We've all heard the oft-repeated GOP rhetoric that eliminating Bush's tax cuts is essentially a tax increase. Clearly, these tax cuts were intended to be a temporary stimulous package - to expire when the plan ended; however, attempting to explain this within sound bites is problematic.
I've found the best analogy to clarify this issue to conservatives is the following: "I suppose you could call it a tax increase, the same way that you might call returning from vacation a work increase". This usually sinks in better than any logical argument.
The GOP also repeats the mantra of "Tax & Spend Democrats". As a long-time Republican, I cannot disagree with that as a historically accurate portrayal of pre-Clintonian Democrats. The argument I use for this is: "I rather have an intelligent, thoughtful, visionary leader as President than a candidate (McCain) who cannot even manage his own campaign; I would also take the possibility of Tax & Spend policies over the 8 years of Republican BORROW & SPEND practices any day".
Having said that, I do have a fear of Democrats (or any one party) controlling the Presidency, House and Senate. President Clinton successfully dragged the Democratic Party kicking and screaming to the center, managed to balance our budget, and brought incredible prosperity to our country.
I am voting for Obama - and can only pray that he is able to follow in Clinton's foot steps in this regard. The GOP gave up their mantle of Fiscal Responsibility under Bush; Obama has the opportunity to cement this label to the Democratic "brand". If he does this, you will find many more moderates and fiscal conservatives (albeit reluctantly) shifting to the Democratic party.
Anyone who drives across the country (particularly in Southern California and Texas) can see idle oil wells everywhere. A rancher in North Dakato recently struck a rich oil deposit on his property - without exploratory drilling.
The reason the oil industry does not tap these existing resources is simply to keep prices high. Gas prices have dropped over the past few month - not because of newly drilled oil wells - but due to reduced gas spending (through the increased use of hybrids, or reduced travel).
Supply and demand - as the demand goes down, so do gas prices.
The push to open up ecologically sensitive sites like ANWR and the California/Florida coasts is to simply give more "free" lands to the oil industry. At best, this will simply increase our dependence on oil, and put more money into foreign hands. At worst, it diverts our focus/resources from the real solution: rebuilding our nation's infrastructure: roads, bridges and power grids - all of which generate jobs that cannot easily be exported overseas.
By creating a new, efficient and united power grid, we will enable the use of new power plants: geothermal, wave/tide/dams, solar (and even clean-burning coal and oil) - spurring market-driven competition, innovation, and electric cars - which in turn will create new jobs, increase exports, and strengthen our economy.
Just say no to the oil industry puppets: Bush/Palin. The Republican party has many strong/experienced women as governors and industry execs - their choice of Palin is quite transparent.
Given that govenor Palin is relatively unknown at a national level, the McCain campaign will need to spend a lot of press cycles to introduce her to the public.
Given that she has little policy experience, she undercuts McCain's argument senator Obama is not ready to serve.
Alaska is not a serious battleground state - so she brings little to the table in terms of electors.
The only possible justification for picking her is the naive assumption that she (as a woman) will help capture disaffected Clinton supporters. Given that her positions are uniformly opposite that of senator Clinton's, this choice makes a patronizing/sexist assumption that women would rather vote for a female candidate (that they disagree with), than for Clinton's hard-fought opponent (which she endorses).
With Alaska struggling with Republican corruption - they finally found a governor that is working to correct the mess... I find it odd that McCain would rip Palin out of office - to open the door for a Democratic candidate to take over the Alaskan gubernatorial seat.
Finally, Palin's great claim to fame is her support for drilling in Alaska - particularly in ANWR (which McCain has been against). The last thing we need is to make the US even more dependent on oil (foreign or domestic).
While I'm sure that Ms. Palin is a good person, and given the opportunity, may eventually become a great governor in Alaska - however, McCain's choice of such an inexperienced running mate who disagrees with him on a critical economic issue (energy policy), and brings nothing else to the table - speaks to his choices in governing.
His campaign has been frought with internal disputes and wasted spending - and now a dubious decision in his first act as potential president (selecting someone a "heartbeat" away from the presidency) - does not bode well for his desire to be president.
Sorry about your injury - hope you recover quickly.
Even if you can't make it to the convention, you can still issue a statement of support for Obama - as a Californian, it is my sincere hope that you will do so.
The GOP has been harping on drilling in ecologically-sensitive sites such as ANWR and various offshore locales for over a decade.
