fooled into choosing a man who had gone to war against a country that had not attacked us, shredded the Constitution, approved of torture, suspended Habeas Corpus, increased the wealth of the top 1% of the population, expanded the deficit, and lied to to the people, over a man who had volunteered to go to Vietnam when he could have continued his education, served for years in the Senate, and proposed policies that would have helped all Americans.
This year the supposed straight talker, the famed maverick, the promiser of a dignified campaign has decided not to debate the issues, because conservative issues are losing issues, and instead attack his opponent for being popular, accuse his opponent of wanting to lose a war, and try to portray him as disloyal to the troops. In the meantime, his supporters in talk radio and in newspaper columns are hinting that Obama is a secret, scary Muslim, a socialist, a man who is just too exotic, too arrogant, too uppity to be president. If this doesn't have racial overtones, then I don't know what does.
Republicans cannot win on the issues because their policies have all failed. The American people want something new. By every measure the American people and the country itself is much worse off today than it was during the last Democratic administration. But if McCain can only scare enough Americans to vote against the young, attractive idealist by painting him as a risky, exotic, un-American black guy, then he just might have a chance to get his sorry old bones in the oval office. If the voters are fooled again, as they were four years ago, if they have learned nothing about the Republican propaganda machine and how it distracts from the truth, then they deserve four more years of disaster.
You think things are bad now? You ain't seen nothin' yet.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Cracking the McCain code
"Straight talk express" = caravan of shameless liars, racist scumbags
"Maverick" = opportunistic flip-flopper
With his latest ads, McCain has become disgusting and reprehensible.
"Maverick" = opportunistic flip-flopper
With his latest ads, McCain has become disgusting and reprehensible.
Uppity Obama
I'm beginning to think I should have a daily post on the nonsense that is spewed on Morning
Jo(k)e, where the agenda for the entire show is what the op-ed writers said in that morning's Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and New York Times.
No one on that show has an original thought in their head. They just take quotes from op-eds, then that idiotic narcissist Scarborough makes a pronouncement about who is right and who is wrong, his sidekick Mika tries to counter him with a different view, he rolls over her and she backs down like a Stepford wife.
Each day has a theme. Today's was "Barack is becoming an uppity negro and he'd better watch out because nobody likes an uppity negro."
Now, of course, they didn't use those words. They were playing off of an essay by Dana Milbank and a story by Jonathon Weisman, both in the Washington Post. Milbank asserted that Obama already thinks he is president and is acting like it. Even his Secret Service detail is acting like it, says Milbank, apparently clearing the halls and taking him in places through a side door, just like they do the president.
Duh! That's what the Secret Service does. Of course they treat him like they treat the president. They are supposed to protect his life and there is only one way to do that. Keep him away from people who want to kill him. They do the same for grandpa McCain. How could they possibly do it any different for Obama than they do for the president and grandpa and still protect him. Hello? Doesn't anybody remember 1968, when a popular presidential candidate (not even the presumptive nominee) was gunned down?
According to Milbank, via the fools on Morning Jo(k)e, he heard from a third party that inside a meeting with House Democrats, Obama said: "This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for," and "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
This, according to Milbank, was an example of Obama's biggest foe: his own hubris.
Jonathon Wiseman, according to the Morning jokesters, also pointed to Obama's supposed hubris and the quote Milbank cited above.
And so the jokesters agonized about the superhero Obama's fatal flaw, his Achilles heel: his arrogance, his presumptiveness, which actually translates, Republicans hope, into his Uppity negro-ness. This is all code, of course, code that Republicans are so good at. One of the first examples of this was Ronald Reagan giving his first post convention speech in 1980 in Philadelphia Mississippi, which according to Wikipedia is "most noted for the racial violence, murders, and other civil rights violations that occurred in the mid 1960s." Here, Reagan talked about "states rights," which has always been Republican code for allowing segregation and Jim Crow.
So the jokesters agonized about Obama's presumptiveness, his acting like he was president, his saying he had become the symbol of a better America.
Only that's not what he said.
Members of Congress are objecting to this characterization, as is the Obama campaign.
According to Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic:
Sounds like a very humble statement to me, especially in contrast to the statements of grandpa McCain which all begin with "I," as in "I know how to win a war." That's not hubris? That's not arrogance?
Of course it is, as was Hillary's statement that she and McCain would make good commanders in chief, but not Obama, or Hillary's declaration to Katie Couric that she was going to win, period.
But the Republicans are jumping on this out-of-context statement of Obama, because the only way they can win with grandpa McCain is to paint Obama as unacceptable, as arrogant, as an uppity negro. (Because in this still too racist society, only pasty white guys, frat boys, and Republicans are allowed to be uppity, and then it's called being confident, self-assured, and resolute.)
These clowns on television are empty headed, lazy idiots who can't even do their own reporting. They sit on their stools every morning and recycle the day's op-eds, not bothering to check facts. They are a bunch of bored, mindless whores, saying and doing anything to collect their few bucks. A few months ago they played "let's take down the uppity female," and now they're playing "let's take down the black guy who doesn't know his own place."
They make me sick!
The Olympics can't come soon enough.
Jo(k)e, where the agenda for the entire show is what the op-ed writers said in that morning's Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and New York Times.
No one on that show has an original thought in their head. They just take quotes from op-eds, then that idiotic narcissist Scarborough makes a pronouncement about who is right and who is wrong, his sidekick Mika tries to counter him with a different view, he rolls over her and she backs down like a Stepford wife.
Each day has a theme. Today's was "Barack is becoming an uppity negro and he'd better watch out because nobody likes an uppity negro."
Now, of course, they didn't use those words. They were playing off of an essay by Dana Milbank and a story by Jonathon Weisman, both in the Washington Post. Milbank asserted that Obama already thinks he is president and is acting like it. Even his Secret Service detail is acting like it, says Milbank, apparently clearing the halls and taking him in places through a side door, just like they do the president.
Duh! That's what the Secret Service does. Of course they treat him like they treat the president. They are supposed to protect his life and there is only one way to do that. Keep him away from people who want to kill him. They do the same for grandpa McCain. How could they possibly do it any different for Obama than they do for the president and grandpa and still protect him. Hello? Doesn't anybody remember 1968, when a popular presidential candidate (not even the presumptive nominee) was gunned down?
According to Milbank, via the fools on Morning Jo(k)e, he heard from a third party that inside a meeting with House Democrats, Obama said: "This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for," and "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
This, according to Milbank, was an example of Obama's biggest foe: his own hubris.
Jonathon Wiseman, according to the Morning jokesters, also pointed to Obama's supposed hubris and the quote Milbank cited above.
And so the jokesters agonized about the superhero Obama's fatal flaw, his Achilles heel: his arrogance, his presumptiveness, which actually translates, Republicans hope, into his Uppity negro-ness. This is all code, of course, code that Republicans are so good at. One of the first examples of this was Ronald Reagan giving his first post convention speech in 1980 in Philadelphia Mississippi, which according to Wikipedia is "most noted for the racial violence, murders, and other civil rights violations that occurred in the mid 1960s." Here, Reagan talked about "states rights," which has always been Republican code for allowing segregation and Jim Crow.
So the jokesters agonized about Obama's presumptiveness, his acting like he was president, his saying he had become the symbol of a better America.
Only that's not what he said.
Members of Congress are objecting to this characterization, as is the Obama campaign.
According to Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic:
I asked the Obama campaign about the quote, and they provided some context that makes this particular utterance more digestible."It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol..."
Sounds like a very humble statement to me, especially in contrast to the statements of grandpa McCain which all begin with "I," as in "I know how to win a war." That's not hubris? That's not arrogance?
Of course it is, as was Hillary's statement that she and McCain would make good commanders in chief, but not Obama, or Hillary's declaration to Katie Couric that she was going to win, period.
But the Republicans are jumping on this out-of-context statement of Obama, because the only way they can win with grandpa McCain is to paint Obama as unacceptable, as arrogant, as an uppity negro. (Because in this still too racist society, only pasty white guys, frat boys, and Republicans are allowed to be uppity, and then it's called being confident, self-assured, and resolute.)
These clowns on television are empty headed, lazy idiots who can't even do their own reporting. They sit on their stools every morning and recycle the day's op-eds, not bothering to check facts. They are a bunch of bored, mindless whores, saying and doing anything to collect their few bucks. A few months ago they played "let's take down the uppity female," and now they're playing "let's take down the black guy who doesn't know his own place."
They make me sick!
The Olympics can't come soon enough.
Veep veep!
The media is restless. Obama has come back from his overseas trip, McCain had a (it's not cancer!) mole removed, and now they're bored. And the cable beast must be fed, so they are all a-twitter with two themes: the veep pick, and Obama is becoming an uppity negro and better watch out!
More on the second theme later. This post is about the veep.
Personally, I couldn't care less who McCain picks. There is no really good choice. From a pro-Obama perspective, I say go with Romney. His Mormonism will turn off a bunch of evangelicals, even though it will ensure McCain a Utah victory. And it would be fun to see McCain pretend to like his running mate for the next three months. His phony smile would get even phonier whenever Mitt was around. Charlie Crist would be good too. Not only would his tanned face be an interesting contrast to the pasty-white translucent McCain, but the rumors of his homosexuality would creep out and the god crowd would stay home in droves. But really, who cares?
I do care who Obama picks, not that I have any say. I read that the final three include Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, and Tim Kaine. If that's the best Obama can do in a huge field of far more exciting candidates, then I'm terribly disappointed. Of the three, I like Biden best. He is a senior statesman, smart as hell, a real fighter, and unpredictable, which makes him real. He's a good balance to Obama in terms of experience and I think he could call McCain on a lot of his BS. And he's funny. He had the best zinger ever in the millions of primary debates, saying about Giuiliani, "There's only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, a verb and 9/11." I'd love to see more of that.
The pundits say Obama's primary concern is being comfortable with someone and that is why he will probably pick Kaine. Pardon me while I yawn. I watched Kaine's response to the State of the Union two years ago and was completely unimpressed. The guy is DULL. And his wife whom I have only seen once, and never heard, is unimpressive. Couldn't we get a little more excitement to go along with the most exciting presidential candidate since 1992?
Kaine's two best qualities according to the punditocracy? He speaks Spanish and he's a Catholic. These two pluses are no big deal. The Latino vote already belongs to Obama. And Biden is a Catholic too.
What happened to all the truly exciting choices, the ones who would add a little punch to the campaign and put the election away three months early? Jim Webb, Ed Rendell, Mark Warner would all be good choices. They're all fighters who know how to appeal to the working class. Maybe they're not as polished as Obama, but who needs more polish? We need fighters! And Kaine is just not my image of a fighter.
I never thought I would say this, but honestly at this point in the campaign, with the negatives being hurled at Obama by McCain, the best fighter he could choose would be Hillary Clinton. I've said before, and I know Obama thinks the biggest problem in choosing her is the lurking presence of Bill, but Obama could show just how self-assured and confident he is by choosing Hillary in spite of that.
At first I thought putting Hillary on the ticket would drive up negatives, and prompt the McCain campaign to attack Obama indirectly with attacks on Hillary, but McCain will attack with stupid nonsensical things if he has nothing of substance to attack with, so why not choose Hillary? At least if the Republicans attack Hillary she will attack back. And frankly, I think Hillary scares McCain. Hell, she scares me.
Choosing Hillary would immediately bring over some undecided voters who liked having her on the ticket but aren't yet sure of Obama. And no one campaigns better than the Clintons. If McCain had to campaign opposite Barack, Hillary and Bill, he'd need more than an exciting vice presidential nominee to win. He'd need a miracle.
Sure, McCain would attack the Clintons on their vulnerabilities, but the excitement and drama of a first black-first woman ticket, the return of the Clintons, the combined IQ's of the candidates and their spouses, would be unbeatable.
I'm sure Obama knows plenty that we don't know, and maybe there are minefields he knows about related to picking Hillary, something the GOP would use against such a ticket that is hidden from view.
But Tim Kaine? Really? Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
More on the second theme later. This post is about the veep.
