Vice President Speculation Forum

New Obama Group Forming 'AmericaNOchange'

Al Boek — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:42:29 EST

Fellow President Obama Supporters and Former Ones"

AS the founder of the Obama Group named YESWECANSOLVEIT...

I have taken the liberty of forming still another group called

AmericaNOchange. I doubt this one gets approved.

Thought I'd better hurry and write this and send it to all groups that

I am still a member of before I am banned here forever. Why would

that happen? you ask. Because I just formed a new group with a little

kid yelling "Hey You" while flipping off the viewer. Hope the president

and his staff gets the message.

The esculation of the war in Afghanistan is the last straw. Three strikes

your out!

First, he keeps the same people on the payroll that got us into this

financial disaster. He let's Bush and Cheney walk scot-free. He continues

to bail out the banks, "all too big to fail" why they screw us in every way.

And tonight on national tv he will try to convience us all that the way to

end the war in Aftganistan is to exculate it. This did not work in Vietnam,

I know, because I volunteered to go there, and it will not work in Aftganistan.

To add insult to injury. The powers that be, the ones backing McCain in

my city in Northern California, are all meeting to determine what the same

good ole boys get to do with local stimulus funds...So my question is?

WHAT THE HELL HAS CHANGED IN AMERICAN PRESIDENT OBAMA?

I am so damned mad right now, I swear, if I could afford it, I'd trade in

my next presidential ballot for a passport.

Al Boek, Ex-Supporter of a One-Term President

earlallenboek@yahoo.com

530-549-4315

Redding, California

79000 americans already refinance

Filo — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:17:39 EST

7 million to come

Health Care Reform - Selling False Dreams to America

z0rr0 — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:44:34 EDT

We Americans seem to live in a dream world ! There is no such things as "preventable death".

In the real world, the operative phrases are "inevitable death" and "prolonged life".

In the real world, those who insist on prolonging life need to be ready to pay for it too. If they think they can impose life syles on others, then they should be ready to foot the bill for those others as well.

It is simple, in the dream world, immortality comes free. In the real world longevity cost more.

Culture of Corruption in New Jersey!

Omar Dyer — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:17:38 EDT

Can you imagine donating two years of your life to a candidate -- then that candidate sends Aid to the place you live in for your program. As you live in that structure of life saying hey -- I was told this Help was here, but as the train left Washington DC to New Jersey. You had leaders stopping the train and taking what they need in a ring of corruption. That's what's going on in New Jersey with these leaders--the democratic party endorsed. They are going back and telling Obama's adminstration; We never heard of this guy, or this program. Yet, the benefited from the guidelines of the program. This is the reason why we have a corruption probe in New Jersey.View the AD and Documentary!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQcgLT9oBq0

www.youtube.com/watch Wendell Potter

"NERVIE" — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:03:46 EDT

Dear Editor,

September 15, 2009, I had the opportunity to watch C-SPAN 3 and hear another testimonial from the “whistleblower” and former head of communications from the Cigna Insurance company Vice President Wendell Potter. He referenced his previous testimonial on June 24, 2009. He expressed a need for comprehensive reform to shape reform to Congress to benefit all Americans. Several times he expressed that the healthcare reform bill will be nothing more than an insurance industry profit protection and insurance act if the bill doesn’t include the public option.

He refutes the heavily prophesized claim that adding the public option will no longer make the private options competitive. Instead he adds that the public option will lower health care cost and cause the industry to reevaluate the way that they do business. The practice of the industry has directly affected 25 million families to become under and not insured and giving rise to over priced cartel led premiums. Potter added that public option will require the Health Services to eliminate high co-pays and deductible which mean less out of pocket costs, increases in lifetime limits, eliminate “fake marketing” plans and increasing annual caps that are more reasonable. Market reforms will not only cause companies to compete, contrary by the industry and allies claims, but also stop the misinformation tactics being used to “frighten us” into believing reform can’t be done. Again, those little fear tactics are being used to induce complacency. Dumping unprofitable and sick consumers to make profit expectations, in a nut shell will cause investors needs to become secondary and can no longer be put over the health of insurance industry consumers.

Consumers must understand that limited benefits fits and underwriting is designed for profit.

Many new bare bones insurance policies on the other hand would make insurance employees shift financial burden to their consumers. Industry employees are also falling victim to marketing misconceptions just to make bonuses. Potter exclaimed that all of this calamities need to cease. You can see his full assessment at www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBFKkXDSKWw

Potter and I hope that this is the year that will enact legislation, I hope he is right. Meantime I’d encourage the entire community to go out to the 25th Congressional representative Buck McKeon’s Townhall meeting Saturday September 26 at 9AM and get there early. Parking lots #5, #6, #7,and #8 will assist your morning stroll to the Gymnasium, wear tennis shoes and let’s here what our local legislative representative has to say. Oh and by the way, I did email him the above link . . . I did call Potter, he told me to tell McKeon that “death panels” is another made up marketing phrase.

Peace Out, Minerva L. Williams, Castaic, CA

Health care number you can NOT believe in!

z0rr0 — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:06:15 EDT

Many people state health care costs as 2.2 trillion, and 16% of GDP, including the Kaiser Foundation. However, when I go to Table 3A of http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

health care in 2008 accounts for 1.5 trillion out of a GDP 14.4 trillion or about 11% (not too far off from other nations).

Where do people get their data from?

I went to the http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/ web site, and while I can reconstruct the popular numbers from their site, they leave me even more puzzled. The GDP numbers for 2007 do not match the BEA. Off by at least a trillion, depending on Net or Gross DP. In addition, the BEA makes it clear that it is not counting Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid under Government consumption. So they must include it all under personal consumption.

