Tag: Pandering

A Visit To The Doctor

I recently had to journey to the office of my doctor for onbe of my month consultations and after the pain of the examination he and I were talking about health care…..he knew that I was a political theorist and analyst and we had an interesting talk……we covered a lot of the same stuff that one normally hears daily on the tube….but then he mentioned illegal aliens getting free heath care…he mentioned the possibility of end of life decisions made by government ……I finally had to stop him and ask just where he was getting his info…..he left the room and in awhile returned with a copy of an email that was making its way around the health care offices……I had to leave but told him I would read it and we could talk later.

I got to my house and after a day or so I got to reading the four page email that my doctor had given me.  After reading about half of the arguments the email presented I ythought some points sounded familiar, so I did some surfing and fond I was correct.

The mail present one point,:

Sec 1233 Pg 429 lines 10-12 states:  “advanced acre consultation” may include an ORDER for end of life plans–AN ORDER FROM GOVT.

I thought that particular one sounded familiar and I found that an email from Liberty Counsel, a subsidiary of Liberty University, A Falwell creation and in that mail I found….you guessed it…

Sec. 1233 Pg 429 Lines 10-12:  “advanced care consultation” may include an ORDER for end of life plans–AN ORDER FROM GOVT.

That is not exactly what the section or the lines say….remember they are saying lines 10-12:

line 10–professional ( as specified by the Secretary and who

line 11:–is acting in the scope of the professional’s au-

line 12–thority under state law in signing such a order, in-

There you go the exact wording of the lines quoted in several right wing emails….but do not take my word for it….go to http://www.house.gov and look up HR 3200 and scroll down to section 1233 on page 429 lines 10-12 and read them for yourself….as I have said DO NOT take my word for it…….or anyone’s word for it…check their sources and FIND the truth for yourself.

Yep, it was word for word on both of the papers I had….but the scary part, at least for me, is that a rational medical person would believe and pass on the lies that are being used by the Right in their fight against health reform.

Palin’s Pipeline

The Associated Press just published a long investigative piece on Sarah Palin’s vaunted pipeline success—and the parts she’s not talking about. It starts:

Gov. Sarah Palin’s signature accomplishment – a contract to build a 1,715-mile pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska to the Lower 48—emerged from a flawed bidding process that narrowed the field to a company with ties to her administration, an Associated Press investigation shows.

Beginning at the Republican National Convention in August, the McCain-Palin ticket has touted the pipeline as an example of how it would help America achieve energy independence.

“We’re building a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline, which is North America’s largest and most expensive infrastructure project ever, to flow those sources of energy into hungry markets,” Palin said during the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate.

Despite Palin’s boast of a smart and fair bidding process, the AP found that her team crafted terms that favored only a few independent pipeline companies and ultimately benefited the winner, TransCanada Corp. (TRP)

And contrary to the ballyhoo, there’s no guarantee the pipeline will ever be built; at a minimum, any project is years away, as TransCanada must first overcome major financial and regulatory hurdles.
In interviews and a review of records, the AP found:

— Instead of creating a process that would attract many potential builders, Palin slanted the terms away from an important group – the global energy giants that own the rights to the gas.

— Despite promises and legal guidance not to talk directly with potential bidders, Palin had meetings or phone calls with nearly every major candidate, including TransCanada.

— The leader of Palin’s pipeline team had been a partner at a lobbying firm where she worked on behalf of a TransCanada subsidiary. Also, that woman’s former business partner at the lobbying firm was TransCanada’s lead private lobbyist on the pipeline deal, interacting with legislators in the weeks before the vote to grant TransCanada the contract. Plus, a former TransCanada executive served as an outside consultant to Palin’s pipeline team.

— Under a different set of rules four years earlier, TransCanada had offered to build the pipeline without a state subsidy; under Palin, the company could receive a maximum $500 million.

OOPS!

McCain On Energy Policy

Let’s change the tone of the posts for awhile.  The Economy has had enough coverage for now.  Presidential candidate McCain has been going around talking about changes in the energy policies if he is elected.  Let’s look at his track record.

During the presidential debate, Sept. 26, John McCain claimed, “I voted for alternate fuel all my time… No one can be opposed to alternate energy, no one.” But John McCain’s own record suggests he may be confused about how he has voted, not just once or twice, but 23 times against renewable energy.

In 1992, McCain voted against ending debate on the Energy Bill, which included provisions to encourage energy conservation and increase domestic energy production. (In other words, McCain supported an attempt to filibuster that bill along partisan lines.)

A few years later in 1999, McCain used Senate procedures to oppose an amendment that would have increased funding for energy supply and research and development activities for renewable energy sources.