Personally, I couldn't care less who McCain picks. There is no really good choice. From a pro-Obama perspective, I say go with Romney. His Mormonism will turn off a bunch of evangelicals, even though it will ensure McCain a Utah victory. And it would be fun to see McCain pretend to like his running mate for the next three months. His phony smile would get even phonier whenever Mitt was around. Charlie Crist would be good too. Not only would his tanned face be an interesting contrast to the pasty-white translucent McCain, but the rumors of his homosexuality would creep out and the god crowd would stay home in droves. But really, who cares?
I do care who Obama picks, not that I have any say. I read that the final three include Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, and Tim Kaine. If that's the best Obama can do in a huge field of far more exciting candidates, then I'm terribly disappointed. Of the three, I like Biden best. He is a senior statesman, smart as hell, a real fighter, and unpredictable, which makes him real. He's a good balance to Obama in terms of experience and I think he could call McCain on a lot of his BS. And he's funny. He had the best zinger ever in the millions of primary debates, saying about Giuiliani, "There's only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, a verb and 9/11." I'd love to see more of that.
The pundits say Obama's primary concern is being comfortable with someone and that is why he will probably pick Kaine. Pardon me while I yawn. I watched Kaine's response to the State of the Union two years ago and was completely unimpressed. The guy is DULL. And his wife whom I have only seen once, and never heard, is unimpressive. Couldn't we get a little more excitement to go along with the most exciting presidential candidate since 1992?
Kaine's two best qualities according to the punditocracy? He speaks Spanish and he's a Catholic. These two pluses are no big deal. The Latino vote already belongs to Obama. And Biden is a Catholic too.
What happened to all the truly exciting choices, the ones who would add a little punch to the campaign and put the election away three months early? Jim Webb, Ed Rendell, Mark Warner would all be good choices. They're all fighters who know how to appeal to the working class. Maybe they're not as polished as Obama, but who needs more polish? We need fighters! And Kaine is just not my image of a fighter.
I never thought I would say this, but honestly at this point in the campaign, with the negatives being hurled at Obama by McCain, the best fighter he could choose would be Hillary Clinton. I've said before, and I know Obama thinks the biggest problem in choosing her is the lurking presence of Bill, but Obama could show just how self-assured and confident he is by choosing Hillary in spite of that.
At first I thought putting Hillary on the ticket would drive up negatives, and prompt the McCain campaign to attack Obama indirectly with attacks on Hillary, but McCain will attack with stupid nonsensical things if he has nothing of substance to attack with, so why not choose Hillary? At least if the Republicans attack Hillary she will attack back. And frankly, I think Hillary scares McCain. Hell, she scares me.
Choosing Hillary would immediately bring over some undecided voters who liked having her on the ticket but aren't yet sure of Obama. And no one campaigns better than the Clintons. If McCain had to campaign opposite Barack, Hillary and Bill, he'd need more than an exciting vice presidential nominee to win. He'd need a miracle.
Sure, McCain would attack the Clintons on their vulnerabilities, but the excitement and drama of a first black-first woman ticket, the return of the Clintons, the combined IQ's of the candidates and their spouses, would be unbeatable.
I'm sure Obama knows plenty that we don't know, and maybe there are minefields he knows about related to picking Hillary, something the GOP would use against such a ticket that is hidden from view.
But Tim Kaine? Really? Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Is it the economy, stupid? Or is it the war?
The economy is supposed to be the biggest issue in this election. Certainly I feel the effects of this Bush anti-regulation, pro-greed, tax cuts for the wealthy, windfalls for the oil companies, outsource your job economy.
I'd like to visit my grandchildren more often, but I can't afford the gas.
I'd like to visit my sons in Seattle but I can't afford to drive or fly.
I'd like to sell my house and move into a one story as my old knees don't like climbing stairs, but I can't because of the mortgage crisis. If I sold now (and I probably couldn't find a buyer) I wouldn't make a profit.
I'd like a little extra money to fix up my bathroom and eat out from time to time, but our income has been cut by 20%.
So the economy is a big issue for me, which is why I can't imagine putting another Republican in office for four more years.
What does McCain promise to fix the economy?
1. Continued tax cuts for the wealthy. How does that help me? McCain says these tax cuts will produce jobs. How so? What jobs have they produced in the past eight years?
2. Drilling for oil offshore and maybe producing 3% more oil in ten years. (How does that help me now?)
3. Eliminating pork projects in bills. How does that increase the value of my home? How does it get back the 20% in income we have lost?
4. Privatize Social Security. How does that keep Social Security solvent so I can have a secure old age?
I don't hear one proposal from McCain that will improve this economy in the next four years, or lower the price of gas, or solve the mortgage crisis or end the greed of speculators. I only hear the same old conservative line - no regulation, free market, lower taxes for the wealthy. These have all been in place for eight years, and they have all failed.
This ought to be enough to discourage anyone from voting for the Republican candidate this year. But even with all this disastrous economic news, clearly the responsibility of Republican policies, there is an even more important reason why no one should vote for John McCain this Fall. In fact, this one issue is probably the single most important judgment call that either presidential candidate has ever made - the decision to support or oppose the waging of war against Iraq.
Six years ago, when the president was beginning to beat the war drums, many of us knew it was wrong. Many legislators knew it was wrong. Anyone who had been reading and listening to what insiders and former insiders were saying knew that from his first day in office, Bush had made war in Iraq a priority.
The administration only needed an excuse.
Daddy Bush had not, according to little Bush and the neocons, finished the job and removed Saddam. They were itchin' to do it, the neocons because it was part of some grandiose ideological view of the world they were selling, and little Bush because it would make him a "war president," which he believed would give him unlimited power and enhance his legacy.
When 9/11 happened, it gave all of them an opening. According to both Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke, Bush was asking his experts to connect Saddam to 9/11 on the day after the attack. When the experts couldn't do that, even with the Niger-uranium forgery and false rumors of a Saddam - al Qaeda connection, they settled on weapons of mass destruction. Saddam had weapons, they claimed, that he could use against us or give to terrorists, and so we had to invade his country.
It would be a cake-walk, we would be greeted as liberators, the children would throw flowers and candy, we were told. Only it wasn't a cake-walk. It started with looting, then turned to an insurgency against the military, then turned into sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing. To this day, suicide bombers still kill fellow Iraqis. Only they don't kill as many American troops because we are paying them not to.
No matter what political party you belong to, or even what you think of the military, or their tactics, or David Petraeus, the fact is that the Republican President of the United States, with a Republican dominated Congress, made the decision to invade a country that had not attacked us, not threatened us, and did not even have weapons that could threaten us. Whether or not Bush knew the third fact (and I believe he did) he most definitely knew the first two facts.
The President of the United States took the nation to war illegally and immorally, caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and he spent hundreds of billions of dollars for what? For his legacy? And why did so many in Congress go along? We may never really know.
We do know that John McCain went along. John McCain is as responsible as the President of the United States for taking us to an illegal, immoral war. As such, in my opinion, he has disqualified himself as a future president. He lacked the proper judgment on what will turn out to be one of the biggest foreign policy disasters, not to mention war crimes, of our lifetime. He does not deserve to be President and he cannot be trusted with the office.
Barack Obama opposed the war and still maintains it was a mistake. Whether or not he supported the surge is not nearly as important as the fact that he opposed an illegal, immoral war from the beginning.
Yes, the economy will be the issue most Americans vote on, because it is what affects most
Americans personally. The war only directly affects those who serve in the military, and their families. However it indirectly affects all of us, and our children and grandchildren, because we will be paying for it for a long time.
Even more importantly, it has brought shame on our country. It has tarnished the values we stand for, the lofty ideals that we have always promoted. By starting a war against a country that had neither attacked nor threatened us, we have hurt our nation in ways we will feel for decades. There is no way we should ever elect someone to the presidency who approved of that decision.
I'd like to visit my grandchildren more often, but I can't afford the gas.
I'd like to visit my sons in Seattle but I can't afford to drive or fly.
I'd like to sell my house and move into a one story as my old knees don't like climbing stairs, but I can't because of the mortgage crisis. If I sold now (and I probably couldn't find a buyer) I wouldn't make a profit.
I'd like a little extra money to fix up my bathroom and eat out from time to time, but our income has been cut by 20%.
So the economy is a big issue for me, which is why I can't imagine putting another Republican in office for four more years.
What does McCain promise to fix the economy?
1. Continued tax cuts for the wealthy. How does that help me? McCain says these tax cuts will produce jobs. How so? What jobs have they produced in the past eight years?
2. Drilling for oil offshore and maybe producing 3% more oil in ten years. (How does that help me now?)
3. Eliminating pork projects in bills. How does that increase the value of my home? How does it get back the 20% in income we have lost?
4. Privatize Social Security. How does that keep Social Security solvent so I can have a secure old age?
I don't hear one proposal from McCain that will improve this economy in the next four years, or lower the price of gas, or solve the mortgage crisis or end the greed of speculators. I only hear the same old conservative line - no regulation, free market, lower taxes for the wealthy. These have all been in place for eight years, and they have all failed.
This ought to be enough to discourage anyone from voting for the Republican candidate this year. But even with all this disastrous economic news, clearly the responsibility of Republican policies, there is an even more important reason why no one should vote for John McCain this Fall. In fact, this one issue is probably the single most important judgment call that either presidential candidate has ever made - the decision to support or oppose the waging of war against Iraq.
Six years ago, when the president was beginning to beat the war drums, many of us knew it was wrong. Many legislators knew it was wrong. Anyone who had been reading and listening to what insiders and former insiders were saying knew that from his first day in office, Bush had made war in Iraq a priority.
The administration only needed an excuse.
Daddy Bush had not, according to little Bush and the neocons, finished the job and removed Saddam. They were itchin' to do it, the neocons because it was part of some grandiose ideological view of the world they were selling, and little Bush because it would make him a "war president," which he believed would give him unlimited power and enhance his legacy.
When 9/11 happened, it gave all of them an opening. According to both Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke, Bush was asking his experts to connect Saddam to 9/11 on the day after the attack. When the experts couldn't do that, even with the Niger-uranium forgery and false rumors of a Saddam - al Qaeda connection, they settled on weapons of mass destruction. Saddam had weapons, they claimed, that he could use against us or give to terrorists, and so we had to invade his country.
It would be a cake-walk, we would be greeted as liberators, the children would throw flowers and candy, we were told. Only it wasn't a cake-walk. It started with looting, then turned to an insurgency against the military, then turned into sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing. To this day, suicide bombers still kill fellow Iraqis. Only they don't kill as many American troops because we are paying them not to.
No matter what political party you belong to, or even what you think of the military, or their tactics, or David Petraeus, the fact is that the Republican President of the United States, with a Republican dominated Congress, made the decision to invade a country that had not attacked us, not threatened us, and did not even have weapons that could threaten us. Whether or not Bush knew the third fact (and I believe he did) he most definitely knew the first two facts.
The President of the United States took the nation to war illegally and immorally, caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and he spent hundreds of billions of dollars for what? For his legacy? And why did so many in Congress go along? We may never really know.
We do know that John McCain went along. John McCain is as responsible as the President of the United States for taking us to an illegal, immoral war. As such, in my opinion, he has disqualified himself as a future president. He lacked the proper judgment on what will turn out to be one of the biggest foreign policy disasters, not to mention war crimes, of our lifetime. He does not deserve to be President and he cannot be trusted with the office.
Barack Obama opposed the war and still maintains it was a mistake. Whether or not he supported the surge is not nearly as important as the fact that he opposed an illegal, immoral war from the beginning.
Yes, the economy will be the issue most Americans vote on, because it is what affects most
Americans personally. The war only directly affects those who serve in the military, and their families. However it indirectly affects all of us, and our children and grandchildren, because we will be paying for it for a long time.
Even more importantly, it has brought shame on our country. It has tarnished the values we stand for, the lofty ideals that we have always promoted. By starting a war against a country that had neither attacked nor threatened us, we have hurt our nation in ways we will feel for decades. There is no way we should ever elect someone to the presidency who approved of that decision.