This, despite the fact that the US has numerous idle oil wells, and - as demonstrated by a recent oil strike by a rancher in North Dakota - has ample domestic drilling sites that are not ecologically sensitive.
Nor is drilling for new oil going to reduce gas prices in the near future. In fact, we have recently seen a drop in gas prices - without drilling in ANWR nor offshore sites - instead, the drop in gas prices came from a simple market reality: supply and demand. As demand goes down (through conservation, alternate energy sources, use of hybrids and fuel-efficient cars), so does the price.
So why does the GOP continue to sell the idea that drilling in ANWR and offshore sites is critical to our national energy strategy? Primarily due to the fact that the GOP had long abandoned its conservation roots (eg. Teddy Roosevelt) to the Democrats, and has come to the absurd conclusion that saving fisheries, tourism, natural resources and our food supply is somehow anti-capitalist, and detrimental to national security. The GOP is no longer a "conservative" party - fiscally, environmentally, militarily or constitutionally.
I would suggest what's detrimental to our national security is a party and president that continues to press for ongoing oil dependency, wages pre-emptive foreign wars in a failed attempt to control additional oil, increases our national debt while weakening our dollar, and encourages torture with the arbitrary holding of people indefinitely without charge.
I respect Senator McCain for his national service, and his former days as a political maverick - however, he has made it clear that he intends to continue the Cheney/Bush drive to keep us dependent on oil, and to keep US troops in the Middle East "for a 100 years". We, as a nation, cannot afford this.
It is my hope that Senator Obama does not succumb to the GOP's fallacious argument that offshore drilling is essential for reducing near-term gas prices. Nor am I crazy about his plan to give out handouts (fuel "rebates" - another form of McCain's tax holiday) - I'd rather see the money spent rebuilding our infrastructure and encouraging people to buy electric/hybrid cars.
We have become a nation of speculators, gambling on stock and mortgage loans - borrowing/consuming from abroad, and producing less at home. We outsource our livelihoods, and our major export has increasingly become weapons and war. Our national debt is unconscionable.
In order to stabilize our economy, we need to:
This is not rocket-science, nor is it costly to implement. It merely takes political courage and leadership on the part of our president and congress - and for people to stop expecting handouts in the form of "tax-breaks". Taxes are good - if they are an investment in our future.
A massive investment in improving our power grid will create local jobs; encouraging businesses to develop renewable fuels will increase our export potential; encouraging the auto industry to switch to electric/hybrid cars will reduce polution, greenhouse gasses and our dependence on foreign oil.
Spending money on new oil wells and offshore drilling is exactly the wrong thing to do - as it increases our dependence on oil, and further subsidizes an already wealthy/profitable industry. As one travels the country, it is easy to spot thousands of idle oil wells that could be pumping oil now - the oil industry keeps them idle waiting for gas prices to rise enough to make it worth their time to pump/transport/refine/distribute the fuel - we don't need additional drilling.
McCain wants to continue spending our budget on wars (he said it's likely that we'll have troops in Iraq for the next 100 years); he wants to increase our dependence on oil (offshore drilling and drilling on national preserves); he intends to increase our budget deficit through continued "tax cuts" and "tax holidays"; he dismissively calls universal healthcare "socialized medicine".
I ask our next president to invest in rebuilding our infrastructure (ala TVA), help out small businesses (SBA), help break our dependence on oil (foreign and domestic) - and lead Americans out of the mentality of free money in the form of tax breaks and subsidies to wealthy corporations.
My father was serving in the US Navy and stationed in Japan when I was born.
I am a US citizen, yet it has always been my understanding that I could not run for President due to the fact that I was not born in the States.
In 1937, Congress passed a law granting citizenship to the children of American parents born in the Panama Canal. Under this law, Senator McCain became a US Citizen just prior to his first birthday. In other words, McCain, like me, was not born a "natural" citizen - and according to the Constitution, should not be eligible for the presidency.
Personally, I think that anyone who is a US Citizen and has lived in the States for most of their lives should be eligible to become President. However, until there's a Constitutional Amendment permitting this - people like me, Governor Schwarzenegger and all the children born of US servicemen and women abroad, are excluded from the American dream of becoming president.
I respect McCain and I'm glad that he has his hat in the race - I'm just unclear how a Constitutional exception has been made for him.
I try to avoid negative posts on this blog - however, I'm outraged on this issue and felt the need to speak out.
Mr. and Mrs. Obama have been generous in giving the Federal maximum donor amount to his opponent's campaign, and in encouraging his own donors to help pay off her debt.