In May 2001, McCain voted with George W. Bush against establishing tax credits for investments in renewable energy technologies, incentives for new energy efficient residential construction, and tax deductions for increased energy efficiency in commercial buildings.

The following year, McCain voted again with George W. Bush against an amendment to require utilities to generate 10 percent of electricity from renewable energy facilities by 2020. In that same energy package on a different measure, McCain voted for an amendment that would allow retail electric suppliers to avoid strong federal renewable energy standards. In addition to these actions, McCain voted to allow states to waive federal standards on renewable electricity use.

That same year, along party lines and in line with George W. Bush’s policies, McCain opposed a measure that would overhaul the nation’s energy policies, restructure the electricity system and provide for $14.1 billion in energy-related tax incentives – in the wake of the Enron scandal. As part of that bill, McCain’s opposition included a rejection of funding for ethanol production.

In June 2003, McCain voted a number of times against expanding the use of ethanol and other renewable energy as an alternative to gasoline. McCain even voted against a measure to eliminate the use of the carcinogenic pollutant methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and to apply tougher standards on air pollution. Again, on these matters, John McCain voted along partisan lines and in sync with George W. Bush’s position.
In 2004, McCain voted against a measure that would require that gasoline sold in or introduced into the US contain renewable fuel. He voted twice the following year to continue to allow the use of MTBE and against higher standards on air pollution caused by burning gasoline.
Again in 2005, when McCain had the chance to prove that he supported “alternate energy,” he failed to do so when he voted to slash the popular and successful Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency program for farmers, cutting it from its current $23 million to only $3 million.

And in 2006, when it became clear that George W. Bush and the Republicans were on the losing side of the public debate on alternative energy investments, McCain still voted with his president and party against investments in renewable energy research and development in cellulosic ethanol, wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower energy sources.

Yes Irene, he is pandering his ass off for votes…….what makes one think he has had a change in thinking?

All Politicians Pander

An article written by Thomas Sowell

We take it for granted that a vote means a secret ballot but it was not always that way. Moreover, it will not remain that way for workers who vote on whether or not they want a labor union, if legislation sponsored by congressional Democrats and endorsed by Senator Barack Obama becomes law.

Before there were secret ballots, voters dared not express their true preferences if those who watched them vote could retaliate — whether by firing them, beating them up or in other ways.

Anyone who is serious about people being free to express themselves with their votes wants a secret ballot.

The problem for labor unions is that workers in the private sector increasingly vote against being represented by unions. The proportion of workers in the private sector who are represented by unions has fallen below 10 percent.

Since unions are losing the game under the current rules, their obvious answer is to change the rules. Specifically, they want to do away with secret ballots when the government conducts elections to determine whether the workers in a particular company or industry want to be represented by a union.

With labor unions being major supporters of the Democratic Party it is hardly surprising that congressional Democrats have lined up solidly behind legislation to let union organizers simply collect signed cards from a majority of workers to be certified as the officially recognized union for those workers.

Of course, the union organizers will then know who did and who did not vote for them. And they may have long memories or short fuses, or both. Moreover, the workers themselves know that, so they may find it prudent to sign up for a union, whether they want one or not.

This legislation passed the House of Representatives last year but did not make it through the Senate. “I will make it the law of the land when I’m president of the United States,” Obama has said to the AFL-CIO.

Obama Spits On Affirmative Action

No Democratic candidate for president has ever come so close to calling for an end to the era of identity-based affirmative action as has Barack Obama.

Since 2004, the first black major party nominee from either party has been offering comments suggesting that economic status should match or even trump race and gender as a criteria for who should benefit from the program — though he has yet to propose a specific policy, let alone one that matches his rhetoric.

After four decades of affirmative action, Obama’s historic candidacy itself is seen by some as proof that such programs are no longer needed.
In recent weeks, affirmative action, a hot issue in previous elections, has returned to the presidential political debate, owing to comments by Obama and McCain and ballot initiatives proposing to end racial, ethnic and gender preferences in all taxpayer-funded programs — from university admissions to government contracts — in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska.

On the one hand, Obama opposes the current state ballot measures (McCain supports them), thus offering at least de facto support for the current policy that gives preference to minorities and women and is rooted in the programs begun by President Kennedy and later significantly expanded by President Nixon.

On the other hand, Obama’s said that his two daughters should not be given preferential treatment, owing to their relatively privileged upbringing, and has called for government to “craft” a policy “in such a way where some of our children who are advantaged aren’t getting more favorable treatment than a poor white kid who has struggled more.”
Such hints of a possible new policy focus are a relatively recent development from Obama, who once said that he had “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action” in his own academic career, though he didn’t specify at what institution he had so benefited. Friends have since recalled him saying that he did not list his race on his Harvard Law School application, though the candidate has said only that “I have no way of knowing whether I was a beneficiary of affirmative action either in my admission to Harvard or my initial election to the Review. If I was, then I certainly am not ashamed of the fact, for I would argue that affirmative action is important precisely because those who benefit typically rise to the challenge when given an opportunity.”