Earthquake
Just went through a 5.4 earthquake in Southern California, and it's funny to see the cable networks going bonkers.
This isn't, by far, the worst earthquake I've been through. At least two that I can remember were worse, or more frightening at least.
In 1971 we experienced the Sylmar Quake at 6.6 and in 1994 the Northridge Quake at 6.7. Both were vey frightening. There is something about the earth moving under you, the earth that you just take for granted will be solid and stable, that scares the daylights out of you.
In 1971, my daughter was just a year old when the earth started shaking, and I ran to get her out of her crib and stand in a doorway.
Over 20 years later, my oldest two children (including the daughter I grabbed out of her crib) were living in Los Angeles, and another son was visiting his brother there. My sons called me to let me know they were all right, even though they had been both physically and emotionally shaken up. They suggested I try to contact my daughter, which I was unable to do at first. Finally I did contact her, and she and her neighbors had spent the early morning hours outside comforting each other. One friend drove to her place because her building had actually come off of its foundation and was no longer habitable. She slept on my daughter's couch for a couple months. They were the lucky ones, though, as many people died in that quake.
This one was mild, by comparison. But it still brings back memories. Just a few minutes ago, my daughter, who lives in Pasadena, finally was able to phone me after a long time trying. (Phone service is down in many areas.) She told me she and her two children were shaken up, but safe. I imagine it brought back some scary memories for her.
We Californians have learned to live with this, just as Floridians learn to live with hurricanes, I imagine. It isn't fun, but it is one of the prices we are willing to pay to live in such a magnificent state.
Still, when it happens, it is always frightening, and sometimes deadly. Fortunately, it doesn't look like this one was deadly.
This isn't, by far, the worst earthquake I've been through. At least two that I can remember were worse, or more frightening at least.
In 1971 we experienced the Sylmar Quake at 6.6 and in 1994 the Northridge Quake at 6.7. Both were vey frightening. There is something about the earth moving under you, the earth that you just take for granted will be solid and stable, that scares the daylights out of you.
In 1971, my daughter was just a year old when the earth started shaking, and I ran to get her out of her crib and stand in a doorway.
Over 20 years later, my oldest two children (including the daughter I grabbed out of her crib) were living in Los Angeles, and another son was visiting his brother there. My sons called me to let me know they were all right, even though they had been both physically and emotionally shaken up. They suggested I try to contact my daughter, which I was unable to do at first. Finally I did contact her, and she and her neighbors had spent the early morning hours outside comforting each other. One friend drove to her place because her building had actually come off of its foundation and was no longer habitable. She slept on my daughter's couch for a couple months. They were the lucky ones, though, as many people died in that quake.
This one was mild, by comparison. But it still brings back memories. Just a few minutes ago, my daughter, who lives in Pasadena, finally was able to phone me after a long time trying. (Phone service is down in many areas.) She told me she and her two children were shaken up, but safe. I imagine it brought back some scary memories for her.
We Californians have learned to live with this, just as Floridians learn to live with hurricanes, I imagine. It isn't fun, but it is one of the prices we are willing to pay to live in such a magnificent state.
Still, when it happens, it is always frightening, and sometimes deadly. Fortunately, it doesn't look like this one was deadly.
Gripe of the day: summer clothing
Summer clothing is made for the skinniest people, those who look good in bikinis, shorts, and halter tops. It used to be true that those who looked the best in these outfits were teenagers, but the growing obesity epidemic in the young makes it even risky for teens to adopt the latest styles.
The problem with summer clothing is that too many people think they look good in it when they don't.
Not that it should really matter when you live in a climate where temperatures reach 115, air conditioning bills are through the roof, and you will do almost anything to stay cool.
But every summer I get tired of seeing way more skin than I would like, on people who have way too much skin bulging out of clothing way too small.
Every summer here in the scorching southwest I see rolls of fat protuding between cropped tops and low cut shorts, breasts threatening to pop out of tube tops and beer guts flopping over shorts that are obviously too small for the waistband to actually encounter the waist.
Why can't people just wear the appropriate size?
One of my biggest gripes about summer clothing is the recent trend for women to wear spagetti strap dresses or tops, with bra straps showing underneath. Instead of wearing strapless bras, which are uncomfortable, young women wear their regular bras and let the straps show. I don't like seeing women's underwear any more than I like seeing men's underwear - as in the young men who let their pants rest five inches or more below their boxer shorts.
But I guess I shouldn't complain. When I remember that women of my age used to put huge rollers in their hair and then go out in public that way because it took so long for our hair to dry, I'm kind of embarassed. Sure, we didn't have blow dryers and curling irons like we have today, but wearing curlers in one's hair to the mall - and even to church - I guess we had our own fashion fauz pas.
The problem with summer clothing is that too many people think they look good in it when they don't.
Not that it should really matter when you live in a climate where temperatures reach 115, air conditioning bills are through the roof, and you will do almost anything to stay cool.
But every summer I get tired of seeing way more skin than I would like, on people who have way too much skin bulging out of clothing way too small.
Every summer here in the scorching southwest I see rolls of fat protuding between cropped tops and low cut shorts, breasts threatening to pop out of tube tops and beer guts flopping over shorts that are obviously too small for the waistband to actually encounter the waist.
Why can't people just wear the appropriate size?
One of my biggest gripes about summer clothing is the recent trend for women to wear spagetti strap dresses or tops, with bra straps showing underneath. Instead of wearing strapless bras, which are uncomfortable, young women wear their regular bras and let the straps show. I don't like seeing women's underwear any more than I like seeing men's underwear - as in the young men who let their pants rest five inches or more below their boxer shorts.
But I guess I shouldn't complain. When I remember that women of my age used to put huge rollers in their hair and then go out in public that way because it took so long for our hair to dry, I'm kind of embarassed. Sure, we didn't have blow dryers and curling irons like we have today, but wearing curlers in one's hair to the mall - and even to church - I guess we had our own fashion fauz pas.
Monday, July 28, 2008
A tale of two Monicas
"What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?"
This is one of the offensive and illegal questions that former Justice Department employee Monica Goodling asked job applicants before she made the decision to hire or not hire them.
There are others, according to the just released investigation by the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility titled "An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General."
In addition to discussing the applicants' views of gay marriage and abortion, Goodling asked:
"Why are you a Republican?"
"Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican."
"Aside from the President, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire."
It is, of course illegal to politicize the Justice Department and to hire employees based on political philosophy, but the first question of Monica Goodling not only show that she violated the law, it shows she is a moronic sycophant, a Republican Monica Lewinsky (how interesting that they share the same name), ready to serve the president and demanding that anyone she hires serve him as well.
The first part of the question: "What is it about George W. Bush" implies that the job applicant is only there to be a toady of the president, that he or she only applied for the job because he or she is as enthralled, enchanted, and infatuated by the president as she is. Isn't it possible that someone wants the job because they want the experience, they believe in justice and the Constitutution, or that it is a step to something grander? Why must it be something about George W. Bush that has brought them to apply for a job? Because Monica Goodling has stars in her eyes, hero worships this inadequate man and thinks that must be what everyone else thinks?
The second part of the question "that makes you want to serve him" also smacks of hero worship. People don't work at the Justice Department to "serve the president." These were not, I believe, presidential appointments where one "seves at the pleasure of the president." They were career department positions, which should have nothing to do with one's political affiliation or even loyalty to any single president. As career appointees they would serve under many presidents, of both parties, which is why politics should never enter into their hiring.
Career employees serve at the Justice Department in order to preserve the Constitution and carry out its laws to the best of their ability. This nation, as is often said, is a nation of laws, not of men, and nowhere is this a more important principle than in the Justice Department, where those laws are enforced.
The fact that someone who worked for George W. Bush could be as sycophantic, as empty-headed and ignorant, as this woman is simply another reflection of the man she "serves." The fact that she would "serve him" by breaking the law so casually, so willingly, only shows us one more example of how much damage to the Constitution and to the rule of law this administration has done.
Monica Goodling is worse than another young woman, with the same first name, who used to fawn over a president. Monica Goodling is even more contemptible than Monica Lewinsky. At least Bill Clinton was smart enough not to give her the task of hiring anyone. And at least she didn't subvert the Constitution.
This is one of the offensive and illegal questions that former Justice Department employee Monica Goodling asked job applicants before she made the decision to hire or not hire them.
There are others, according to the just released investigation by the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility titled "An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General."
In addition to discussing the applicants' views of gay marriage and abortion, Goodling asked:
"Why are you a Republican?"
"Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican."
"Aside from the President, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire."
It is, of course illegal to politicize the Justice Department and to hire employees based on political philosophy, but the first question of Monica Goodling not only show that she violated the law, it shows she is a moronic sycophant, a Republican Monica Lewinsky (how interesting that they share the same name), ready to serve the president and demanding that anyone she hires serve him as well.
The first part of the question: "What is it about George W. Bush" implies that the job applicant is only there to be a toady of the president, that he or she only applied for the job because he or she is as enthralled, enchanted, and infatuated by the president as she is. Isn't it possible that someone wants the job because they want the experience, they believe in justice and the Constitutution, or that it is a step to something grander? Why must it be something about George W. Bush that has brought them to apply for a job? Because Monica Goodling has stars in her eyes, hero worships this inadequate man and thinks that must be what everyone else thinks?
The second part of the question "that makes you want to serve him" also smacks of hero worship. People don't work at the Justice Department to "serve the president." These were not, I believe, presidential appointments where one "seves at the pleasure of the president." They were career department positions, which should have nothing to do with one's political affiliation or even loyalty to any single president. As career appointees they would serve under many presidents, of both parties, which is why politics should never enter into their hiring.
Career employees serve at the Justice Department in order to preserve the Constitution and carry out its laws to the best of their ability. This nation, as is often said, is a nation of laws, not of men, and nowhere is this a more important principle than in the Justice Department, where those laws are enforced.
The fact that someone who worked for George W. Bush could be as sycophantic, as empty-headed and ignorant, as this woman is simply another reflection of the man she "serves." The fact that she would "serve him" by breaking the law so casually, so willingly, only shows us one more example of how much damage to the Constitution and to the rule of law this administration has done.
Monica Goodling is worse than another young woman, with the same first name, who used to fawn over a president. Monica Goodling is even more contemptible than Monica Lewinsky. At least Bill Clinton was smart enough not to give her the task of hiring anyone. And at least she didn't subvert the Constitution.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
The media and John McCain: beneath contempt
It used to be that news reporters and news programs reported the news of what was happening in their government, their state, their city, and even the world. News was meant to INFORM citizens so that they could be better citizens, so they could make educated decisions, so they could participate in their democracy in some thoughtful, meaningful way and so they could understand the broader world in which they lived.
Now we get tabloid junk.
News outlets (which are really only tabloid gossip rags and programs) present videos of car chases and stories about missing blond women and polygamists in Texas. And during political campaigns they report almost nothing about what the candidates believe and what policies they advocate. Instead they wait for, or predict "gaffes," repeat scurriolous internet rumors, and replay for free the commercials the candidates' ad men have created to trash opponents.
And so we saw a near perfect example this past week as Barack Obama traveled in Europe and John McCain wandered through German American restaurants and supermarket aisles looking for attention.
For weeks prior to Obama's trip, McCain had been insisting he go abroad, as McCain himself had. McCain had met with foreign leaders and given press conferences, in which he made many "gaffes" which had to be corrected by Joe Lieberman. Once Obama made the decision to go, the press bought into McCain's narrative that Obama was inexperienced and untested on the world stage. Reporters tagged along to see the spectacle, many of them repeating the warning that the trip posed a great danger to Obama who was bound to make a big mistake somehwere along the way. Only he didn't. By any fair account the trip was a brilliant success.