The BEA percentage of health care over GDP has been pretty constant over the last decade, around 11%. The HHS data shows it jumping 3 point, to 16% during the same stretch. What's more, it made me realize that 50 years ago it supposedly was at 5% mark(HHS). Made me wonder why we don't hear an explanation of how we did it back then (forget the Canadians).

In other words, it seems very much like whoever counts gets whatever results they desire. Now I have double the evidence that all the numbers are suspect.

Disappointing. Especially since I used Kaiser Foundation numbers from an age stratified cost per year chart, and figured out that "prevention" was bullshit. Excuse my language. Healthy living adds costs to the flat part of the bathtub curve, merely deferring the end-of-life costs. So "whole life cost" goes up with longer lives. There will be no bending of the cost curve as long as longevity increases.

I suppose politicizing numbers shouldn't surprise me. But better orchestration would help.

Real health care reform !

z0rr0 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:44:27 EDT

Mr. President

Congress and the Administration are busy tweaking the existing system, and calling it reform. They are crowing about 47 million uninsured as evidence of a crisis, when a huge number of them are prime of life people who do not need health care. Republicans are attacking costs, increased taxes proposed by Democrats, while claiming that the for profit insurance system is great, begging the question if they’ve woken up from the Bush years yet. All of it is in a crisis mode – must be reformed this summer. Or what? I think we’ll just have another summer next year.

Now I do have some ideas for real health care reform. It starts with the simple premise of a single payer. I don’t care if it is the Social Security Administration or Halliburton. Stop wasting billions on multiple billings, useless accountants, claim processors, rate negotiators, and of course, CBO, GAO and untold other studies. The Government should simply open it up for bids. Companies could partner, agencies and companies could partner, agencies and agencies could partner. I would not care. Just two basic criteria: single payer, meaning single book-keeping, and lowest operating bid. Health insurance is not brain surgery – it is just moving money from the left hand to the right hand. So the winner should do it cheaply. That would take care of my health insurance claim processing reform.

Now for actual health care reform? Well we are in a pickle, one that neither Democrats, Republicans, AMA or BCBS want to admit. The baby boomers are going to clog the are demographics arteries. The number of Americans over the age 64 will double for the next 40 years, and these old codgers consume 6 times the health care that a young person does. Our infrastructure, you know the one with Indian immigrant doctors, Philipino immigrant nurses, and hundreds of closed hospitals, cannot serve their numbers. So we will have metered health care. The rich will go to through the side doors while the rest of America will queue up at the front desk. Inevitable. How can Congress ignore this? Perhaps because most will be dead and gone by the time it becomes obvious.

The way to get out of the pickle is to resort to the great American ideal of self determination and self reliance. My suggestion is that every American be endowed with a voucher of $1,000,000, for life time health care. Each time they go to a doctor, the single payer will pay the doc, and reduce the balance of the voucher. Once a person runs out, they are on their own. If they live right, maybe the voucher can last a long time. If they live smart, they won’t rush to the doctor for every sprain and strain, much less for Viagra. If at the end of life, they only have enough for a hospice, rather than the inhuman cruelty of being kept alive on tubes for months, who is to judge which represents better quality of care. How do I suppose to pay for this. Well, the startup cost is minimal. Even old people only average $8-10,000 in annual costs. That’s the only part of the voucher that has to be covered initially. The full million is like life insurance – you pay, perhaps into Medicaid (what a novel idea) to build up the “future value” of you endowment. The younger you are when you start, the lower your monthly payments. I think it is doable.

Now to complete my tour de reform, I would allow the unused balance of a voucher to be transferred to heirs, as part of the estate. I know, it sounds odd, but it really makes sense. The genetics will ensure that in the long run, the healthiest of the breed will end up getting the best of care.

Sorry folks, but when one is looking to reform reform, one has to strain the gene pool to achieve real savings in health care.

Health Insurance Reform - what's the rush?

z0rr0 — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:03:49 EDT

The President finally called the reform by its proper name: Insurance reform!

Let's be honest. The entire discussion has very little to do with health care reform for 250 million Americans. It consists of Medicaid offering wall-to-wall coverage for families making under $29,000 per year, and about $2 grand in government subsidies to those making less than $88,000 per year (with yet to be stated levels of coverage. The rest of Americans will retain the same crappy insurance, but pay more in taxes.

The likely beneficiaries will be the insurance companies, who will get another 40-50 million subscribers.

That is not something I want to help with!

Good riddance to Sarah

The Bard of Wilmette — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:40:42 EDT

Howard Fineman and some other astute political observers have written in recent days that Sarah Palin's announced resignation as Alaska's governor is a clever first step toward a 2012 presidential run. I just do not believe that this is true. If she really expected to run for president in 2012, it is fully understandable that she would not run for reelection as governor when her current term expires at the end of 2010. If she does have presidential expectations, however, it does not make sense for her to resign just over half way through her first term as governor. Although she is a darling of the Republican Right (I am trying to recall who the conservative pundit was who basically admitted to being sexually excited over Ms. Palin during her vice-presidential run), she has almost zero respect or credibility from the rest of the country, and quitting her current job for no obvious reason at this time would hardly help in building up her reputation.

If Governor Palin is resigning early because of family considerations, I can respect that. That could be a contributing factor, although I doubt that it is the primary reason. I think it is more likely that the main reason is that her being routinely lampooned by commentators and comedians caused her to lose her taste for electoral politics. If this is the case, she would have to be quite a masochist to want to run for president, in 2012 or any other year.