I'm amazed at the ungrateful crassness of Clinton's supporters, demanding that Obama retire Clinton's entire debt - much of which apparently was accrued after she had lost any likely chance of gaining sufficient delegates to win the primary.
The people who should be helping to pay off her debt are the die-hard Clinton supporters who continue to attack Obama, and are now supporting McCain.
While I was open to a Clinton candidacy early in the season, I quickly rejected her run after witnessing the Rove-like tactics that her campaign used. Now, having seen how she has mismanaged her own campaign finances through Borrow-and-Spend practices, and expecting others to bail her out - I've lost all respect for her as a presidential candidate.
We need a President who knows how to raise/manage money and balance a budget - qualities that Obama and his team clearly have.
Happy 232nd birthday!
The birth of our nation and constitution has been an inspiration and call to freedom for people around the globe; our Bill of Rights a beacon against tyrrany and discrimination.
While we were slow in extending these freedoms and rights to women, slaves and their descendants - this year we saw both a woman and an African American run viable candidacies for the presidency of the United States.
Historically, we've spread democracy through example and trade. In recent years, our leaders have attempted to force democracy on others through invasion and torture, and have trampled on our constitution:
Now our leaders want to amend our national and state constitutions to incorporate discrimination - they wish to embed within our great Constition laws against gay people. No existing amendment establishes a prohibition against a particular class of people.
American patriotism is about empowering others to live and believe as they choose, as long they bring no harm to others - even if we personally disagree with how they do it.
Yes, we need a change from the path of our current adminstration - but what we are really fighting for is the restoration of our Constitution and the Founding Principals of our nation.
I cannot think of a better candidate than Barack Obama to restore us to the kind of nation that others look up to, and to honor the Constitution that our founding fathers (and current men and women in Service) have fought and died for.
End the Tyrrany - let Freedom ring again!
While General Wesley Clark is correct in stating that one's military service is not necessarily an indicator of their fitness to be president, his statements could easily be taken to be dismissive of John McCain's service to this country.
Just as the "Swift Boat" attacks against John Kerry's military service were despicable, any attempt to use McCain's time as a POW against him, or to dismiss his service as a squadron leader, is uncalled for, unnecessary, and unhelpful.
I am voting for Senator Obama, but I also deeply respect McCain's service to this country, his patriotism, and his motivations (I supported McCain in his 2000 primaries against Bush). I simply believe Obama is a better leader for our country at this point in time.
I respect and honor Clark's service as well - but I'm glad to hear that Obama has disowned Clark's statements, as used in this political context.
Let's keep this campaign "clean" for a change!
I like McCain and supported him during the 2000 primaries; however, I feel that he's past past his political peak - and that Obama is our best choice for president.
The best way to defeat McCain (while avoiding Rove's smear tactics) is to run ads showing McCain's position on a topic back in 2000, then show Bush's opposing position, followed by McCain's current position. Couple this with ads showing Obama's forward-looking, positive message - will make Obama unstoppable.
Most moderates liked McCain's 2000 positions, but dislike how he's had to kowtow to the extreme right in order to win the GOP primary. This will demonstrate McCain's willingness to "flip-flop" and adds fuel to the argument that he would simply be running a 3rd Bush term. This approach will be effective towards liberals, independents and conservatives.
President George H. W. Bush (the elder) had been the Director of the CIA, prior to becoming Reagan's VP; he had a good grasp of the issues facing the Middle East. At the end of the first Gulf War (1991), President Bush explained why it made no sense to invade Bagdad:
To quote Dick Cheney (who was Secretary of Defense at the time):
"if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home", and "how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is, not that damned many".
Given that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks (most of those involved came from Saudi Arabia, and trained in Pakistan and Afghanistan) - the "pre-emptive" invasion of Bagdad was unjustified, and the subsequent occupation/nation-building effort was unplanned and poorly executed.
That said, we (as a nation) broke it - we have some responsibility to fix it. A parallel is often drawn with the war in Vietnam: when we abandoned South Vietnam, we opened it up to an horrendous humanitarian and political disaster - with the Communists taking over and sending the population to reeducation camps and worse... yet today, it's a unified country at peace with its neighbors, and with a growing economy.
The expectation is that if we leave Iraq, there will be civil war, disruption of the region and oil supplies, and a stronger Iran. The counter argument by some is that like Vietnam, the region will eventually settle down, if we just pull our troops out.