Not that the McCain camp didn't try and is still trying to push the idea that Obama blew it. While first they thought he would look inexperienced and green, by Wednesday they were saying he was being way too presumptious, acting like he was already president. How dare he be so cool, so poised, so elegant, so popular? The idiots on "Morning Jo(k)e" agonized over how this would play back home. "Backfire" was the word of the day. Maybe the American people would resent Obama being abroad during a campaign when gas prices were so high back home. Maybe the sight of 200,000 Europeans cheering for him would backfire. Obama should be eating sauerkraut in Germantown PA and reassuring Americans that he would find them cheap gas rather than reaching out to foreigners who already pay $8 a gallon.
Then, of course, McCain whined that he wasn't getting any coverage during Obama's trip. Never mind that McCain and every other good Republican despise the "fairness doctrine" which Saint Ronny ended, McCain cried "foul." He wasn't getting fair treatment. So all the networks scrambled to include an interview of McCain with the already planned interview of Obama.
And now, McCain and the media have finally hit what they think is paydirt. McCain is running an ad claiming Obama would rather go to the gym than visit the wounded troops in Germany. They are taking advantage of the fact that the Pentagon, at the last minute, discouraged Obama from visiting the troops because his trip was no longer a congressional trip (his Senate staff had left for home after Iraq and Afghanistan). They would not allow his plane to land at the air bases and would not let any campaign aides come to the hospitals. They waited until the day before the planned visit to inform the Obama campaign, when it would have been very difficult to make alternate transportation plans. Instead, Obama phoned several wounded soldiers.
So now McCain is using the troops for political purposes, in an ad that accuses Obama of abandoning the troops. And the press will be carrying this story for days.
No, this is not news. This is political propaganda. And the media is falling for it, just as they fell for the Swift Boat ads that gave us four more disastrous years of George W. Bush.
Thank you main stream media and cable shows for being total jerks, for neglecting your duty to inform rather than stir up nonsense.
Thank you John McCain for also being a jerk, for promising to be a different kind of candidate, for claiming to be a dignified former military man, even though you have abused the troops, by sending them to a war based on lies, and by refusing to vote for expanded benefits for them, and now used the troops, to unfairly attack an opponent.
You are both beneath contempt.
Now we get tabloid junk.
News outlets (which are really only tabloid gossip rags and programs) present videos of car chases and stories about missing blond women and polygamists in Texas. And during political campaigns they report almost nothing about what the candidates believe and what policies they advocate. Instead they wait for, or predict "gaffes," repeat scurriolous internet rumors, and replay for free the commercials the candidates' ad men have created to trash opponents.
And so we saw a near perfect example this past week as Barack Obama traveled in Europe and John McCain wandered through German American restaurants and supermarket aisles looking for attention.
For weeks prior to Obama's trip, McCain had been insisting he go abroad, as McCain himself had. McCain had met with foreign leaders and given press conferences, in which he made many "gaffes" which had to be corrected by Joe Lieberman. Once Obama made the decision to go, the press bought into McCain's narrative that Obama was inexperienced and untested on the world stage. Reporters tagged along to see the spectacle, many of them repeating the warning that the trip posed a great danger to Obama who was bound to make a big mistake somehwere along the way. Only he didn't. By any fair account the trip was a brilliant success.
Not that the McCain camp didn't try and is still trying to push the idea that Obama blew it. While first they thought he would look inexperienced and green, by Wednesday they were saying he was being way too presumptious, acting like he was already president. How dare he be so cool, so poised, so elegant, so popular? The idiots on "Morning Jo(k)e" agonized over how this would play back home. "Backfire" was the word of the day. Maybe the American people would resent Obama being abroad during a campaign when gas prices were so high back home. Maybe the sight of 200,000 Europeans cheering for him would backfire. Obama should be eating sauerkraut in Germantown PA and reassuring Americans that he would find them cheap gas rather than reaching out to foreigners who already pay $8 a gallon.
Then, of course, McCain whined that he wasn't getting any coverage during Obama's trip. Never mind that McCain and every other good Republican despise the "fairness doctrine" which Saint Ronny ended, McCain cried "foul." He wasn't getting fair treatment. So all the networks scrambled to include an interview of McCain with the already planned interview of Obama.
And now, McCain and the media have finally hit what they think is paydirt. McCain is running an ad claiming Obama would rather go to the gym than visit the wounded troops in Germany. They are taking advantage of the fact that the Pentagon, at the last minute, discouraged Obama from visiting the troops because his trip was no longer a congressional trip (his Senate staff had left for home after Iraq and Afghanistan). They would not allow his plane to land at the air bases and would not let any campaign aides come to the hospitals. They waited until the day before the planned visit to inform the Obama campaign, when it would have been very difficult to make alternate transportation plans. Instead, Obama phoned several wounded soldiers.
So now McCain is using the troops for political purposes, in an ad that accuses Obama of abandoning the troops. And the press will be carrying this story for days.
No, this is not news. This is political propaganda. And the media is falling for it, just as they fell for the Swift Boat ads that gave us four more disastrous years of George W. Bush.
Thank you main stream media and cable shows for being total jerks, for neglecting your duty to inform rather than stir up nonsense.
Thank you John McCain for also being a jerk, for promising to be a different kind of candidate, for claiming to be a dignified former military man, even though you have abused the troops, by sending them to a war based on lies, and by refusing to vote for expanded benefits for them, and now used the troops, to unfairly attack an opponent.
You are both beneath contempt.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Polls
I really am amused by how excited the media get by the latest polls.
For instance, the media have spun the narrative for weeks now that with George W. Bush so unpopular, and democratic registrations outnumbering republican registrations, Barack Obama should be up by more than he is (anywhere from four to about eight points depending on the poll). They apparently have forgotten that they told us in the last two elections that the nation was evenly divided. "We're a fifty-fifty nation," they told us after the 2000 election and before the 2004.
Now the narrative has changed. They use polls that say Obama is up by six and say he should be up by more. How he does that in a fifty-fifty nation I'm not sure. If Obama wins by six points in November, we definitely won't be a fifty-fifty nation. They will have to call it a rout, a landslide. Of course, it will be easier to use that characterization after the election when there is nothing to gain from continuing to root for McCain and to mischaracterize the race as "close." Now, they must keep it close to keep the public interested in what otherwise might be a very dull election season, akin to 1996 when Dole's campaign was just sad.
Today, CNN and MSNBC (and I suppose FOX though I would vomit if I forced myself to watch FOX) are responding to the latest Quinnipiac state polls showing McCain has a two point advantage over Obama in Colorado and has pulled closer in Michigan and Minnesota. This, they claim, means the race "is tightening" and Obama's fifty state strategy "is failing."
They fail to point out that this poll doesn't match others and that Colorado is still within the margin of error, which it has always been.
Polls today mean very little, in my opinion. When Obama chooses his running mate, the polls will change, and if he feels he needs to choose Hillary to move the polls, I believe he will. While there would certainly be problems with a Hillary vice presidency (namely the presence of Bill) there is no doubt in my mind that choosing her would lock up the presidency for him.
And there will be a change in polls during and after the convention, and especially when he gives his speech at Mile High Stadium. And there are still several months of McCain gaffes to look forward to.
The polls will be very different in October than they are now, and I am certain the advantage will be Obama's.
For instance, the media have spun the narrative for weeks now that with George W. Bush so unpopular, and democratic registrations outnumbering republican registrations, Barack Obama should be up by more than he is (anywhere from four to about eight points depending on the poll). They apparently have forgotten that they told us in the last two elections that the nation was evenly divided. "We're a fifty-fifty nation," they told us after the 2000 election and before the 2004.
Now the narrative has changed. They use polls that say Obama is up by six and say he should be up by more. How he does that in a fifty-fifty nation I'm not sure. If Obama wins by six points in November, we definitely won't be a fifty-fifty nation. They will have to call it a rout, a landslide. Of course, it will be easier to use that characterization after the election when there is nothing to gain from continuing to root for McCain and to mischaracterize the race as "close." Now, they must keep it close to keep the public interested in what otherwise might be a very dull election season, akin to 1996 when Dole's campaign was just sad.
Today, CNN and MSNBC (and I suppose FOX though I would vomit if I forced myself to watch FOX) are responding to the latest Quinnipiac state polls showing McCain has a two point advantage over Obama in Colorado and has pulled closer in Michigan and Minnesota. This, they claim, means the race "is tightening" and Obama's fifty state strategy "is failing."
They fail to point out that this poll doesn't match others and that Colorado is still within the margin of error, which it has always been.
Polls today mean very little, in my opinion. When Obama chooses his running mate, the polls will change, and if he feels he needs to choose Hillary to move the polls, I believe he will. While there would certainly be problems with a Hillary vice presidency (namely the presence of Bill) there is no doubt in my mind that choosing her would lock up the presidency for him.
And there will be a change in polls during and after the convention, and especially when he gives his speech at Mile High Stadium. And there are still several months of McCain gaffes to look forward to.
The polls will be very different in October than they are now, and I am certain the advantage will be Obama's.
Obama on the world stage in Berlin, McCain in a German restaurant
Just watched Obama's speech in Berlin. Not an exceptional speech - much of it he has said here at home. But he did talk about the Berlin airlift after WW II and managed to strengthen the rickety bridges with a country that just five decades ago was at war with the rest of the world.
To say he was warmly received would be an understatement. The crowd waved American flags and cheered, at times shouting "Obama, Obama" or "Yes we can."
I can't even imagine an American crowd turning out in those numbers (200,000) for one of their own candidates, let alone a foreign candidate. It shows how important it is to Europe that we get it right this time, how much they want to engage with us and join us in our efforts to combat global problems, if we just give them a leader who is intelligent and wise, rather than a bra snapping frat boy who usurped the office eight years ago.
Obama is an American citizen, but like many Europeans, he also considers himself a citizen of the world. In this global economy where news travels in seconds from Bangladesh to Bangor, any candidate for president of the United States who does not consider himself a citizen of the world would be a fool. Any presidential candidate who makes fun of foreign countries, as McCain did of France when they opposed the Iraq War, simply does not have the sophistication to understand that we are all dependent on each other in more ways than ever before: economically, militarily, environmentally, and culturally.
Indeed, the crowd in Berlin reflected the cultural interdependence of the world. In the crowd were a variety of faces, from the blackest of Africans to the blondest of Scandinavians, and all shades in between. And there stood Obama, a mixture of two races, combining the features of his white American mother and his black Kenyan father, talking to the world about working together to save the planet, stop terrorism, and remove the remaining walls between rich and poor, black and white, Jew, Christian and Muslim, and admitting America's imperfections even as he professed a love for the country that had given him so much opportunity.
Shortly after the speech ended, John McCain was granting an interview outside of a German restaurant in Ohio, with one of his minders, Lindsay Graham, by his side (Lieberman must have had a previous engagement), and all he could say was how ignorant, inexperienced and wrong Obama is. From the sublime to the ridiculous, as the saying goes. How petty and small McCain looks. How desperate his strategy.
There is simply no comparison. Obama is a statesman. McCain is a politician. Obama is looking to the future, McCain betting on the past. Obama speaks of lofty goals and common values. McCain seeks only to tear down Obama. Obama wants to be president to bring the nation and the world together to solve problems. McCain wants to be president just to be president.
To say he was warmly received would be an understatement. The crowd waved American flags and cheered, at times shouting "Obama, Obama" or "Yes we can."
I can't even imagine an American crowd turning out in those numbers (200,000) for one of their own candidates, let alone a foreign candidate. It shows how important it is to Europe that we get it right this time, how much they want to engage with us and join us in our efforts to combat global problems, if we just give them a leader who is intelligent and wise, rather than a bra snapping frat boy who usurped the office eight years ago.
Obama is an American citizen, but like many Europeans, he also considers himself a citizen of the world. In this global economy where news travels in seconds from Bangladesh to Bangor, any candidate for president of the United States who does not consider himself a citizen of the world would be a fool. Any presidential candidate who makes fun of foreign countries, as McCain did of France when they opposed the Iraq War, simply does not have the sophistication to understand that we are all dependent on each other in more ways than ever before: economically, militarily, environmentally, and culturally.