The main direct effect of her resignation is likely to be that she will make many times more money (probably something like $50,000 per speech) as a private citizen than she could possibly make as a government officer. As a private citizen with a major fan base among the right wingers of America, she could become something similar to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. She could articulate her message, make a fortune, and be accountable to nobody. She will be able to raise a lot of money for other Republican candidates, but contrary to the assertions of some political writers, I do not think it is likely that she will be doing that in order to collect a lot of political IOUs. She might be thinking about it, but I think it is more likely that her distaste for the political arena is genuine.

Was some of the criticism and jokes aimed at Sarah Palin unfair? Yes, some of it was. Should we feel sympathy for the governor? Hardly. This is not exactly a nice person we are talking about here. During her campaign for vice-president, Sarah Palin constantly told anybody who would listen that then-Senator Obama was "palling around with terrorists." She did everything she could to suggest that Barack Obama was siding with the terrorists against all decent American people. She belittled Obama's background as a community organizer, as if that was Obama's sole qualification for president. She also made very clear that she believed that the only "real Americans" were small town conservatives similar to himself, implying that those of us who do not fit that description ideally should not have the right to choose our political leaders.

Palin's defenders might argue that the job of a vice-presidential candidate is to attack the other party's presidential nominee, and that some distortion of the opposing candidates' records is part of the way the system works, and that the Republicans are no more guilty of these distortions than are the Democrats. That may all be true, but just as distorting a political opponent's record is as American as apple pie, so is political satire. One of the most famous pearls of wisdom attributed to Harry Truman was: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Governor Palin is simply taking that advice. As far as I am concerned, Sarah Palin combines several unattractive qualities. She is shallow, vindictive, and self-pitying. Perhaps that characterization is (slightly) too harsh, but I am expressing it as a matter of opinion, not fact. Nixon was vindictive and self-pitying in the extreme, but he was not shallow. I would hate to get another president with Nixon's personality traits, but I believe that Palin would be even worse. At any rate, I think it is extremely unlikely that we will ever find out, and that is a good thing.

A tortured debate

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:14:42 EDT

For the past few weeks, former Vice-President Dick Cheney has been saying, in effect, that the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” used by the U.S. against suspected bad guys was justified because:

When our side does it, it is not torture, and
The methods used were critical to preventing additional terrorist attacks, and
Even if it is torture, the recipients were terrorist murders who deserved it anyway.

It seems to me that the first and second points are false, and the third one, whether true or false, is not a valid justification for torturing suspects in captivity.

Under the Bush administration, the U.S. engaged in practices – not simply by a few low-level rogue operatives, but under guidelines approved by the president – some of which are widely agreed to constitute torture. It can be debated regarding some of the methods used, but there should be no doubt that waterboarding qualified as torture. The U.S. in the past has approved of prosecuting for waterboarding as a war crime. If waterboarding is torture, then it is torture, regardless of which side does it.

The apologists for Mr. Cheney in Congress and the media point to the mildest of the questionable techniques, and then sarcastically ask: “Is that really torture? Should we have risked another ‘9/11’ attack because we were afraid to hurt the terrorists’ feelings?” Fortunately, I have never been in the position of knowing what I would do if I was subjected to torture, but it is not hard to guess. I would say anything to make it stop. If I though it would make a difference, I would confess to the assassinations of both John and Robert Kennedy, and for a little icing on the cake, Abraham Lincoln.

What surprises me about the Democrats’ reaction to Mr. Cheney is that they have implicitly accepted Cheney’s terms of the discussion. According to Cheney and his friends, torture was effective in getting valuable information about the terrorists’ plans. The other side says that torture is not effective, or that even if it occasionally produces genuinely valuable information, the same information could probably have been obtained by other means. This basis for argument gives Cheney an advantage he should not have. Did the “enhanced interrogation techniques” actually help the U.S. to prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil? It is probably impossible to prove either way, but the assertion is at least plausible. The problem with presenting the issue this way is that there is an implied assumption that there is no incremental cost to using torture as a means of getting information. Cheney, and everybody else who advocates for torture, should be vigorously challenged on that point. In fact, there is a huge cost to the U.S. when its leaders try to give legal sanction to torturing people. To use economic terminology, in any major decision, the expected benefits should be weighed against the expected costs. Is it worthwhile to waterboard (or otherwise torture) so-called high-level detainees who might be able to provide information that could help prevent future acts of terrorism? If the cost is perceived to be zero, as Mr. Cheney implies, the resulting benefit – even if zero or negligible – should still at least equal the cost.

What is the “cost” of an American president deciding that torture is an acceptable method of interrogating prisoners? Although it would be difficult to quantify, I would say that the cost is huge. The U.S. is still the largest economic and military power in the world, but our relative power is declining, and we need allies. Our ability to influence world events in our favor is largely a function of our ability to persuade other countries to act in a manner consistent with our interests. To a large degree, our power to persuade depends on our continuing to be seen as a force for good, and respectful of international law. If we decide that international law is something to be followed only when it is convenient, and that torture is acceptable as long as we claim to be doing it for lofty purposes, our reputation and moral standing take a big hit. The resulting costs are immense. Simply asserting that “America does not torture” only makes us look like hypocrites if the claim is demonstrated to be false. Pictures and believable journalistic accounts of prisoners under American control being mistreated are effectively a recruiting poster for the terrorists. They also increase the likelihood that Americans will be mistreated when the bad guys have the opportunity. The way I see it, Mr. Cheney greatly understates the cost to the U.S. of using torture as an interrogation tool, and he also greatly overstates the incremental value that results. People are widely debating only the second half of that statement (does it produce valuable information?), but most discussions I have seen on television ignore the first half (what is the cost?).