Just how bad does he want to connect to the white, blue collar, low education voter?

A Balanced Budget?

This story was everywhere yesterday.

Sen. John McCain pledged yesterday that he would balance the federal budget by 2013, the end of what would be his first term in office, returning to a promise he had strayed from as he sought to emphasize his concern about the plight of the U.S. economy.

At the same time, McCain’s campaign released a document detailing his already announced economic proposals: more offshore oil drilling and a gas-tax holiday; aggressive efforts to control government spending; lower taxes for businesses and individuals; new energy research; and tax credits to spur a private health insurance market.

His promise to balance the budget within four years brought him full circle. Earlier this year, he had chosen his words carefully on the topic, saying only that he would accomplish the task by the end of eight years, should he be elected and reelected.

Democrats immediately criticized McCain, asserting that his promise is unrealistic, given his stated goals of tax cuts and other government spending. Sen. Barack Obama accused his rival of peddling tired economic policies.

“John McCain’s policies are essentially a repeat, a regurgitation of what we’ve been hearing from the Republican Party over the last two decades, maybe three,” he said. “It’s part of the reason that we’re in the situation that we find ourselves in right now.”

Now think about this promise.  He will balance the budget in four years, but yet the war will continue, taxes would be cut, etc.  Now where would you think the savings will come from?  Most likely from the programs that will effect your children and other domestic programs.

This promise is just that–a promise that cannot be kept and its faliure will be blamed on the Congress and those damn Democrats.  See it for what it is–PANDERING!

See, He Is No Better Than Any Other Candidate

Democrat Barack Obama said yesterday that if elected president he would set aside more than $500 million a year in federal funds for religious organizations to help the disadvantaged, sharply expanding a Bush administration program that has strong support from evangelical Christians.

Political analysts said Obama’s proposal appeared to be part of an attempt to shift to the center and recruit moderate, evangelical Christians and mainstream Catholics, two voting blocs that consistently supported Bush and have embraced Republican candidates.

Groups cannot use the money to proselytize those in need, he said, and they cannot refuse to hire someone of a different religion. Federal dollars granted directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs, Obama said, adding that close monitoring will “ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.” The People for the American Way, a liberal public-interest group, issued a statement yesterday applauding Obama for those safeguards, but questioning why he would allow direct government payments to houses of worship, something that “is neither necessary nor appropriate.”

Obama is just becoming the candidate I was waiting him to become.  In the past I have said that I was not yet an Obama supporter and this is why I wait.  Democratic candidates start getting votes because they are left leaning, then as the general approaches they almost always move to the center.  This is just a pandering piece to try and wrangle the religious from the Repubs.

What Change?

Both the presumptive party candidates were busy telling the voters that they were all about change in Washington and how has that worked out so far?  Is it just me or does this campaign season look like any other campaign season?

Dan Balz of the Washington Post has made an excellent observation:

A campaign between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain once offered enormous possibilities for something new. Instead, the two presumptive nominees have opened their campaigns for the White House with what looks and sounds like a repeat of the kind of politics both have promised to leave behind.

Don’t blame the media for this. The campaigns have deliberately adopted postures of hyperaggressiveness to set the early tone. The testosterone levels appear extremely high. No charge, however small or incidental, can go unanswered. No proposal, no matter how innocuous or provocative, can be discussed calmly or intelligently.

That led a McCain surrogate to respond to Obama’s comments on the rights of terrorist detainees, a topic on which reasonable people can differ, as “delusional.” It led to an Obama surrogate to describe as “stupid” the positions McCain has taken on the Iraq war, though it is clearly possible to argue that the “surge” strategy has helped to reduce violence and U.S. casualties.

Both candidates have contributed to this. Obama tarnished his reputation as a new-style politician by deciding not to take public funds for the fall campaign, despite a pledge to do so if his Republican opponent would do the same. He had promised to sit down with McCain to discuss the whole issue of money before making any decision.

McCain has hurt himself and his reputation as an independent thinker by reversing course on past positions, whether Bush tax cuts — which he did long ago — or opening up coastal areas to offshore oil drilling. His campaign, in the view of some of his own supporters, has allowed itself to show an angry and resentful face that they believe is contrary to McCain at his best.

On a host of issues, the differences between the candidates are profound and should provoke a vigorous debate. Both candidates once promised that such a debate would be civil and respectful. But right now the presidential campaign appears to be more a rerun of the kind of polarized battles of the recent past than something that heralds something new.