Indeed, the crowd in Berlin reflected the cultural interdependence of the world. In the crowd were a variety of faces, from the blackest of Africans to the blondest of Scandinavians, and all shades in between. And there stood Obama, a mixture of two races, combining the features of his white American mother and his black Kenyan father, talking to the world about working together to save the planet, stop terrorism, and remove the remaining walls between rich and poor, black and white, Jew, Christian and Muslim, and admitting America's imperfections even as he professed a love for the country that had given him so much opportunity.
Shortly after the speech ended, John McCain was granting an interview outside of a German restaurant in Ohio, with one of his minders, Lindsay Graham, by his side (Lieberman must have had a previous engagement), and all he could say was how ignorant, inexperienced and wrong Obama is. From the sublime to the ridiculous, as the saying goes. How petty and small McCain looks. How desperate his strategy.
There is simply no comparison. Obama is a statesman. McCain is a politician. Obama is looking to the future, McCain betting on the past. Obama speaks of lofty goals and common values. McCain seeks only to tear down Obama. Obama wants to be president to bring the nation and the world together to solve problems. McCain wants to be president just to be president.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Is it still a war?
John McCain has a huge investment in continuing to call the situation in Iraq a "war." So does George W. Bush.
For Bush, calling the situation a "war" allows him to continue to call himself a "war president," which gives him status and prestige he wouldn't otherwise have and allows him to break all kinds of laws and trash the Constitution.
For McCain, whose greatest claim to fame is that he is a "war hero," calling the situation in Iraq a "war" automatically boosts his credentials as the one who best understands the situation, or so his campaign thinks. It also allows him to manipulate the public with words they understand, like "victory" and "win." It enables him to characterize his position as one of wanting to win, while Obama, he claims, wants to "lose."
The press continues to call it a "war" as well, mostly because they have adopted the line of the president, but also because it is simply easier to call the situation a "war" rather than try to characterize it as the complicated situation it really is.
The reality is that the "Iraq War" as a traditional war in which one pits the army of one country against the army of another was over years ago, as soon as Saddam went into hiding and his military collapsed. Bush's "mission accomplished" moment was actually accurate in one sense: Saddam had been overthrown.
After that, the term "war" really no longer applied. At first, it was an occupation, then an insurgency coupled with a counter insurgency, and now back to an occupation. But that's too complicated for the press and most of their audience to comprehend. So they continue to call it a war.
And McCain will continue to call it a war as long as he thinks he can get away with accusing Obama of wanting to lose it, rather than wanting to have a sensible and realistic approach to ending the occupation of Iraq.
There's another reality here. John McCain is simply not qualified to be president. Wesley Clark had it right. Being shot down in a war decades ago, and spending years in a POW camp are not qualifications to be president. McCain knows nothing about the economy, by his own admission, has changed his mind on taxes and immigration, and now has shown his ignorance on what is happening and what needs to happen in the area he claims the most expertise: Iraq. He doesn't know what countries border Iraq and he doesn't understand that the Sunni awakening (which helped defeat al Qaeda in Iraq) preceded "the surge."
For Bush, calling the situation a "war" allows him to continue to call himself a "war president," which gives him status and prestige he wouldn't otherwise have and allows him to break all kinds of laws and trash the Constitution.
For McCain, whose greatest claim to fame is that he is a "war hero," calling the situation in Iraq a "war" automatically boosts his credentials as the one who best understands the situation, or so his campaign thinks. It also allows him to manipulate the public with words they understand, like "victory" and "win." It enables him to characterize his position as one of wanting to win, while Obama, he claims, wants to "lose."
The press continues to call it a "war" as well, mostly because they have adopted the line of the president, but also because it is simply easier to call the situation a "war" rather than try to characterize it as the complicated situation it really is.
The reality is that the "Iraq War" as a traditional war in which one pits the army of one country against the army of another was over years ago, as soon as Saddam went into hiding and his military collapsed. Bush's "mission accomplished" moment was actually accurate in one sense: Saddam had been overthrown.
After that, the term "war" really no longer applied. At first, it was an occupation, then an insurgency coupled with a counter insurgency, and now back to an occupation. But that's too complicated for the press and most of their audience to comprehend. So they continue to call it a war.
And McCain will continue to call it a war as long as he thinks he can get away with accusing Obama of wanting to lose it, rather than wanting to have a sensible and realistic approach to ending the occupation of Iraq.
There's another reality here. John McCain is simply not qualified to be president. Wesley Clark had it right. Being shot down in a war decades ago, and spending years in a POW camp are not qualifications to be president. McCain knows nothing about the economy, by his own admission, has changed his mind on taxes and immigration, and now has shown his ignorance on what is happening and what needs to happen in the area he claims the most expertise: Iraq. He doesn't know what countries border Iraq and he doesn't understand that the Sunni awakening (which helped defeat al Qaeda in Iraq) preceded "the surge."
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
John McCain's new map of the Middle East
Yesterday, on Good Morning America, John McCain was trying to look presidential and counter all the coverage of Obama's trip around the world, when he referred to the "Iraq - Pakistan border."
What should we make of this?
McCain having another senior moment?
McCain misspeaking?
McCain not knowing what the hell he is talking about?
I vote for the third possibility, though the first is probably also true.
I'm not sure many Americans will care, though, as I think most Americans probably believe there is an Iraq - Pakistan border.
My 82 year old father thought there was an Iraq - Afghanistan border until two months ago when we were arguing about the Iraq War and he told me it was necessary for the U. S. to go to war in Iraq because al Qaeda was crossing the border from Afghanistan to Iraq and we had to chase them. When I got out the atlas and showed him a picture of the region, with the huge country of Iran between Iraq and both Afghanistan and Pakistan, he couldn't believe it. He stared and stared and finally said he wondered how many other people were as wrong as he was and why didn't the newspaper publish pictures like this.
Facts matter, and presidential candidates and potential commanders in chief who can't get the facts right about the most explosive region in the world (and this isn't the first time McCain has gotten the facts wrong) should not be elected. McCain's increasing mistakes in foreign policy facts are more than troubling. They are extremely dangerous.
This election, we need to vote for someone who is knowledgable and intelligent, someone we can trust to know what he is doing. That person is not John McCain.
Obama and the press: a joy to watch
It's so refreshing, energizing and inspiring to see a presidential candidate (and hopefully soon-to-be president) who looks and sounds like an intelligent, sophisticated and knowledgeable leader.
Barack Obama's news conference today in Amman, Jordan showed us such a leader.
First of all, Obama looks presidential. He appears confident and composed. He has none of the tics of George Bush or the silly grimaces of both Bush and McCain. He maintains a serious demeanor and calls reporters by their actual names, not the silly nicknames Bush uses, yet he is friendly and approachable. He is also respectful of his opponent.
Best of all, he can speak with knowledge and confidence, and can explain things in more than sound bite phrases so commonly used by the current administration. The best response he gave, I believe, was in explaining the difference between his role and that of General Petraeus. Reporters, the McCain campaign, and some liberal bloggers have been going after Obama for some time about what he intends to do in Iraq, with a special focus on whether he will change his mind about withdrawing troops if the generals on the ground don't want him to.
His explanation lifted the discourse regarding Iraq to a new level and offered him an opportunity to educate voters on the complexity of the job of commander in chief. He admitted that General Petraeus does not want a timetable and he does. He did not see this as problematic, however, in that each has a different role. General Petraeus, he said, wants maximum flexibility to do the things he wants to do in Iraq. He said this desire is understandable. However, he added, his role as potential commander in chief will be to assess our role in Iraq in the context of the entire foreign and domestic policy of the United States. He may decide, for instance, that the money currently spent on certain operations in Iraq could be better spent somewhere else, either in another country, or here at home. Petraeus, he said, isn't looking at that broad a picture because that isn't his job.
He rejected the idea that as commander in chief he has a choice either to follow what his commanders on the ground advise him to do, or to reject their advice outright. He said his role is to listen to what they have to say and factor it in, along with other things, in making decisions.
This is a completely different, but totally rational and practical way of looking at things and contrasts completely with Bush and McCain, who are so focused on "victory," and who say they will do whatever the generals advise them to do in Iraq, as if that is the only decision they must make about where to spend our tax dollars and how to employ our military.
He talked with great wisdom and confidence about the need for the next president to move past ideology and political either-or games to find practical and realistic solutions to the very tough foreign policy problems we face as a nation. He said he trusts his ability to use good judgment even as he realizes these are tough problems without perfect answers.
It was a joy to watch.
Barack Obama's news conference today in Amman, Jordan showed us such a leader.
First of all, Obama looks presidential. He appears confident and composed. He has none of the tics of George Bush or the silly grimaces of both Bush and McCain. He maintains a serious demeanor and calls reporters by their actual names, not the silly nicknames Bush uses, yet he is friendly and approachable. He is also respectful of his opponent.
Best of all, he can speak with knowledge and confidence, and can explain things in more than sound bite phrases so commonly used by the current administration. The best response he gave, I believe, was in explaining the difference between his role and that of General Petraeus. Reporters, the McCain campaign, and some liberal bloggers have been going after Obama for some time about what he intends to do in Iraq, with a special focus on whether he will change his mind about withdrawing troops if the generals on the ground don't want him to.
His explanation lifted the discourse regarding Iraq to a new level and offered him an opportunity to educate voters on the complexity of the job of commander in chief. He admitted that General Petraeus does not want a timetable and he does. He did not see this as problematic, however, in that each has a different role. General Petraeus, he said, wants maximum flexibility to do the things he wants to do in Iraq. He said this desire is understandable. However, he added, his role as potential commander in chief will be to assess our role in Iraq in the context of the entire foreign and domestic policy of the United States. He may decide, for instance, that the money currently spent on certain operations in Iraq could be better spent somewhere else, either in another country, or here at home. Petraeus, he said, isn't looking at that broad a picture because that isn't his job.
He rejected the idea that as commander in chief he has a choice either to follow what his commanders on the ground advise him to do, or to reject their advice outright. He said his role is to listen to what they have to say and factor it in, along with other things, in making decisions.
This is a completely different, but totally rational and practical way of looking at things and contrasts completely with Bush and McCain, who are so focused on "victory," and who say they will do whatever the generals advise them to do in Iraq, as if that is the only decision they must make about where to spend our tax dollars and how to employ our military.
He talked with great wisdom and confidence about the need for the next president to move past ideology and political either-or games to find practical and realistic solutions to the very tough foreign policy problems we face as a nation. He said he trusts his ability to use good judgment even as he realizes these are tough problems without perfect answers.
It was a joy to watch.
Friday, July 18, 2008
The politics of war
On the eve of Barack Obama's historic trip to Iraq, Afghanistan and Europe, I offer the following brief summary of the politics of the Iraq War.
The Iraq War, most now conclude, was an unnecessary war, one based on either faulty intelligence or deliberate dishonesty on the part of the president and vice president. It is, in short, a war that should never have been authorized and never waged. John McCain joined with a majority of his Senate colleagues in authorizing the war and to this day supports the war and its goals, though he began to criticize the conduct of the war some months into it. Barack Obama was not in the Senate at the time of the vote authorizing the war, but made his opposition to the war known in a speech he gave in 2002. He has been consistent in opposing the war.
Last year, after much unhappiness with the conduct of the war and the increasing number of U.S. casualties, the president decided to send in more troops in what became known as "the surge." Since that time, U.S. deaths are down, and there seems to be more stability in the country. Many foreign policy experts attribute this not to the surge but to the United States paying tribal leaders not to attack U.S. troops and to go after al Qaeda in Iraq and to the decision of Moktada al Sadr to order his army to stand down for now. John McCain supported the surge from the beginning. Barack Obama opposed it as he wanted the troops to leave.
Given their differences, each candidate wants to stress a different thing, and each wants their focus to determine the election. McCain wants everyone to forget that we got into the war on the basis of lies and that we attacked a country that had not attacked us. His campaign consistently says it doesn't matter how we got into the war, all that matters is that we stay until some as yet undefined definition of victory. As much as he wants people to forget how we got into the war, he wants everyone to remember that he supported the surge, which he claims is working. However, it apparently isn't working well enough to bring troops home.
