Month: February 2008

Differences In The Democratic Candidates–Part One

This will be a short three part series to explain the Dem candidates to the readers.  Originally posted on the website of the Progressive Review, very informative and very interesting.  All Dem votersshould read this and decide if they are behund the right person.

BARACK OBAMA

  • GOOD
  • Promises not to sign a trade bill without environmental and labor protections.
  • Voted against immunity for telecoms’ illegal spying on Americans
  • Has inspired a lot of young and minority voters to get involved in politics
  • Helped fight for restoration of habeas corpus at Gitmo
  • Would end the corrupt, destructive Bush-Clinton dynasty
  • Favored cluster bomb ban in civilian areas
  • Opposes most individual mandates in healthcare
  • Has released personal financial information
  • BAD
  • Deserted previous support for two-state solution to Mid East situation
  • Misled on extent on lobbyist support
  • Opposed filibuster efforts against nominated Supreme Couirt Justice Alioto
  • Called the late Paul Wellstone “something of a gadfly”
  • Voted for a business-friendly “tort reform” bill
  • Wrote that conservatives and Bill Clinton were right about welfare
  • Is willing to put rightwingers in his cabinet
  • Says “everything is on the table” with Social Security
  • Opposed efffort to censure Bush administration for illegal wiretapping
  • Voted to make John Negroponte the National Intelligence Director.
  • Voted for a nuclear energy bill that included money for bunker buster bombs and full funding for Yucca Mountain.
  • Won’t rule out first strike nuclear attack on Iran
  • Received $708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006
  • Went to Connecticut to support Joe Lieberman in the primary against Ned Lamont
  • Supports federally funded ethanol
  • Refuses to take a position on the anti-constitutional Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
  • Called Pakistan “the right battlefield … in the war on terrorism” Threatened to invade Pakistan
  • Opposed putting heating fuel assistance for low income in stimulas bill
  • Sounds sort of like Tony Robbins
  • Uses various evangelical cons to win supporters
  • His policies in most areas have yet to be revealed
  • Voted against a 30% interest rate cap on credit cards
  • Has a developer buddy who just got indicted
  • Opposed the war as a state senator, less certain as a federal one

Liberalism?

If one spends much time on line, especially if you are interested in politics, one would see that Conservs and liberals seldom agree on much.  As a matter of fact, being a liberal is akin to being mentally ill.  But the problem is that not many really understand the term liberal.

For years I have been analyzing, reporting and debunking the American political system.  Most Americans think that they are either conservative or liberal, a bit simplistic, at best but that is the way they think.  For instance, if youare not a Republican then you are on the Left(?).  I have yet to find one person that thinks that way that can explain it satisfactorily.  To think that a Democrat is somehow a Leftist, is beyond humor and flies straight into ignorance.

First, if a person is to be labelled a Liberal–what type of liberal are they?  Classical or Modern?  Ask that question and then observe the face of the person being questioned–“a deer caught in the headlights” comes to mind.  Confusion is a good description, but really not that accurate.

Let us take a look at the types of Liberals there are:

Classic Liberal–the so called father of liberalism–John Locke pretty much defines it as thus:

Individual is more important than the state and becomes a citizen of the state only through consent.

The individual is rational and capable of making his/her own decisions.

Progress is posible in political affairs, so change should not be feared.

State power should be limited.

Economic inequality is not necessarily a bad thing.

Economic freedom is more important than economic equality.

Next is what we shall call a Modern Liberal–

Government intervention into individual and social life is sometimes necessary to prevent individuals from denying freedom to others.

Liberty should be understood in broad, expansive, positive terms:  as the liberty to seek out ways to develope the human potential and contgribute in a meaningful way to society.

Economic inequalities is to be regarded with suspicion, as a condition likely to undermine the welfare of those who have lower incomes and thus erode their chances of being free.

These are a bit simplistic as I have said and could be expanded on which in turn would make the whole thing so confusing that no amount of trying could bring about an understanding.

I sincerely hope that this has assisted the reader in some way, to help identify the differences in liberals and has help in the identification of what a liberal really believes.  They are not all Leftists, as smoe would have you believe.

Ready! Aim! Fire!