If we are able to agree that the Bush administration did authorize torture (while claiming the contrary), and that some captives were in fact tortured, who – if anybody – should be prosecuted, either for committing acts of torture, or causing others to do so? There are some well-reasoned arguments in favor of such prosecutions, but based on presently known information, I do not favor prosecuting anybody. Basically, I am weighing political reality more heavily than moral or legal purity. If there is strong evidence of criminal wrongdoing far beyond what is now known, that would be different.

There is widespread agreement with President Obama that the CIA operatives who acted within the guidelines they were given should not be prosecuted. They were following what they had reason to believe were lawful orders. If those orders were later determined to have been unlawful, it is not fair to charge the interrogators themselves for crimes based on ex post standards. Some people have suggested that the U.S. should prosecute the Bush Justice Department lawyers who crafted the morally challenged standards and gave an apparent legal stamp of approval to torture. Although it might be emotionally satisfying to see some of these people in the slammer, I cannot see a legal justification for prosecuting a lawyer who offers morally repugnant advice to a client, even though the client in this case was the Pesident of the United States. If there is a basis for disbarment of some of these lawyers (and I don’t know if that is the case), that would suit me fine, but I think a criminal prosecution would be wrong.

That leaves the question of whether to prosecute Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and perhaps a couple of other high officials such as Mr. Rumsfeld or Mr. Gonzales. These are the people who gave the orders. Legally and morally, they probably deserve it. Politically, I think it is a bad idea. In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, they could argue that preventing further disasters was such a critical priority that everything they did with that objective in mind should be regarded as both legal and proper. If they believed that aggressive interrogation of suspected terrorists, and the equally illegal warrantless domestic spying, were useful in protecting the American people from another attack, they would have been derelict in their duty if they had refrained from such actions. We can argue several years later, with the benefit of hindsight (and of course, no additional terrorist attacks in the U.S.), that some of their actions were illegal, but they should be judged on the basis of what the political atmosphere was like at that time. Personally, I do not buy that argument, but my guess is that most Americans would accept it. The prosecutions would be widely seen as politically motivated, and based on changed standards. I do not want George W. Bush or (even worse) Dick Cheney to get the chance to become martyrs. They do not deserve the moral high ground, and criminal prosecutions against them would hand them that opportunity. Remember that back in the 1980’s, even a contemptible lawbreaker like Oliver North was able to transform himself into a folk hero when it was commonly perceived that he was treated unfairly. It would be much better to let Bush and Cheney live out their remaining years in personal comfort and prosperity… and the disgrace that they richly deserve. The best way to make sure that torture is never again part of U.S. official policy is not to jail the former leaders, but to make sure they are thoroughly discredited. A criminal trial would be counter-productive.

If there is going to be a fact-finding commission to examine some of the possibly illegal actions of the Bush administration’s “war on terror,” it should be set up by the president (not by Congress), and the appointees should be a highly respected group of Democrats and Republicans – people whose integrity is beyond doubt. If the commission is widely perceived to be loaded one way or the other, it would be worse than useless. On the other hand, if the commission is generally perceived as fair to all sides, it could provide a valuable public service.

Obama does not need an honorary degree from ASU

The Bard of Wilmette — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:37:25 EDT

Arizona State University has drawn wide attention to itself by inviting President Barack Obama to be a commencement speaker, but contrary to the usual practice, and in an implied snub to the president, the school is not offering an honorary degree to Mr. Obama. One TV pundit suggested that Obama cancel his plans to speak at Arizona State. Unless there is some crisis that would demand that Obama cancel that engagement anyway, he should take the high road and keep his commencement date.

Although I am not familiar with the process of colleges and universities offering honorary degrees, I would think it is at least possible that Arizona State might reconsider its position. Even if that is not the case, however, Obama has every reason to conduct himself with class, and not concern himself with such a petty issue. As we all know, Obama has managed to build a fairly accomplished resume up to this time: graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, editor-in-chief of Harvard Law Review, teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago, state and U.S. Senator, author of two well-regarded best selling books, and… I know there is something else… now I remember – President of the United States. In addition to all of his public accomplishments, by all indications he is an excellent husband and father. Does Obama really need an honorary degree from Arizona State University to validate his success?

Some people have observed that Arizona State has previously bestowed honorary degrees on people seemingly less deserving than President Obama. That is something that the students and faculty of ASU can debate about. I think that ASU’s action is a little strange, but Obama should not react as if this was a matter of great importance.

Transparency: Senate will delay action on bonuses tax

z0rr0 — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:52:56 EDT

Senate will delay action on bonuses tax , not to mention Geithner and the President himself are backtracking on the House action.

The arguments about breaking contracts between employers and employees is bogus. If it had meaning, my real estate tax increases could not cut my raise in half. The retroactive tax argument is bogus. A bonus paid in 2009 is current year taxable earning. The argument that it is not constitutional is the biggest crock of them all. Cigarette taxes, liquor taxes, skims from lotteries are all punitive taxes, and legit. And lets just wait until carbon credits roll, which will be the biggest social engineering tax of them all. These are all Wall Street arguments floated to save their bonuses!