Barack Obama says something different. To Obama it matters a great deal how we got into this war, as he wants to change our entire foreign policy so that this kind of disaster never happens again. He wants to be careful getting out, especially as we were so careless getting in, but nevertheless he wants us to get out. He wants the Iraqis to step up and be responsible for their own country. He wants the troops home with their families. And he wants to stop borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from the Chinese just so that we can occupy Iraq, build permanent bases and allow companies like Halliburton to make a fortune there.
McCain says "Vote for me because I know war and know how to wage it, even if we are at war in a country that we probably invaded for ideological rather than defensive reasons. Vote for me because I'm one tough son of a gun."
Obama says "Vote for me because had I been president we would never have gone to Iraq and when I am president I will not take the nation to war unless it is absolutely necessary. Vote for me because of my good judgment and my ability to find solutions other than war. Vote for me because if I take the nation to war, it will be for legitimate reasons."
For those Americans who see the War in Iraq as the primary issue in this election, those are the choices - a candidate who brags about toughness and demands victory in a war that never should have been waged, or a candidate who could see through the administration's bogus case for war, and opposed it when very few politicians would take that chance.
The Iraq War, most now conclude, was an unnecessary war, one based on either faulty intelligence or deliberate dishonesty on the part of the president and vice president. It is, in short, a war that should never have been authorized and never waged. John McCain joined with a majority of his Senate colleagues in authorizing the war and to this day supports the war and its goals, though he began to criticize the conduct of the war some months into it. Barack Obama was not in the Senate at the time of the vote authorizing the war, but made his opposition to the war known in a speech he gave in 2002. He has been consistent in opposing the war.
Last year, after much unhappiness with the conduct of the war and the increasing number of U.S. casualties, the president decided to send in more troops in what became known as "the surge." Since that time, U.S. deaths are down, and there seems to be more stability in the country. Many foreign policy experts attribute this not to the surge but to the United States paying tribal leaders not to attack U.S. troops and to go after al Qaeda in Iraq and to the decision of Moktada al Sadr to order his army to stand down for now. John McCain supported the surge from the beginning. Barack Obama opposed it as he wanted the troops to leave.
Given their differences, each candidate wants to stress a different thing, and each wants their focus to determine the election. McCain wants everyone to forget that we got into the war on the basis of lies and that we attacked a country that had not attacked us. His campaign consistently says it doesn't matter how we got into the war, all that matters is that we stay until some as yet undefined definition of victory. As much as he wants people to forget how we got into the war, he wants everyone to remember that he supported the surge, which he claims is working. However, it apparently isn't working well enough to bring troops home.
Barack Obama says something different. To Obama it matters a great deal how we got into this war, as he wants to change our entire foreign policy so that this kind of disaster never happens again. He wants to be careful getting out, especially as we were so careless getting in, but nevertheless he wants us to get out. He wants the Iraqis to step up and be responsible for their own country. He wants the troops home with their families. And he wants to stop borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from the Chinese just so that we can occupy Iraq, build permanent bases and allow companies like Halliburton to make a fortune there.
McCain says "Vote for me because I know war and know how to wage it, even if we are at war in a country that we probably invaded for ideological rather than defensive reasons. Vote for me because I'm one tough son of a gun."
Obama says "Vote for me because had I been president we would never have gone to Iraq and when I am president I will not take the nation to war unless it is absolutely necessary. Vote for me because of my good judgment and my ability to find solutions other than war. Vote for me because if I take the nation to war, it will be for legitimate reasons."
For those Americans who see the War in Iraq as the primary issue in this election, those are the choices - a candidate who brags about toughness and demands victory in a war that never should have been waged, or a candidate who could see through the administration's bogus case for war, and opposed it when very few politicians would take that chance.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Obama will win in a landslide
I spend a little time each day watching some cable news - never FOX as it would turn my stomach, but a little CNN and a little MSNBC. Keith Olbermann is obviously an Obama supporter, which is a refreshing change on a cable channel, but almost all the other hosts seemed to have a vested interest in painting the race as much closer than it is. After all, if Obama is ahead by 8 points, as he is in one poll out today, and stays ahead by that much or more, it's going to be a very boring race, ratings will be down, and corporate media will lose money.
So the cable hosts look at polls with anywhere from a four to an eight point Obama lead and call it "a dead heat." Or they say that Obama should be ahead by fifteen points, so McCain must be closing in, or on the verge of pulling ahead. They channel Maureen Dowd and say Obama has no funny bone. McCain, they say, is funny, which is what the people want, even though the people are tired of having a clown in the White House. They say Obama got upset with the New Yorker cover, when he obviously didn't. They excuse McCain's mistakes and say he had a bad day or got mixed up or is such an expert that he simply confused Czechoslovakia with the Czech Republic. They say it is no big deal that McCain misremembers his stands on issues and his votes on bills because he's a maverick, a straight talker, and these things are aberrations. Yet Obama frowns and he has no funny bone. He's an elitist, arrogant, and too serious for his own good.
This is what got us eight years of George W. Bush, this willingness to give the stupidest and least qualified candidate a pass because the press somehow sees the smarter candidate as having an unfair advantage which ruins the myth of a close race. No one in the media wants one candidate to just run away with things and hurt their ratings, so they make sure he doesn't.
John Kerry was ahead of George W. Bush at this time four years ago, and the media was unwilling to let that stand. Kerry couldn't be allowed to run away with the election as that would end the race too soon, before all the money could be made with ad buys. So the suspense of a tight race had to be preserved. Enter the Swift Boat Veterans and their dishonest and ugly ads slandering Kerry, which might have died after the money to air them ran out, but which were shown over and over - for no charge - by the cable guys.
The media destroyed Kerry, by giving such attention to those terrible ads, and they seem to be trying to destroy Obama as well. This time the only thing that will destroy Obama is another terrorist attack that might scare enough voters into choosing McCain. But even that may not work as it will prove that Bush's policies did not protect us.
I think the polls that are being reported are probably underreporting the true extent of Obama's lead and I believe the media knows that - after all, they commission most of the polls. Obama will win in a landslide. That's the only reason the media are pushing so hard to discount the polls, and give McCain the benefit of the doubt that they never give Obama.
So the cable hosts look at polls with anywhere from a four to an eight point Obama lead and call it "a dead heat." Or they say that Obama should be ahead by fifteen points, so McCain must be closing in, or on the verge of pulling ahead. They channel Maureen Dowd and say Obama has no funny bone. McCain, they say, is funny, which is what the people want, even though the people are tired of having a clown in the White House. They say Obama got upset with the New Yorker cover, when he obviously didn't. They excuse McCain's mistakes and say he had a bad day or got mixed up or is such an expert that he simply confused Czechoslovakia with the Czech Republic. They say it is no big deal that McCain misremembers his stands on issues and his votes on bills because he's a maverick, a straight talker, and these things are aberrations. Yet Obama frowns and he has no funny bone. He's an elitist, arrogant, and too serious for his own good.
This is what got us eight years of George W. Bush, this willingness to give the stupidest and least qualified candidate a pass because the press somehow sees the smarter candidate as having an unfair advantage which ruins the myth of a close race. No one in the media wants one candidate to just run away with things and hurt their ratings, so they make sure he doesn't.
John Kerry was ahead of George W. Bush at this time four years ago, and the media was unwilling to let that stand. Kerry couldn't be allowed to run away with the election as that would end the race too soon, before all the money could be made with ad buys. So the suspense of a tight race had to be preserved. Enter the Swift Boat Veterans and their dishonest and ugly ads slandering Kerry, which might have died after the money to air them ran out, but which were shown over and over - for no charge - by the cable guys.
The media destroyed Kerry, by giving such attention to those terrible ads, and they seem to be trying to destroy Obama as well. This time the only thing that will destroy Obama is another terrorist attack that might scare enough voters into choosing McCain. But even that may not work as it will prove that Bush's policies did not protect us.
I think the polls that are being reported are probably underreporting the true extent of Obama's lead and I believe the media knows that - after all, they commission most of the polls. Obama will win in a landslide. That's the only reason the media are pushing so hard to discount the polls, and give McCain the benefit of the doubt that they never give Obama.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
The only thing that matters
There is only one thing that matters this November to anyone concerned about our economy, the planet's survival, health care, ending terrorism or severely reducing its threat, ending the occupation of Iraq, protecting women's rights and civil rights, and building cooperation with other nations: electing Barack Obama.
Yet the progressive blogs are full of people complaining about one or another issue and threatening to stay home this November or vote for John McCain, Bob Barr or Ralph Nader.
To me this is political and national suicide.
This time, I want a president who has enough intelligence to be our leader. In the last two presidential elections, the most responsible and most intelligent candidate lost to the long time alcoholic, with a second rate mind, because he said he was a born again Christian and because his campaign manager knew how to appeal to people's fears and biases.
We have another chance this year. We can elect the Democrat who is enormously intelligent and gifted in oratory (which is far more important than Republicans want to admit) or we can elect a second rate brain, who is showing cognitive slippage as he ages, and who claims little knowledge of our biggest national problem: the economic slowdown coupled with escalating inflation.
This is supposed to be a can't lose year for the Democrats, but Democrats are slamming their own nominee or refusing to get behind him because, like immature babies who want mommy to fulfill all their needs, they are mad because they can't have their way.
Barack didn't vote the way they insisted he vote on FISA.
Barack is sounding nuanced on the details of getting out of Iraq.
Barack is not cowtowing sufficiently to Hillary Clinton and her supporters.
Barack is blaming fathers for not supporting their children when he should be blaming the government for not giving them sufficient opportunity.
Oh please!
McCain would have voted exactly as Barack did on FISA, had he bothered to show up. And if he becomes president, you can bet he will abuse his power under FISA in ways Barack won't.
Barack may say he wants to be careful getting out of Iraq, but at least he wants to get out and close the bases we have there. McCain wants to stay indefinitely and maintain permanent bases.
Do Hillary's disappointed supporters really think McCain will be the better choice on women's rights? He has already said he will appoint right wing justices to the Supreme Court, and would like to see Roe V. Wade overturned. When questionned the other day he didn't seem to know that many insurance plans don't cover birth control for women, while they all cover Viagra for men. And he didn't remember that he had voted to allow them to do this. Is this a good sign for women? Barack may not be the woman candidate that Hillary's supporters wanted, but neither is McCain. At least Barack is right on the issues. McCain would be a disaster for women.
And Barack is right to chastise fathers for not suppporting their children and right to encourage children to stay in school. He hasn't forgotten the role of government in harming minorities and he won't abandon the fight to help them, but he isn't wrong when he says we must all do our part, no matter what the government does or doesn't do.
There is nothing more important to this nation than electing a Democratic President this year, and anyone who is willing to risk electing John McCain because their nose is out of joint over one or another issue is being selfish and stupid.
Barack Obama in not a perfect candidate and he will not be a perfect president, but he will be a million times better than McCain who is not only wrong on all the issues, not only a man who will say or do anything just to get elected, but who has some serious mental deficiencies that would be disastrous at a time when we need the best and the brightest running the country and solving our problems.
So let's all put away our desire for perfection, and our disappointments that we can't have a candidate like Santa Claus, who will honor our list of wishes, and vote for the best candidate we have had in a long time: Barack Obama.
Yet the progressive blogs are full of people complaining about one or another issue and threatening to stay home this November or vote for John McCain, Bob Barr or Ralph Nader.
To me this is political and national suicide.
This time, I want a president who has enough intelligence to be our leader. In the last two presidential elections, the most responsible and most intelligent candidate lost to the long time alcoholic, with a second rate mind, because he said he was a born again Christian and because his campaign manager knew how to appeal to people's fears and biases.
We have another chance this year. We can elect the Democrat who is enormously intelligent and gifted in oratory (which is far more important than Republicans want to admit) or we can elect a second rate brain, who is showing cognitive slippage as he ages, and who claims little knowledge of our biggest national problem: the economic slowdown coupled with escalating inflation.
