Organizing for America | commander-in-chief

By Talut - May 28th, 2009 at 8:21 pm EDT

Also listed in: 6 groups

I proudly stand with Judge Sotomayor and support her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Our nation needs fresh air in every branch of government. A strong nation requires strong people, leadership, and potent institutions. She’s a fine nominee, in that; she represents the bottom up and the American dream.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Letters to NEXT President of USA

By anatolant - Oct 14th, 2008 at 3:05 am EDT

Also listed in: Civil Libertarians for Obama | commander-in-chief

The elections are over in IMHO. Obama is the president.

More important what will be done in 2009...

I continue mynote on my webpages -- filmplus.org/politics

+ my nonfiction project pages -- Theology of Technology

Folks, who signed up to tthis group, you are welcome to my blog @ myspace.com/anatolant [which I plan to keep for my Personal Poltics notes ].

The conflict between Individual and Society of Communism [our future] is very libertarian, and importnat for me no less than for President Obama, who will have the issues with Citizen Barack.

I do not plan to keep up this blog [cpommander-in-chief].

Congradulations and best of luck.

Anatoly

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (2) | Report Objectionable Content

Senator McCain - Pick One

By Don Thompson - Oct 10th, 2008 at 4:01 pm EDT

Also listed in: Canada for Obama | commander-in-chief

Dear John:

Amid the misinformation on Senator Obama's positions throughout your speeches you intersperse the occasional plank from your own platform. One point that your supporters seem to love is the promise to cut government. Spending, people, programs all get demonized.

Since the various bipartisan attempts to minimize the damage wrought by financial collapse you have come up with the idea of buying up all those failing mortgages. I won't argue the merits of your plan - because a one-line plan is merely an idea and an idea can not be discounted without analysis.

I will however suggest that in following throught on that idea, you have only two choices:

Buy the mortgages so the folks can stay in their houses and simply hope or wish they make their payments; or
Buy the mortgages and administer them.

Most people, even Republicans, would probably agree the first choice is unwise. That leaves the second. Basically do what the banks are doing or should have done. That requires people. People cost money. Your mortgage plan would increase the size and cost of government. It would be a new additional program.

I'm not even going to make you admit it is, at the very least, liberalism in banking, even though I believe it is more like socialism in banking.

But it definitely is opposite to your "less government" pledge.

C'mon, Senator. The path goes left or right. Make up your mind and let us know who you are. Is the real John McCain a laissez-faire conservative or a closet liberal?

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Stop the "Bail Out"

By Don Thompson - Sep 29th, 2008 at 9:54 pm EDT

Also listed in: Canada for Obama | commander-in-chief

This "bail out" is complete nonsense - another Bush 'wolf'!! What's with these "experts" like Ben Stein going on that the U.S. was founded on 'capitalism'. It wasn't. The Constitution starts "We the people..." not "We the corporations", nor "We the piles of gold". The intent was individual free enterprise and opportunity for all, not enslavement to the moneyed few hiding behind imaginary legal constructs.

Now the same twits that foam at the mouth about personal responsibility when someone suggests a disadvantaged citizen should have a shot at an education or medical care, are all lining up to donate tax dollars to people who have neither personal responsibility nor any real accountability.

These are the same babies that decide that drug companies don't have to pay when they kill people; that tobacco companies aren't really responsible for thousands of deaths per year - one every 6 seconds; and "we the people" have to either live with or clean up the messes left by big oil and big nuclear.

Get a grip, people. Very little of Reagan's "trickle down" trickled down and there is absolutely no reason to shove $700 billion back up to them. Make the upper 10% of these companies' executives lose everything like most of the former homeowners who were talked into bad mortgages. And I mean everything. Lose their houses, their yachts, their Beemers and their pensions. Put the beggars out onto the street and tell them to accept a bit of personal responsibility. "Get a job", as the Republicans would say.

Bankers and their screwball "enterprises" going broke? Welcome to the world the rest of us live in.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Commanders-in-Chief

By Don Thompson - Sep 3rd, 2008 at 5:20 pm EDT

Also listed in: Canada for Obama | commander-in-chief

The framers of the Constitution set the role of Commander-in-Chief in the Office of the President to guarantee civilian control of the military. Aware of the world of their time, they understood the danger an unfettered military posed to civil society. Civilian control was a brilliant initiative, its wisdom confirmed more than 170 years later when President Eisenhower cautioned against the increasing power of the "military-industrial complex".

Republicans, and conservatives in general, imagine the need of military experience for the Commander-in-Chief role played by the President. Yet, since the creation of the Union some 232 years ago only two people have held the Office who could be considered militarily qualified to be Command-in-Chief: General Washington, commander of the Continental Army and General Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in WWII. President Washington chose not to wage war; President Eisenhower chose to successfully end the one he inherited. As qualified Commanders-in-Chief they understood military force is the option of last resort.

Other Presidents have served in the military, many as officers, however, only the first and thirty-fourth were military strategists. Both were 'big-picture' thinkers, concerned not with the imagined insult or perceived injustice of the moment, but with the well-being and future of the Nation as a whole.

A Commander-in-Chief must be a strategic thinker, understanding the world, it's cultures and nuances, and appreciating America's position of power and responsibility as a leader. A Commander-in-Chief must also be aware of America's limitations, financially, militarily and politically.

Those preferring the role of 'maverick' best remain in the more contained tactical arenas where their nature enables them to excel. Mavericks are knee-jerk, narrow focus thinkers. Occasionally heroes of the moment; but unsuited for larger roles where their presence constitutes enormous risk.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

VP and BIG problem of party politics

By anatolant - Aug 23rd, 2008 at 6:32 pm EDT

Also listed in: Civil Libertarians for Obama | commander-in-chief

8.23 -- my comment to NYT on VP for Obama:

Are you still voting "party ticket"? Democrats, Republicans? Now -- eat it!
Make Obama a safe choice? How about ObaMcCain? Don't blame the politicians -- you have no guts to vote your hearts, you minds. You turn the election into selection between Pepsi and Coke! Continue to play team football between red and blue, but do not ask -- where is the MAN?
Go on, cheer your support group as 50 years ago. So sad to see how you. yes, you all, turning Barack into Mr. President ... and they complain about Bush? How about that for hypocrisy? God bless America? Are you taking God for an idiot to bless people who turn FREE elections into counting chats. Not again, Lord!