Are we finally seeing tranparency? Is it transparent now the Congress and the Administration listen to and work for Wall Street, first and foremost? If they work for all Americans, then they should act on all our behalf. The House did, this time!

health care

ron dopler — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:04:38 EST

it is time for a canadian style national health care system NOW

ECONOMY AND THE MARKETS

ron dopler — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:18:31 EST

the professional investers would have you believe that the market and the economy are in trouble because there are no specifics to president OBAMAS recovery plan, this my friends is what we call blowing smoke,the truth is they over leveraged their accounts plain and simple,and they havent read the plan,so their blaming everyone but themselves,the fact is consumer confidence is down and that is the whole problem,and it wont get better until that changes,now i am not a professional invester but i was taught that you buy low ,sell high, following this principle in 2005 i cash out all of my stock holding because it was apparent that a crash was coming,now i personaly believe that the market will drop to 4500 and that is when i plan on getting back in the market now that does depend on some critirias such as how the simulas is working and plain and simple how consumer confidance is but i believe 4500 on the dow will be the break point,when will this happen dont know but i think some time this summer in june,GOOD LUCK

ECONOMY

ron dopler — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:25:43 EST

since the 1980's and the reagan revolution the middle class have been assualted by the far right,if this were a domestic affair the republicans would have already been charged tried and in jail for domestic abuse, but atlast they are coming home crying proclaiming they will never hurt us again,weve all heard this story before,now we have a president who actually is working for the peoples interest and here come the abusers "the republicans" they are now reformed and only they know a better way, it is time for an american revolution where we take the political process over be pro active and call your represenatives and tell them to support are president or they will be gone in the next election,IT IS TIME FOR GOVERNMENT TO BE AFRAID OF THE PEOPLE NOT THE PEOPLE AFRAID OF GOVERNMENT,

Fiscal Responsibility in Government

z0rr0 — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:59:49 EST

Mr. President, your call for fiscal responsibility in spending the Recovery Act tax dollars has the agreement of every American. It won't be an easy job. But, it would seem to me, there is at least one, simple driving function that you can use, namely the performance standards of every Government manager.

Performing the mission under budget is NOT, and never has been a job standard in government. In fact, the whole Executive Branch operates on the premise that turning money back to the Treasury is a sin. "Year End Obligations" is what the annual September ritual is known as. I believe you can issue and Executive Order that makes "fiscal performance against budget" a mandatory performance standard for all Government managers. A standard that clearly states that coming in under budget will be rewarded. In fact, I think, it needs to be the standard with the most weight, to motivate the behavior you are expecting from your workforce.

Congress, historically, also sees the appropriations as "must spend" amounts, where wasting tax dollars to meet obligation goals is inherent. Perhaps you'd need bi-Partisan agreement and support for the Executive Order to change their mindset. But which representative of the tax payers will oppose budgets as maximums, and instead, publicly support fiscal irresponsibility? I think you can drive this through.

Mr. President, you promised us change. Turning the Federal Government into an organization that puts primary value on conserving the tax payer's money would be a huge , and welcome change. One that perhaps all levels of government could adopt.

Start Fiscal Responsibility in Government - all it would take is your Executive Order !

Homeowner Stability Initiative - Rules

z0rr0 — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:24:29 EST

I really would like to see two rules implemented in the Administration's Homeowner Stability Initiative procedures, in addition to payments lowered to 31% of income.

First, no tax deductions for interest on bailed out mortgages. That would make the rest of us cover the sin twice.

Second, if and when a bailed out property gets sold for more than the mortgage principal, the "profit" gets taxed at 100%, until the incentives are paid back. Those incentives, of a thousand dollars here and there, are our tax dollars! They need to be paid back to the Treasury, not end up as "somebody's slick move".

The implementation rules must contain assurances that the $75 billion gets paid back by those who got bailed out, not by our children.

Mr. Geithner has several months for developing the implementation rules. The money comes out of TARP, which means he can do pretty much whatever he wants. Such rules should not be a problem for him, and it would be very reassuring, and FAIR, for those of us with the "responsible gene".

Homeowner Stability Initiative - BULL

z0rr0 — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:38:01 EST

There is no constitutional right to homeownership! If you borrowed above your means, you've got no right to stability of ownership! The fact that the value of a house dropped below your purchase price is not relevant unless you want to sell - and if you can't afford to sell, then stay put - that is stability!

If you want rules for dealing with this mess, and keep 4 million families from being thrown out on the street (who, by the way, are not all hopelessly helpless to start with), here is a suggestion to Mr. Geithner:

Make the banks take their houses back (let them foreclose) and make them rent to the occupants (for minimum of 1 year, or pick your time frame)!

Then the dumb bankers will have their "fair market equity" and the dumb buyers will have a roof over their heads at "fair market rates"

I do not want my children to pay for all these gifts!

Is the GOP Dead As A Coherent Political Force?

Ricardo — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:11:33 EST

The GOP and the Beltway still underestimate President Obama. Some establishment types have great difficulty adapting to the new political order in Washington. These same types misread the writings on the wall during both the primaries and the election where they were out maneuvered by the then candidate Senator Obama, as he not only won the Democratic nomination but also totally defeated Senator John McCain , the GOP nominee.

The last week saw the GOP wade into pious self congratulation for their obstinate opposition to the signed stimulus legislation believing, as did the Beltway, that they had scored a major victory by denying the President his much vaunted bi-partisanship. The fact that the President still got what he sought; a stimulus legislation passed within 30 days of his taking office and that major GOP Governors including that of California seeking governmental assistance stood full-square with the President were totally oblivious to them. To the chagrin of the GOP, Beltway and in particular FOX News, the latest opinion polls seem to suggest that the American people are also full-square behind their President and had not read the script pushed haughtily by the Beltway and cable networks about a GOP victory in the tussle for bi-partisanship. The President’s approval ratings remain stratospheric, the Democratic Congress scores highly; in fact the highest they have scored to date and Representative Pelosi is more popular than the nearest GOP in either Houses of Congress.