Geez! Obama has got to feel like a proverbial duck in a barrel. Everyone is taking shots at him. McCain tries to emphasis his inexperience on the Middle East. Clinton is trying to just grab a few more votes. But the real funny is the surrogates of each of the mentioned candidates.

The Clinton surrogates have nothing, so they make it up as they go and then there are the 527’s. You gotta love these slimy little sh*ts! As I go around talking with people about Obama, it surprises me the people that actually believe every word of these horrible emails. Especially the one about him being a Muslim mole in the machine. I ask these people if he were a Muslim why is he a member of a supposedly “white-hating” Christian church? That is a direct violation of Islam. The funny part is I never get an answer.

The there is the “inevitable” Repub nominee, who spends more time on Obama than on his positions. But there is a reason for that, he has nothing but tired old diatribes. And it helps keep the spotlight off his flip flopping on issues like tax cuts and torture. Two things he was opposed to and now he has seen the light and he supports them. The light? The light of the presidency.

All in all this whole attack Obama thing is something that they need to be prepared for and it is something rather silly. The voter learns nothing about issues and positions and stances by this type of crap.

A Federalist Government?

Federalist Papers

The authors of THE FEDERALIST had varying and sometimes clashing ideas about government, but they agreed strongly on certain fundamental ideas: republicanism, federalism, separation of powers, and free government.

–Republicanism. A republican government is one “in which the scheme of representation takes place” (No. 10). It is based on the consent of the governed because power is delegated to a small number of citizens who are elected by the rest.

–Federalism. In a federal republic, power is divided vertically between a general (federal) government and several state governments. Two levels of government, each supreme in its own sphere, can exercise powers separately and directly on the people. State governments can neither ignore nor contradict federal statutes that conform to the supreme law, the Constitution. This conception of federalism departed from traditional forms, known today as confederations, in which states retained full sovereignty over their internal affairs.

–Separation of Powers. “Publius” proclaims (No. 47): “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” So the Constitution separates powers of government among three branches according to function. But this horizontal separation of powers is not complete. Each branch has various constitutional means to participate in the affairs of the others to check and balance powers in government and prevent one branch of the government from dominating the others.

–Free Government. Republicanism, federalism, and separation of powers are characteristics of free government. According to THE FEDERALIST, free government is popular government limited by law to protect the security, liberty, and property of individuals. A free government is powerful enough to provide protection against external and internal threats and limited enough to prevent tyranny in any form. In particular, free government is designed to guard against the most insidious danger of government by the people–the tyranny of the many over the few. Of course, it was mainly the “propertied few” that “Publius” had in mind, but this principle applies equally to constitutional protection of religious, ethnic, racial or other minorities against oppression by the majority.

There were those that did not agree totally on the Federalist system, they were called the Anti-federalist, but they were quickly marginalized by the biggies within the movement.

Why do I mention this?  Just read the post and tell me if there is anything wrong with the concept as it is practiced today.

Chelsea: Continuation Of The Clinton Birthright?

Recently in the New Yorker magazine, a fluff piece on Chelsea Clinton written by Lloyd grove, and it was a warm and fuzzy piece on the daughter of Hil and Bill. It covered how she had become a good campaigner for her mother, that she was well informed on the issues and the positions of her mother. Not a bad piece and it was a bit informative. That is if you really wanted to know how Chelsea was doing in the campaign.

The author was interviewed on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”. Why? I mean this piece had nothing to do with the attacks from the weekend or the upcoming debate. So why was this a story on MSNBC?

Recently MSNBC’s David Schuster made an off hand remark about Chelsea. I will not repeat it, but he was reprimanded and given a 2 week furlough from the air as punishment. MSNBC seems to have bought into the rhetoric of that Obama is getting a free ride in the media. IMO, this interview of the article was a pay off to the Clinton campaign for Schuster’s slip of the tongue. Think I am delusional?

Well, let us look at it. Joe Scarborough has blasted unmercifully Michelle Obama for her statement that she was finally proud the her country. He goes off on a diatribe about her being unpatriotic and similar such nonsense. What amazes me is that none of the “anchors” when they bring up this statement ever quote it properly. They seem to always leave out the adverb, “really” from her statement. Anyway my point is that Michelle Obama has been lambasted by MSNBC and no one gets whacked on the pee-pee. Why?