From the beginning I was skeptical of the change thing.  In my many years of observations into the political mindset, I have found very little change.

Candidates Blow Smoke On Energy

When it comes to a coherent energy policy neither candidate has really levelled with the US public about what is facing them in the future. Most of the debate is couched in terms of “energy security” – about the need for America to wean itself off Middle Eastern oil.

There are some generalised promises from both sides about efficiency standards for vehicles, investment in renewables and biofuels – which was a big component of the US answer to energy security and climate change – until food prices started spiralling upwards, thanks to the policy of turning corn into fuel. But there is almost no talk about demand management, conservation and making lifestyle changes, which will be essential if America is going to have any chance of meeting either candidate’s promises of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama makes a big deal about how he unveiled his new fuel efficiency standards for vehicles in Detroit in front of the car makers “and the room went really quiet”. What he does not say is that Americans are going to need to make personal changes too, including moving to smaller cars, more public transport and a much bigger commitment to energy efficiency.

Obama’s energy policy promises to tackle building codes and to mandate low-energy lightbulbs throughout America by 2014, to save 88 billion kilowatt hours of electricity a year.    This idea is not that good either,read my posts on the new light bulbs.  They also will be a ticking time bomb that will bite the world in the butt.

But what he is not telling the people is that his plan for a carbon price to make renewables more competitive and to subsidise their development is going to see electricity costs rise sharply. The other part of the energy equation that is still a sleeper is nuclear power. Obama and McCain say they will allow new nuclear reactors to be built. Neither is saying where.

The big difference between them is that McCain has said he will proceed with plans to store nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, a repository that has been 10 years in the approval process.

Obama, who is hoping to win Nevada, has ruled out storing waste in Yucca Mountain, instead offering “to lead federal efforts to look for a safe long-term disposal solution”.

Meanwhile, McCain’s buses bearing the slogan Straight Talk Express and Obama’s with Change We Can Believe In rumble through America. The candidates are not levelling with the public, while the energy industry continues to paint a sunny picture of the future.

America’s coal industry is running a campaign promising “clean coal, America’s future”; the petroleum industry promises blue skies with its cleaner diesel fuels for trucks, and the energy companies insist that they are doing their bit on renewables.

Just thought I would let you know just what you will be getting if either candidate is elected.

Republican BS On Energy

In a piece written by H. Rosenfeld, he states the following:

Remedies for soaring gasoline prices proposed by President Bush and Sen. John McCain, who the GOP prays succeeds him, would increase America’s capacity to produce more energy from its own resources.

What those remedies would not do is reduce the cost of gas anytime soon or much ever. The President’s demand that Congress immediately lift its bans on exploring for oil and natural gas off-shore and on federal lands wouldn’t be productive for at least seven years, more likely 10. The impact on world prices, and on the cost of a gallon of gas in America, would be minimal. That’s because the U.S. controls, at most, only 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves.

Nowhere in the Bush or McCain proposals is there so much as a hint that all of the added oil and gas would be retained exclusively for American consumption, which presently accounts for a quarter of the world’s production. That’s because it wouldn’t. Instead America’s mammoth oil companies would continue to seek the highest returns, meaning the growing markets in Asia especially.

The 200 mile off-shore exploration requires the use of drill ships outfitted with the gear to exploit oil fields located deep in ocean beds. The makers of the these ships are furiously building, but the world competition for their product is severe. That adds to the time lag between finding a field and exploiting it commercially.

For his part, McCain came out in another speech for the building of 45 nuclear power plants in the U.S. by 2030, and another 55 some unspecified time down the road. At present, the 104 nuclear reactors still on line produce about 20 percent of the country’s electricity. Bush also routinely invokes nuclear power as an energy shortage antidote.

Their reasoning is why not step up nuclear’s role because it does not add to the global warming as fossil fuels do.

What McCain did not discuss was the practicality of doing so. The federal government over the years has dedicated billions of dollars in subsidies to the nuclear industry. But that would be chicken feed to what it would cost to erect new plants today. It could well be so much that any gains would be overtaken by their costs. Besides, McCain has no plan to add to nuclear subsidies, pretty much undermining his supposedly bold idea.

Dealing with the challenge of the energy crisis requires more than political tomfoolery that the Republican President and the Republican candidate have so far mustered. The solution rests in the nearer future much more on government supported conservation. On their own, Americans are beginning to drive less. They should be enabled to do so in more efficient vehicles and encouraged to otherwise modify the profligate ways energy is consumed in this country. That actually would bring costs down.

May I suggest that the voter take the time to read about the issues and vote from knowledge.  They have been voting for BS for too many years and that is why we are in this pickle now.  Lies and pandering have done nothing to improve the lives of working Americans.