Will the GOP grasp the new reality and muster opposition or just whine away in oblivion and irrelevance? That would be a shame because inasmuch as I support the President, I still believe in a strong but pragmatic opposition. That is not just good for American democracy but good for the President and a resurgent Democratic controlled Capitol. It would also signify once and for all that the GOP is now reformed and subscribe to proper and accountable government. That will not only be a testament sought by Americans but the wider World that we would never revert to what we just witnessed these past eight years.

The question though is simply will the GOP survive as a coherent political force in an Obama Presidency?

Whose Recovery Act, Mr. President?

z0rr0 — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:16:32 EST

I had worked for nearly 50 years, starting with pumping gas when I was 14. I paid my way through engineering school. Worked my way up to what you'd call middle management, before I semi-retired this year. My wife and I raised our children, put them through college, and they are productive, good citizens now. While we scrimped early on, going pay check to paycheck, other than a mortgage, we never carried debt. Paying off the mortgage was one of my pre-retirement goals, and we managed to do so. Mind you, we've lived in our house since 1980, the only thing flipping since then were hamburgers on the backyard barbeque. My pension is reasonable, we have no debts, we've done all the right and responsible things, and now I am starting to feel like a sucker! You might ask why?

Because I will be paying off the debts of irresponsible consumers and the salaries of high paid financiers. I will be getting no tax breaks, while Washington is creating them for those who want to borrow, and live beyond their means once again. My biggest uncertainty is not about the Dow Jones, not about housing prices. It is about taxes and inflation.

What is currently going on is eventually going to have to be paid for, either by more taxes or by inflation. Maybe it will be creatively deferred until past my time. But we have also gifted our children with the "responsible gene". If Washington doesn't get me, then it will make suckers of our children. Social conscience is OK by me. Helping those in need is also. But throwing my tax dollars at greedy crooks, greedy idiots (lenders and borrowers) and adding more pork to wasteful programs and pet rocks is not.

President Obama, perhaps this is not the story you wanted to hear, but it is a real, true, and American story. Thank you for your time.

Thus Spake the Audacity

Swami Jeevan Ekin — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 06:09:07 EST

Thus Spake the Audacity

The space limitless borderless and self-contained

The space eternally futile, meaningless and purposeless

The space studded with planets and stars for no cause

There hung a scene afloat and adrift

A pendant podium embellished volatile and hollow

Withered yet gleaming and glimmering masks all over

Seemed a pompous and redundant ostentation

All the celestial bodies behind the intimidation

Standing there was a two-legged creature

With a clowning grin and a lustrous mask

Varied emotions frequenting the mask

His hind limbs shackled with grey promises

His dwarf forelimb clutched but mesmerizing

His mask qualm and scruple and spinning

His stout contour dark and tender

The mask engraved with an obstinate lined dimple

His eyes unmatching the posterity and silky path

A safari legacy and a candy in the mouth

The tongue thick yet agile and brisk

The eyeballs oscillating up and down

An alacrity and swiftness called as audacity

Utterances brimmed audacity was prone;

Prone to prove the hidden beyond the imprudence

A tamed bird bearing a gloomy carcass in its beak

A pertinent insecurity fenced the whole scene

Before him was gathered a look alike fauna

Pairs of eyes outnumbering the stars;

Glow in the eyes lightened the whole place

Hands handcuffed with brittle consolations

Their heads pivoted on an abyss of hopes

Their bodies reinforced with perilous ambitions

Guarded they were with newly born;

distention, altercations and fray

Undestined foresightedness led the this way

Their tongue acetous and teeth tart

separated the were with apathetic invisible walls

Pungent was their cavity and obnoxious was their breath

Hapless eyes waiting for an immortal miracle

Elongated were their years desperate for:

The old repetition of the dissuasion pattern

Their legs firmly anchored in the rotten and ruined grave of;

morality, affability, infelicity, fraternity love and motherhood

there reigned the wisps of delirium and swoon

Corpuscles of discontent, infliction, torments, misery

and apprehensions with their cousins;

thrusting the crowd to stagger

Their hearts still invisible to be called as stoned

Infidelity and disloyalty were on probation with them

Betrayal was also awaiting its turn

Having had a famine of tenderness and love

They were to be threaded to the crust of chaos

Capped savage and barbarous clouds looming over them

Rambling to pour the hatred and wet the people with fear

Moaning and deploring they were for nothing

The life is strange Ekin

The audacity was prone and aptly prompted

So was ready the gathering knelt and squatted

The space witnessed the tongue tickled and;

Threats beguiled cheers and applause

The ambience was filled with sound

Thus space the Audacity.... I stand before you humbled......

The life is paradoxical Ekin

Gestation : Empror is pregnant again

Swami Jeevan Ekin — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:40:13 EST

Gestation

Long awaiting impatient tidal shore
Ahoy! Yelling wanderer was what the shore bore
A peering hollow was what the shore bore more
A waiting womb was conceived with….
Untrained and innocent was the womb
Womb bore only one facet of life
Second to be born when an Adonis is in the echelons of power
Gusts of strong desires and wisps of ardent ambition
Thus carved and adorned a waif for the coronation
Waif proliferates to become a prince
Prince culminates in to an emperor
Destiny had a revolution: actually part of process Ekin
Ekin,life is strange and by chance
The emperor expands the physical senses to dare the thresholds
Darkened corners are lightened….
Inaudible are audible….
Far is no longer farther…
Legs get airborne….
Vast round shaped is a tiny town…
Memory gets deepened and atomized…
Pitiable remain the taste buds and the nostrils
Morality remains for the destitute only
The sun and the moon two hand of a clock ticked by;
Bliss and torment…
Divinity and suffering..
Privileged and trodden ones
Ethics and rationales…
Logic has had them as fossils at the sand of the time
Practicality beats the drums of aloofness and loneliness
Trumpet of professionalism blows away
The stringent of affection
Mendicant vultures and trashy savages;
Ogling and daring the once conceived womb
The life is strange Ekin
The womb is slyly crying to get conceived yet again
Alas! The emperor is unmindful of;
the groan and cry of the womb still meandering