Appears that MSNBC is working for the Clinton campaign. That should not be surprising to anyone that knows politics. Clinton is a product of the democratic leadership Council; GE owns MSNBC and is a staunch contributor to the DLC. Does it begin to make sense now?

Watch Chelsea, she will be running for office in the next 5 years or so. She appears to be in the grooming process of a candidacy. Will the Clinton birthright continue? Time will tell. I shall be vindicated!

Is There A Real McCain Story?

OK, I know that this will sound like a piece from a conspiracy theorist, but I have been thinking about the John McCain story of last week.  You know the one, where he may have had an impure relationship with a female lobbyist.  First, I do not care about his personal life.  I do not care about his kids.  I do not care that he may keep his socks on during sex.  I just do not care, period.  If there was something about the relationship that he help them win a bill or more profits, then that is the story, not some fling that may or may not have happened.

When thinking of this story I asked myself, did the NY Times endorse McCain?  Then why would they want to destroy him?  Good questions, but first a a little background.  McCain is lagging in the polls, funds were trickling in, little support among true conservatives and there was some in-fighting on the radio.  McCain was NOT looking like a serious candidate against the Democrats in November.

Here is my what if.  What if the NY Times deliberately released a story that they could not verify?  Which is what happened.  Now look at what the story without legs has done for McCain.  Money is flying into his campaign, Repubs are closing ranks around him, he looks like a victim of smear tactics, he gains sympathy which sometimes can be translated into votes.

The story has done more to energize McCain’s campaign than anything the candidate has said up to this point.  So was there a plan here?  Only the NY Times knows for sure, but to me it smells like do-do.  The paper has had its pee-pee spanked by its ombudsman for running a story with no legs.  So now the paper has been chastised and McCain is flying pretty high.  You decide if this was a ploy to help McCain in the upcoming election.

Can The Anti-War Movement Be Saved?

A good question! Answer is not at the rate it is running now. Why? No pizzazz! Basically, what you have now are just people who want to end the war, gathering, marching and chanting. YAWN!

Step back into the 60’s and 70’s. The anti-war movement was a production there were people in Nixon masks, dressed like POWs, dressed like monks who set themselves on fire; in other words there was a theater of the absurd, a guerilla theater, within the anti-war movement. Small plays were presented during the protests that had a theme. Such subjects as number of dead soldiers, number of dead Vietnamese, capitalistic M-IC, anything that pertained to the war and its make up.

I see very little of this in today’s anti-war demonstrations. I see marchers, carrying of signs, a bit of chanting, and more boring stuff. Nothing grabs the spectators or for that matter the media. Without the media the protests will only reach a very, very small audience. If that is the case, all the protesting in the world will be as useless as a fart in the wind. To be successful in the anti-war movement, you need to attract attention. Lots of attention! Today, they are attracting a 10 second sound byte on the evening news, if that much.

Apparently few of the masters are left. If they still are around, then they are in a comfortable place and do not feel that opposition to the war is a worthy pursuance. Especially from a generation that wrote the book on civil disobedience.

Confrontation, there is the key! Going limp when arrested is not what I am talking about. I am talking about forcing the forces to over-react. That tactic is not as popular as it was back in the day. Few are willing to take one for the movement. It is just not that important anymore.

ALL protests should have those people that are trained in the arts, especially the performing arts; these people can help the message get noticed by the spectators and especially the media.

So can the anti-war movement be saved? Yes it can, but the people have got to want it to be saved. Now, war is not on the front pages as much and the attention of the people is elsewhere. The movement will lose its newsworthiness and could kill it completely.

The Last Democratic Debate?

We can only pray that it is. After 20 or was it 30, debates the people are energized to snooze. The big question last night was which Clinton would show up, the one from the last debate with her warm and fuzzy tone about Obama or the one from the weekend with the ranting and raving. Deep down, everyone wanted the latter. They wanted her to come off the ropes with a folding chair and brain Obama.

Clinton gets first question and she finds fault with it. Everyone held their breath waiting…waiting…and then..nothing! It was the same as the last debate and the one before that. Niceties were everywhere, complimentary BS was everywhere.