We currently have insufficient troops in Iraq to create the "police-state" necessary to permit nation-building in such a fragmented society and infrastructure - and at this point, we no longer have the will/capacity to significantly increase troop levels there. President Bush's policy of single-sourcing all rebuilding efforts to American companies like Haliburton have left our allies in the cold, discouraging their proactive participation in the "Coalition of the Willing". Due to the current instability, it is unlikely that our allies would move in now, even if we/Iraq opened up the oil field contracts to them.
As much as Americans would like to fix what we broke in Iraq, our current force-centric strategy is not the answer. However, bringing all our troops home will have repercussions that our politicians are unwilling to discuss:
This doesn't take into account the lives and human suffering that will occur in a civil war, regional instability (particularly with Turkey) as the Kurds break away, the loss of a strategic military presence in the Middle East, and the political boon to Iran's radical leaders, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
In the end, the most likely scenario will be that we:
Only then will we be able to help establish sufficient political stabilty to the region - in order to begin bringing our troops home. So don't expect a rapid/significant draw-down any time soon.
Senator Clinton is to be applauded for how much she has accomplished in the primary, and for paving the way for future women candidates - and while there is much that she can continue to do for the country and her party - this Republican believes she would not be the best running mate for Senator Obama.
Despite Mr. Obama's clear victory on Tuesday in garnering sufficient delegates to win the Democratic nomination - Mrs. Clinton refused to concede the nomination to Obama. Under pressure from her key supporters and the Democratic leadership, she is now "willing" to suspend her campaign - but will be waiting until Saturday to announce her decision. Putting off the announcement until then, and only suspending her campaign, simply serves to delay the healing process for the Democratic Party - and complicates Obama's search and vetting process for VP candidates.
Clinton adds salt to the Party wound by continuing her insistance that "all votes must count" (implying that she may yet challenge the Florida/Michigan ruling), that she has won the popular vote (if you exclude caucus states and uncommitted Michigan votes), and that she is the best candidate to beat Senator McCain (indicating that Obama is not). Her supporters continue to vociferously blog that they will vote for McCain in preference to Obama; Clinton's team has done nothing to actively encourage them to switch their support to Obama.
Mentioning the "historic event" surrounding Bobby Kennedy's candidacy, and now suggesting that she could serve as Obama's VP, ready to step in if anything should "happen" - is self-serving, divisive - and to me, offensive. If this was unintentional, then it is an example of extremely poor judgement.
Finally, anyone who runs a campaign in significant debt demonstrates a lack of fiscal restraint. As shown by the Bush administration, it's easy to appear successful (or claim a strong economy) if you borrow enough money. There are many reasons why this Republican voted against candidate Bush in the past two elections - however, the GOP's Borrow and Spend policies are high among the reasons I'm voting Democratic in this election. Clearly, Senator Clinton's approach is more of the same.
That said, Senator Clinton is a fighter and a strong advocate - the Senate needs politicians like her; in the future, she could consider the New York governorship... but not, in my opinion, be Obama's running mate.
I admire Senator Clinton, and have been a supporter of President Bill Clinton through his two terms - however, as a Republican who has roots in the Bible Belt, I know the deep/immutable, negative feelings that Conservatives hold for her. I fear that she (through no fault of her own), will be a very divisive element within an Obama Administration.
As a Californian, I would suggest an alternate running mate: Dianne Feinstein. She is well respected by moderate Republicans, she's strong on defense, and her Senate seat is "safe".
Perhaps Senator Clinton might be a good candidate for the Supreme Court. Given a Democratic President, Senate and House - this may be the only moment in history where she would have a chance of being confirmed. I believe she could do far more in that role, than she ever could as VP.
As a lifelong Republican who supported Bill Clinton in both his terms and John McCain in the 2000 GOP primaries - it is my intention and honor to vote for Mr. Obama for US President in 2008.
Mr. Obama has demonstrated honesty, clarity of thought, the ability to speak to the hearts and minds of moderates and independents, and has run a thoroughly positive campaign - he's a breath of fresh air.
I am confident that he will not only unify the Democratic Party, but that he is the best candidate to heal the divisions between the "left" and "right" of this country - by opening up a national dialog, and focusing on issues that affect all Americans, rather than divisive issues that only serve to fire up the extremes in our country.
We need:
Given the incompetence/misfeasance of the current Administration, no president will be able to correct all our problems in their first term - but I believe Mr. Obama has the intellect, vision, organizational skills, and energy to begin moving this great country in the right direction.