Ekin

Replacement is not a change

Swami Jeevan Ekin — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:30:00 EST

Replacement is not a change

Lest the change be replacement only

The change yet far and beyond

Replacement is not a change o! chief

Hopes are from the old mindset

A heart is to change not the regime

Wearing old shoes further tightens the spiral life

Old one is to lead to catastrophe

Compensation with ability is just inevitable; for the

Novice older ones

My beloved chief

Intoxicated demand more toxicity

Know not it all

Curved life is desparate for a straight breathing

Let the arrow be in two directions simultaneously

Arrow of filling and the arrow of solace

Redress invites further decay only

The life is by chance

The life is strange Ekin

Your majesty must walk on the two edged sword

Love you my chief

Vulnerable Anvil

Swami Jeevan Ekin — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:11:50 EST

Vulnerable Anvil

Stinking are the corners
Repulsion sees connivance
Obnoxious is just to intimidate
The fragrance gets mixed with it
Adversary only not a foe; to be grinning soon
Anvil is lava hot and molding is tough
Pretensions are from the both sides
The brighter one is better at concealing
A single drop in the cluster of drops
Onerous is the stirring
Reluctance is the manner initially
Prevailing one is blurred; tribe is confused so is the chief
Life is strange Ekin
Pathetic to see you maneuvering o! Chief

How should history judge George W. Bush?

The Bard of Wilmette — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:56:52 EST

As I write this, we are less than 72 hours from the inauguration of Barack Obama as our 44th president, and George W. Bush will very soon be history. Rating the presidents is a popular game. As we enter the final days of the 43rd president’s reign, many professional pundits and others are putting in their two cents worth, rating the presidential performance of Mr. Bush. Since I don’t get paid for expressing my opinions, my own view is not even worth the proverbial two cents, but here goes…

As President Bush and some of his friends have correctly noted, it is too early for any “final” verdict on his presidency. There are various future events that could modify our initial conclusions regarding the Bush record. It is at least possible, for example, that Iraq will emerge in the near future as a stable liberal democracy, and a model to be emulated by its Arab neighbors. If this actually happens, even Mr. Bush’s harshest critics would probably have to revise their evaluations upward at least a little bit. I do not think that such an outcome is likely in the foreseeable future, but it is possible. The main point here is that our judgment at this time has to be regarded as tentative, and subject to possible reassessment in either direction based on subsequent events.

Before getting into the factors that I believe are the most crucial in judging the Bush presidency, I want to dispense with the factors that some people sometimes emphasize, but which I think are of little or no importance. First, the controversy surrounding his election eight years ago, and the possibility that the election was “stolen” on his behalf by the Republican political establishment in Florida, has no bearing on how we should grade the Bush presidency. Whether or not his becoming president was the result of improper shenanigans of some kind, the fact is that George W. Bush has been the President of the United States for the past eight years. It is his record as president that matters, not how he got to the White House in the first place. Second, let’s assume that Mr. Bush is basically a nice guy, a devoted family man, and that his actions as president were motivated by sincere intentions to best serve the interests of the American people. That also does not matter. We judge our presidents by what they actually did, and the effects of their actions, rather than our assumptions about their motives.

In his recent public comments, Mr. Bush has (like any other retired or soon-to-be retired president) tried to put a positive spin on his own presidential record. More than anything else, he emphasizes the fact that since 9/11/2001, there have been no subsequent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. His point is that he has kept America safe for the past 7+ years. The implication by Mr. Bush and his supporters is that this factor is such a major plus in his record that it far outweighs all the possible, but unspecified, negatives. I do not agree.

I can give him some credit for the absence of terrorist attacks in the U.S. during the past seven years, but subject to some significant qualifications. In the first place, if the lack of terrorist attacks since 2001 is the crowning achievement of his presidency, then it is also appropriate to note his administration’s failure to recognize the threat of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11. Vigilance by the administration since then has undoubtedly helped to prevent subsequent attacks, although it must share a significant share of the credit with the good work by many local police departments and the intelligence agencies of other countries. However, in addition to the productive resources that have been used in combating terrorism, President Bush also wasted extraordinary resources that were supposedly for the same purpose, but which contributed no incremental value. Is America really safer and stronger than it was seven years ago? In many ways, I strongly doubt that it is.

As much as anything else, the war on terror has defined the George W. Bush presidency. After the 9/11 attacks, it was apparent that the Taliban in Afghanistan had provided a base for the Al Qaeda terrorists, and it was appropriate to go after them. Had President Bush focused on that mission, he might have succeeded in establishing an effective and responsible Afghan government, capturing or killing bin Laden, and at a fraction of the costs actually incurred in the “war on terror.”