At first there was a bit of the snippys on health care, they went back and forth, but nothing new. Then it continued with the ping pong match on Kosovo, war, NAFTA, everybody’s past votes,and support for Israel. The only part of the debate that was a bit hostile was a short piece on personal attacks. Clinton did however, almost apologize for her vote to go to Iraq. It was a around about way of saying that she may have been mistaken.

Ok, since Americans have to have a winner and a loser, I will give this debate a DRAW! Nothing new, just a rehash of every damn thing you have heard up to this point. Just a way to get the stump speeches out there. No real specifics, just the same vague generalities of what to expect if they are elected president. The real winners were those people that went to bed and got a good night’s sleep. The losers were people like me that are waiting for something to happen that will make this interesting….we are still waiting.

Obama is leading in the polls, that did not change with this debate. He did get to play his little warm fuzzy for Clinton, saying what an honor it is and that she is a fine person and candidate..yada..yada…please let the voting begin.

Is There A Media Free Ride?

This has been accused of the MSM by the Clinton camp, that Obama is getting a free ride and that they are hard on Clinton. It is not fair, according to Wolfson. I feel everybody tearing up! Please people do not by this bovine fecal matter!

The accusation must have done something. Ever since the statement was made, Obama has been hammered in the media. The MSM is getting tougher on Obama. I guess it does do some good to bitch and whine.

Recently, the MSM has been running lots of stories on Obama’s substance, most are negative stories or those to help sway voters away from him and his positions. For instance, after he swept the Potomac primaries by double digits, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews when interviewing a Obama support, did not talk about the election but rather wanted to know what successes Obama has had in the Congress. He did not want to talk about the wins in the elections, he wanted to attack and embarrass the guest. Have never seen this tactic used on Clinton.

Then Joe Scarborough, of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, attacks Michelle Obama for her comment that she was “really proud of her country”. Joe made it a direct point with emphasis, that he was appalled that she had never been proud of the US until now. It was a matter of preception on her comment, but he had to attack. It seems to be a trend in the MSM.

But wait! It is not over yet! Then there was the accusation of plagiarism by Obama of a speech that the MA governor had used. But not much was said that the man is a co-chair of Obama’s campaign and told him to use it in a speech. But yet, little was said in the media about Clinton’s warm fuzzy at the end of the last debate, which was words used by her hubby and Edwards in past speeches.

All this has been in the last 7 to 10 days, so why is the media kowtowing to the Clintons? Are the Clintons controlling what the media reports? Or could it be that they were told that they would no longer have access to the candidate if things did not change? Whatever it was has worked. The media has zeroed in on Obama and the hatchet job is in play.

Personally, I feel that both candidates have gotten a free ride. They are allowed to present political rhetoric as answers to specific questions. Just watch debates, the candidates are NEVER made to answer a specific question but rather allowed to spout campaign fecal matter. The voter does not get a realistic answer to help them decidewho to vote for in the next primary.

The voter deserves proper answers to the questions. A stump speech is not a proper answer. From where I sit, the media is not working in the best interest of the TRUTH. And it appears that they are doing their part to assist the Clintons at every turn.

A New Republican Scenario

Ok, Mccain is the supposed Repub candidate and now there has been a story about his sex life (that alone sends shivers up my spine). It seems to be a good thing, he is raising money on top of money because of this perceived hatchet job. But what if, it is a plan?

OK I sound like a conspiracy theorist, but think about this….Mitt only suspended his campaign, he never stopped being a candidate, only suspended it for the time being. Got that! Mitt could be in the weeds looking for McCain to bomb out or to flame out or something similar.

McCain the height of the campaign Mitt was accused of flip flopping on issues, but yet Mccain has done the same, he now supports the tax cuts, supports torture, and seems to be in support of earmarks, all of these he opposed in the past. He is setting himself up for defeat, in my opinion.

Mitt is a shrewd person, he is playing the GOP for his chance at the presidency. He is trying to make sure it will be his turn in the barrel soon. If for some unknown reason McCain has a crash and burn moment, Mitt will be there to pick up the pieces.

If McCain was truly a man of principles, he has sold them out for the chance to run for president. Is that what you are looking for in a leader? He has pandered to ALL groups within the GOP just to win a little support for his candidacy. Is that what you look for? If so, then you have found your man!

Watch the news, will there be more McCain moments trying to bring him down? Probably, since he is not the first choice of the conservs.