This is supposed to be a can't lose year for the Democrats, but Democrats are slamming their own nominee or refusing to get behind him because, like immature babies who want mommy to fulfill all their needs, they are mad because they can't have their way.
Barack didn't vote the way they insisted he vote on FISA.
Barack is sounding nuanced on the details of getting out of Iraq.
Barack is not cowtowing sufficiently to Hillary Clinton and her supporters.
Barack is blaming fathers for not supporting their children when he should be blaming the government for not giving them sufficient opportunity.
Oh please!
McCain would have voted exactly as Barack did on FISA, had he bothered to show up. And if he becomes president, you can bet he will abuse his power under FISA in ways Barack won't.
Barack may say he wants to be careful getting out of Iraq, but at least he wants to get out and close the bases we have there. McCain wants to stay indefinitely and maintain permanent bases.
Do Hillary's disappointed supporters really think McCain will be the better choice on women's rights? He has already said he will appoint right wing justices to the Supreme Court, and would like to see Roe V. Wade overturned. When questionned the other day he didn't seem to know that many insurance plans don't cover birth control for women, while they all cover Viagra for men. And he didn't remember that he had voted to allow them to do this. Is this a good sign for women? Barack may not be the woman candidate that Hillary's supporters wanted, but neither is McCain. At least Barack is right on the issues. McCain would be a disaster for women.
And Barack is right to chastise fathers for not suppporting their children and right to encourage children to stay in school. He hasn't forgotten the role of government in harming minorities and he won't abandon the fight to help them, but he isn't wrong when he says we must all do our part, no matter what the government does or doesn't do.
There is nothing more important to this nation than electing a Democratic President this year, and anyone who is willing to risk electing John McCain because their nose is out of joint over one or another issue is being selfish and stupid.
Barack Obama in not a perfect candidate and he will not be a perfect president, but he will be a million times better than McCain who is not only wrong on all the issues, not only a man who will say or do anything just to get elected, but who has some serious mental deficiencies that would be disastrous at a time when we need the best and the brightest running the country and solving our problems.
So let's all put away our desire for perfection, and our disappointments that we can't have a candidate like Santa Claus, who will honor our list of wishes, and vote for the best candidate we have had in a long time: Barack Obama.
Friday, July 11, 2008
McCain: Forgiven
I've had a number of talks with "born again Christians" who say that because they are born again, and thus forgiven of all sin, what they do in the future isn't all that important. They will be forgiven again and again, and though they know they will engage in more sin in the future, they aren't too worried because Jesus died for all their sins, even the future ones. Simply accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior is enough.
This reminds me a lot of how the media and many citizens look at John McCain. I don't know much about McCain's spiritual life, so I don't know if he is spiritually born again, but in a temporal sense he has been born again, and because of that, it seems, McCain is forgiven every gaffe, every sin, every failing, every wrong headed policy, every insensitive statement, every memory lapse, every lie.
McCain was born again in the sense that he survived being a POW. This gives him war hero status, which gives him instant forgiveness for everything he has ever done and will do, and that is the only explanation that makes sense to me for why the media continues to give him a pass no matter what he does.
At the age of 42, he left his wife and children for 24 year old Cindy. Had Obama done that earlier in his life, you can bet McCain and his team would be slamming him with the adultery charge. But no one much cares about McCain's infidelity. He's forgiven.
Earlier in the year on several occasions McCain got Sunnis and Shiites mixed up in his speeches, and confused Iranian Shia troops with Sunni Al Qaeda. The press noted it, but no one made it a big deal. Had Obama been this confused, McCain and his allies would have pointed to this as proof that he was unqualified to be commander in chief. But McCain's memory lapse or confusion is a forgivable sin when you have been a POW.
This week, McCain showed his total ignorance of how Social Security works by saying it was "a disgrace" that younger workers are funding the benefits to today's retirees. Since this is how the program has always worked - it isn't like a 401K where what you put in is what you get out - what McCain is saying is either that he has always believed that the way the system was set up is a disgrace, or that he thought it worked some other way but now that he knows how it works he is appalled. Either way, McCain is showing some real cognitive slippage or simple ignorance here, but he was a war hero and he can be forgiven. Had Obama said something like this, he would have been denounced as too ignorant to become president.
McCain also had to distance himself this week from his chief economic advisor Phil Gramm who said the American people, who are losing jobs, pensions, health care, and homes, are in some kind of delusional "mental recession," and are simply "whiners." McCain, though, also seems unaware of how much this economy is hurting individual Americans, and reflected Gramm's sentiments in the past when he acknowledged that his solutions would only bring a psychological lift to the economy. Had anyone in Obama's camp called Americans "whiners" we would have heard about it for weeks. Oh wait, we did. Obama said something about the American people being "bitter" which is not as bad as calling them "whiners," but he took so much crap for it that he nearly lost the nomination as a result. But McCain was born again when he walked out of that POW camp, and so we can forgive him his insensitivity to the American people.
We can't forgive Wesley Clark, though, for saying he honored and respected John McCain, but didn't think his experiences in Vietnam gave him the experience he needed to be commander in chief. Even though Wesley Clark was wounded in Vietnam, and was a general, that isn't the same as being a POW. That doesn't make you born again. That doesn't allow all of your past and future sins to be forgiven. Therefore, Wesley Clark, you have been condemned by the media for "dissing McCain's service," (which is not what you did) your words are not forgiven, and Barack Obama can be tagged with your sins.
Pretty nifty how that born again forgiveness works - at least for Republicans.
This reminds me a lot of how the media and many citizens look at John McCain. I don't know much about McCain's spiritual life, so I don't know if he is spiritually born again, but in a temporal sense he has been born again, and because of that, it seems, McCain is forgiven every gaffe, every sin, every failing, every wrong headed policy, every insensitive statement, every memory lapse, every lie.
McCain was born again in the sense that he survived being a POW. This gives him war hero status, which gives him instant forgiveness for everything he has ever done and will do, and that is the only explanation that makes sense to me for why the media continues to give him a pass no matter what he does.
At the age of 42, he left his wife and children for 24 year old Cindy. Had Obama done that earlier in his life, you can bet McCain and his team would be slamming him with the adultery charge. But no one much cares about McCain's infidelity. He's forgiven.
Earlier in the year on several occasions McCain got Sunnis and Shiites mixed up in his speeches, and confused Iranian Shia troops with Sunni Al Qaeda. The press noted it, but no one made it a big deal. Had Obama been this confused, McCain and his allies would have pointed to this as proof that he was unqualified to be commander in chief. But McCain's memory lapse or confusion is a forgivable sin when you have been a POW.
This week, McCain showed his total ignorance of how Social Security works by saying it was "a disgrace" that younger workers are funding the benefits to today's retirees. Since this is how the program has always worked - it isn't like a 401K where what you put in is what you get out - what McCain is saying is either that he has always believed that the way the system was set up is a disgrace, or that he thought it worked some other way but now that he knows how it works he is appalled. Either way, McCain is showing some real cognitive slippage or simple ignorance here, but he was a war hero and he can be forgiven. Had Obama said something like this, he would have been denounced as too ignorant to become president.
McCain also had to distance himself this week from his chief economic advisor Phil Gramm who said the American people, who are losing jobs, pensions, health care, and homes, are in some kind of delusional "mental recession," and are simply "whiners." McCain, though, also seems unaware of how much this economy is hurting individual Americans, and reflected Gramm's sentiments in the past when he acknowledged that his solutions would only bring a psychological lift to the economy. Had anyone in Obama's camp called Americans "whiners" we would have heard about it for weeks. Oh wait, we did. Obama said something about the American people being "bitter" which is not as bad as calling them "whiners," but he took so much crap for it that he nearly lost the nomination as a result. But McCain was born again when he walked out of that POW camp, and so we can forgive him his insensitivity to the American people.
We can't forgive Wesley Clark, though, for saying he honored and respected John McCain, but didn't think his experiences in Vietnam gave him the experience he needed to be commander in chief. Even though Wesley Clark was wounded in Vietnam, and was a general, that isn't the same as being a POW. That doesn't make you born again. That doesn't allow all of your past and future sins to be forgiven. Therefore, Wesley Clark, you have been condemned by the media for "dissing McCain's service," (which is not what you did) your words are not forgiven, and Barack Obama can be tagged with your sins.
Pretty nifty how that born again forgiveness works - at least for Republicans.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Republicans and responsibility
Republicans in positions of power, and the corporations that support them, remind me an awful lot of misbehaving two year olds.
From my latest article on Outraged Citizen:
From my latest article on Outraged Citizen:
Republican leaders and talkers say they want to get the government off your back, lower your taxes, and – of course – allow you the privilege of handling your own problems without help from the government. They say they believe in "personal responsibility," and the implication always is that Democrats who want government to provide assistance to those in need do not believe in personal responsibility, and ordinary people who need help are not acting responsibly (neither of which is true).
My observation, however, is that what Republicans are really saying when they talk about personal responsibility is that they don't believe in being responsible for and to each other. They don't believe in "being their brother's keeper" and they don't care to consider how their behavior impacts negatively on others. They believe in the individual's right to do what they want, not the individual's responsibility to care for and acknowledge the needs, rights, and comfort of others.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Cracking the McCain code
Yesterday John McCain expressed his outrage over the way Social Security works and ignorance over that fact that it was created to work this way:
Translation: Hey, you young Obama supporters - you're so stupid you don't even know that some of your payroll taxes are going to support your parents and grandparents. You should be angry about it and vote for me because conservatives are going to destroy Social Security and then you can keep your money and either spend it on all those new electronic gadgets you love, or put it in the stock market where financial institutions can make money off of you, and your parents and grandparents will just have to fend for themselves the way I did - they'll have to find an heiress to marry.
Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace.
Translation: Hey, you young Obama supporters - you're so stupid you don't even know that some of your payroll taxes are going to support your parents and grandparents. You should be angry about it and vote for me because conservatives are going to destroy Social Security and then you can keep your money and either spend it on all those new electronic gadgets you love, or put it in the stock market where financial institutions can make money off of you, and your parents and grandparents will just have to fend for themselves the way I did - they'll have to find an heiress to marry.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Cracking the McCain code
According to the McCain campaign:
Translation: I don't know what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to the economy, but this sounds kinda good. I get to sound like a commander in chief, talk about reducing the deficit, and remind you of the Islamic extremists you need to fear (you know, the ones who have names like "Hussein").
My comment: Savings from war? Really? In whose universe?
"The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction."
Translation: I don't know what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to the economy, but this sounds kinda good. I get to sound like a commander in chief, talk about reducing the deficit, and remind you of the Islamic extremists you need to fear (you know, the ones who have names like "Hussein").
My comment: Savings from war? Really? In whose universe?
Thursday, July 3, 2008
The McCain media
Earlier today I heard Suzanne Malveaux (sitting in for Wolf Blitzer - all the media celebrities disappear around the 4th of July) say that Wes Clark had criticized John McCain's military service last Sunday on Face the Nation. This is not the first time Clark's comments have been characterized this way, nor is it the first time the media has accused Obama of saying something he didn't say, or of "flip-flopping" because McCain said he did, when he did no such thing.
Ohmigod - are all these anchors in the tank for McCain or are they just plain stupid? Are viewers incapable of understanding a little complexity, a statement longer than a sound bite, or are anchors the ones incapable of understanding? Are their media overlords telling them to distort things this way or are they just missing a few brain cells under their fancy hairdos? The rightward slant is so obvious, Malveaux should be falling off her chair.
Wes Clark did not criticize McCain's service. In fact, he went out of his way to praise it, to say how much he admired and looked up to him. What he said, when Bob Shieffer attacked Obama, noting that Obama had never "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down," was "I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down are qualifications to be president." Clearly he was defending Obama's experience in comparison to McCain's. I don't think there's any way this statement can be construed as criticizing McCain, yet that is just how Malveaux construed it.
I think it's time Obama had paid staff members to do nothing but watch the cable channels so that immediate responses can be made when the media automatically goes along with the McCain narrative. It reminds me of how the Republicans are always able to get the media to use their words (which always favor their narrative): war on terror, tax relief, flip-flop, tax and spend, slow down (rather than recession), death tax, surrender, unpatriotic, etc. Which means it's also time for the Democrats to create their own words and hammer them time and again into the empty heads of the media to create a counter-narrative. If they don't, they'll be continually defending themselves, and a campaign on the defensive is not a winning campaign.
And just for the record, I think it's time we buried the myth of the "liberal media."
Ohmigod - are all these anchors in the tank for McCain or are they just plain stupid? Are viewers incapable of understanding a little complexity, a statement longer than a sound bite, or are anchors the ones incapable of understanding? Are their media overlords telling them to distort things this way or are they just missing a few brain cells under their fancy hairdos? The rightward slant is so obvious, Malveaux should be falling off her chair.
Wes Clark did not criticize McCain's service. In fact, he went out of his way to praise it, to say how much he admired and looked up to him. What he said, when Bob Shieffer attacked Obama, noting that Obama had never "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down," was "I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down are qualifications to be president." Clearly he was defending Obama's experience in comparison to McCain's. I don't think there's any way this statement can be construed as criticizing McCain, yet that is just how Malveaux construed it.
I think it's time Obama had paid staff members to do nothing but watch the cable channels so that immediate responses can be made when the media automatically goes along with the McCain narrative. It reminds me of how the Republicans are always able to get the media to use their words (which always favor their narrative): war on terror, tax relief, flip-flop, tax and spend, slow down (rather than recession), death tax, surrender, unpatriotic, etc. Which means it's also time for the Democrats to create their own words and hammer them time and again into the empty heads of the media to create a counter-narrative. If they don't, they'll be continually defending themselves, and a campaign on the defensive is not a winning campaign.
And just for the record, I think it's time we buried the myth of the "liberal media."
Advice for progressives during the 2008 election season
1. Don't get excited over polls. They go up and down, they are all figured according to different demographic weighting, they change from day to day. If you must pay attention to polls, look at the trends and the average of the polls. The Gallup Daily Tracking poll is pretty worthless. I have yet to see a poll where McCain breaks 44%. Obama goes up and down from the mid forties to the low fifties, but McCain is stuck.
2. Keep pushing your issues if you want, but don't expect Barack Obama to obey you. He is in this election to win and he has to attend to a lot of issues and public opinion other than yours. He also has to be true to himself and his own beliefs which on some things are progressive and on some things are more moderate. Keep in mind two things: 1) it is one thing to be an activist, another to be a candidate who really wants to get elected. The two may sometimes be in conflict. 2) Winning elections and governing are two different things. Winning elections involves appealing to a majority of the people, a majority of whom may not be as progressive as you. Goverining means compromising with the opposition when you can't persuade them to agree with you.
3. Always remember that no matter how Obama may disappoint you on one or more issues, McCain would be 1000 times worse. Also remember that opposing Obama too vigorously may hurt his ability to win because conservative will pick up your negative comments and use them against him. Look at how hard they are working to pick off Hillary supporters.
4. Never, ever, ever trust the opposition. The Republicans will do anything, say anything, steal anything, and violate any law or ethical guideline to win. Even when they seem to be praising your candidate, don't trust them. It's a trick meant to make you complacent and overconfident. Stick together and see this election as a war that must be waged with great intelligence. And remember that your candidate has a perspective that you don't and just may be doing what he needs to do - even if you don't like it - so that he can become the next president where he will change things in ways that will mostly please you and more importantly, greatly improve conditions in this country and around the world.
5. Never, ever forget what the past eight years have been like, because eight years under McCain would be worse. He's a hothead, a warmonger, not terribly bright, clueless about the economy, stuck on his "specialness" as a POW and "war hero" and he can't seem to do or say anything without former democrat and McCain suck-up Joe Lieberman at his side. Have you ever known any other presidential candidate who couldn't go anywhere or do anything without the same elected official next to him?
One thing the Republicans have always been able to do is unite their party and keep everyone on message. They aren't doing as well this year, which is to our advantage, but don't underestimate their desire to win. They will pull together before this is over and do everything they can to make Obama a scary, unamerican black person. The least we can do for him, for our party, and for our country, is stick together, back him up, and keep our unhappiness with some of his decisions out of the media.
That is, if we really are serious about winning this time.
2. Keep pushing your issues if you want, but don't expect Barack Obama to obey you. He is in this election to win and he has to attend to a lot of issues and public opinion other than yours. He also has to be true to himself and his own beliefs which on some things are progressive and on some things are more moderate. Keep in mind two things: 1) it is one thing to be an activist, another to be a candidate who really wants to get elected. The two may sometimes be in conflict. 2) Winning elections and governing are two different things. Winning elections involves appealing to a majority of the people, a majority of whom may not be as progressive as you. Goverining means compromising with the opposition when you can't persuade them to agree with you.
3. Always remember that no matter how Obama may disappoint you on one or more issues, McCain would be 1000 times worse. Also remember that opposing Obama too vigorously may hurt his ability to win because conservative will pick up your negative comments and use them against him. Look at how hard they are working to pick off Hillary supporters.
4. Never, ever, ever trust the opposition. The Republicans will do anything, say anything, steal anything, and violate any law or ethical guideline to win. Even when they seem to be praising your candidate, don't trust them. It's a trick meant to make you complacent and overconfident. Stick together and see this election as a war that must be waged with great intelligence. And remember that your candidate has a perspective that you don't and just may be doing what he needs to do - even if you don't like it - so that he can become the next president where he will change things in ways that will mostly please you and more importantly, greatly improve conditions in this country and around the world.
5. Never, ever forget what the past eight years have been like, because eight years under McCain would be worse. He's a hothead, a warmonger, not terribly bright, clueless about the economy, stuck on his "specialness" as a POW and "war hero" and he can't seem to do or say anything without former democrat and McCain suck-up Joe Lieberman at his side. Have you ever known any other presidential candidate who couldn't go anywhere or do anything without the same elected official next to him?
One thing the Republicans have always been able to do is unite their party and keep everyone on message. They aren't doing as well this year, which is to our advantage, but don't underestimate their desire to win. They will pull together before this is over and do everything they can to make Obama a scary, unamerican black person. The least we can do for him, for our party, and for our country, is stick together, back him up, and keep our unhappiness with some of his decisions out of the media.
That is, if we really are serious about winning this time.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Grunts resenting flyboys?
Maureen Dowd, regarding the Wesley Clark distraction, in today's NYT:
This is not even about Obama. It’s the old business of grunts resenting flyboys. Bob Dole made a crack long ago about patrician Poppy Bush flying over the infantry. And Clark, as Fred Kaplan writes in Slate, “was an Army infantry commander during the Vietnam War while McCain was a Navy aviator.”
Getting smart or staying stupid
I've developed a really bad habit. I get up around 5:00 a.m. to watch the last hour of Morning Joke on MSNBC. It's on from 6 to 9 east coast time, which means 3 to 6 here. This bad habit ensures that a) I will not get eight hours of sleep each night, and b) I will be pissed off by about 5:45.
This morning was no exception. I'm pissed. One of the guests was Larry Kudlow, who mostly makes me want to vomit. This morning was a bit amusing, however, in that regular commentator Pat Buchanan, who also usually makes me want to vomit, was actually arguing with him over the immoral multimillion dollar salaries and benefit packages for CEOs. That part was actually refreshing.
What angered me, though, was Kudlow's insistence that we begin drilling immediately off the coasts and in Alaska, as - he claims - it will lower the price of gas immediately. According to Kudlow, once the oil producing companies realize Americans are going to get their own oil, they will release more of their supplies and that will lower the price. Supply and demand.
This is typical supply side Republican economics and politics. Think only of the ideological economic principles you embrace so that American business can reap huge profits, and pander to the people so you can get your guys in office to continue the raping of the middle class.
Kudlow thinks only in terms of dollars, and completely ignores environmental concerns. For decades now we have been watching our climate change and our environment deteriorate. For years politicians have paid lip service to finding renewable sources of energy and weaning this country off of oil. For years they have done nothing.
The technology exists to move us from an oil based economy to an economy that takes advantage of wind, sun, plants and even nuclear based energy. Yet we remain stuck in our dependency on oil, which not only continues to harm our planet, but holds us captive to a destructive and violent foreign policy. Drilling for oil will only give us a false sense of security and waste time we should be spending on implementing long term solutions, environmentally friendly solutions.
We have wasted eight years while two oil men ran the country, started wars for oil, and ignored the looming crisis. McCain is proposing the same policies that these oil men are calling for: more drilling. Why? Not because it would mean we could change our foreign policy - McCain wants more wars in the Middle East. He envisions being there for 50 or 100 years if necessary. No, McCain wants more drilling because it's a good campaign issue. Why is it a good campaign issue? Because people are mad that they have to pay so much for a gallon of gasoline.
During these past eight years, when American auto makers should have been manufacturing more fuel efficient cars, and the people should have been demanding them, the car companies sold expensive gas guzzlers, the Bush administration gave tax breaks for the purchase of large vehicles, and the people bought them to show off. We have all been stupid, but it's time to get smart, and that is not what McCain is proposing. He is proposing something incredibly stupid: retain our dependency on oil, but find the oil here in America.
If we go along with Larry Kudlow, and elect John McCain, we will be signing our planet's death warrant. Even if he only serves four years, we can't afford those years.
This is it boys and girls. We must start changing now. We must switch over to other sources of energy as rapidly as possible. The only candidate promising to do that, the only candidate capable of doing that, is Barack Obama.
This morning was no exception. I'm pissed. One of the guests was Larry Kudlow, who mostly makes me want to vomit. This morning was a bit amusing, however, in that regular commentator Pat Buchanan, who also usually makes me want to vomit, was actually arguing with him over the immoral multimillion dollar salaries and benefit packages for CEOs. That part was actually refreshing.
What angered me, though, was Kudlow's insistence that we begin drilling immediately off the coasts and in Alaska, as - he claims - it will lower the price of gas immediately. According to Kudlow, once the oil producing companies realize Americans are going to get their own oil, they will release more of their supplies and that will lower the price. Supply and demand.
This is typical supply side Republican economics and politics. Think only of the ideological economic principles you embrace so that American business can reap huge profits, and pander to the people so you can get your guys in office to continue the raping of the middle class.
Kudlow thinks only in terms of dollars, and completely ignores environmental concerns. For decades now we have been watching our climate change and our environment deteriorate. For years politicians have paid lip service to finding renewable sources of energy and weaning this country off of oil. For years they have done nothing.
The technology exists to move us from an oil based economy to an economy that takes advantage of wind, sun, plants and even nuclear based energy. Yet we remain stuck in our dependency on oil, which not only continues to harm our planet, but holds us captive to a destructive and violent foreign policy. Drilling for oil will only give us a false sense of security and waste time we should be spending on implementing long term solutions, environmentally friendly solutions.
We have wasted eight years while two oil men ran the country, started wars for oil, and ignored the looming crisis. McCain is proposing the same policies that these oil men are calling for: more drilling. Why? Not because it would mean we could change our foreign policy - McCain wants more wars in the Middle East. He envisions being there for 50 or 100 years if necessary. No, McCain wants more drilling because it's a good campaign issue. Why is it a good campaign issue? Because people are mad that they have to pay so much for a gallon of gasoline.
During these past eight years, when American auto makers should have been manufacturing more fuel efficient cars, and the people should have been demanding them, the car companies sold expensive gas guzzlers, the Bush administration gave tax breaks for the purchase of large vehicles, and the people bought them to show off. We have all been stupid, but it's time to get smart, and that is not what McCain is proposing. He is proposing something incredibly stupid: retain our dependency on oil, but find the oil here in America.
If we go along with Larry Kudlow, and elect John McCain, we will be signing our planet's death warrant. Even if he only serves four years, we can't afford those years.
This is it boys and girls. We must start changing now. We must switch over to other sources of energy as rapidly as possible. The only candidate promising to do that, the only candidate capable of doing that, is Barack Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)