Instead, Mr. Bush turned his attention on Iraq and its odious dictator, Saddam Hussein. While nobody disputes that Saddam Hussein was a very bad guy, by 2003 his ability to be a menace beyond the borders of his own country was very limited. He had been effectively contained by the economic sanctions, no-fly zones, and weapons inspections. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was completely unnecessary, and even if we concede (which I do not) that the decision to invade Iraq and force regime change was a proper exercise of American power, the policy was executed with gross incompetence. Although Mr. Bush has tried to deflect responsibility for these mistakes on others (the CIA and its counterparts in allied governments, along with some of our military leaders), he is absolutely responsible for all of the mistakes pertaining to the Iraq War. It was Mr. Bush, and advisors personally selected by Mr. Bush (such as Donald Rumsfeld), who ignored sound advice and accurate information that did not fit their preconceived notions. The main justifications given by the president for the war (a strongly implied connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, plus Saddam’s alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction) were bogus. The costs of the war to America have been huge, in terms of lives, treasury, and diplomatic damage. So far, it is not at all apparent that Iraq or the Middle East – and America’s interests in that region – have derived a net benefit as a result of the regime change. The one country in that region that has undeniably gained from Mr. Bush’s actions is Iran, and that cannot possibly have been Mr. Bush’s intention. For all of Saddam Hussein’s faults, his one “virtue,” from the U.S. point of view, was that he was an enemy and counterweight to the Shiite theocracy in Iran. While that fact would not justify supporting his regime, forcibly removing Saddam from the picture brought on a successor government in Iraq that is supported and influenced by Iran. President Bush had articulated his notion of an “axis of evil,” consisting of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. The implication was that these three countries were allies of each other, conspiring together to do evil deeds at every opportunity. It appears to me that Mr. Bush was handed a catchy phrase by a speechwriter, and then sincerely bought into its implication. In fact, Iraq and Iran were enemies of each other, and to some degree each of those two countries served as a check on the power of the other. Not any more, thanks to President Bush.

Personally, I am appalled at the Bush administration’s contemptuous attitude toward civil liberties and international law’s prohibitions on torture. George W. Bush should, and probably will, be condemned by future historians for his disregard for the laws and the Constitution that he swore to uphold. In the name of keeping America safe from terrorists (which nobody should dispute is a worthy goal), Mr. Bush has claimed the right to torture suspects, lock people up without time limits or any due process, spy on American citizens without a warrant – and all of this in direct contradiction of statutory and international law. The Bush administration has, in effect, asserted that anything it does in the name of national security is legal and proper, and not subject to any laws that would suggest otherwise. In its efforts to hold itself above the law, the Bush administration is very much on the wrong side of history.

However, I do not weigh these factors as heavily as some critics are inclined to do. The Bush record in these areas is very bad, but compared to some of the other wrongheaded policies by this president, these problems are more easily corrected. In times of perceived threats to the American way of life, civil liberties have often been discarded. Within the living memory of many older Americans, many thousands of Japanese-Americans were rounded up and put into concentration camps. This was morally reprehensible, and it served no legitimate national security purpose. That episode has to be regarded as a disgrace in modern American history, but it has not prevented most historians from an overall judgment that Franklin Roosevelt was one of our great presidents. Mr. Bush’s willingness to use torture as an interrogation tool, and his attempts to claim that the president is beyond the reach of the law, have been a disgrace, but they have far less long-term impact than many of his other actions. Civil liberties and the rule of law can be easily restored by the next president’s reversal of these policies and practices of President Bush.

Leaving aside the issue of keeping America safe from international Bad Guys, the major domestic legacy of the Bush administration was his tax cut legislation during his first term. The president had campaigned on his intentions to reduce taxes, and as president he lobbied hard to get the legislation through Congress. He was successful in getting Congress to pass something very close to what he wanted. If the net effect of the tax cut is good, Mr. Bush deserves the credit; if the net effect is bad, he deserves the blame. In my own opinion, the tax cuts had more negative than positive effects. I am less bothered than some people are by the fact that most of the benefits went to those with high incomes. Reducing marginal tax rates generally have a stimulating effect on economic activity. The real problem with the tax cuts is that they were accompanied by huge increases in government spending. Recall that, back in 2001, Mr. Bush inherited a government in fiscal surplus. He claimed at the time that surpluses would continue indefinitely into the future, and that even under the worst case scenario – a recession plus an as yet unforeseen national emergency – the enacting of his tax cuts would supposedly only reduce future government surpluses by half. The tax cuts passed, and we soon afterward got our national emergency (the terrorist attacks) and the recession. In little time, we went from a record surplus to record deficits. It can be argued that the tax cuts made the 2001 recession milder than it otherwise might have been, but they also made the long-term problem of an increased national debt much worse. This president, who preached the Republican mantra of small government, greatly expanded the government’s spending and power. Maybe Congress should be held responsible for some of the increased spending, but President Bush did not veto a single bill during his first term.

Recessions are part of the business cycle, and I do not blame President Bush for the fact that a recession occurs on his watch. However, his policies are responsible for making existing problems worse. Regardless of whether tax rates go up or down, increasing government spending is really a tax increase, and reducing the government’s ability to pay for the spending programs amounts to sending an ever increasing I.O.U. to our children. To his partial credit, Mr. Bush attempted in 2005 to reform social security, which is headed for a demographic time bomb in the coming years. He had a sensible suggestion regarding slowing down the pace of benefit increases in the future. Unfortunately, when he had his one good opportunity to accomplish meaningful social security reform, he made the mistake of insisting on a partial privatization of the program, and he wound up accomplishing nothing. This was a squandered opportunity for an important and positive accomplishment by President Bush.

Mr. Bush has displayed a hostile attitude toward financial regulation, with unfortunate results that should not come as a big surprise. The banking and mortgage crises occurring near the end of his presidency are not entirely his fault, but the Bush policies aggravated the problem.

There are several other aspects of Mr. Bush’s presidency that may be less significant than the issues discussed above, but which also add to the negative side of the ledger. He fired federal prosecutors for not being sufficiently partisan in their jobs, which are supposed to carried out in a non-partisan manner. He famously said in a speech that “we are addicted to oil,” but his energy policies did nothing to address the problem of the “addiction.” From a national security standpoint, the U.S. continues to have an unhealthy dependence on oil, which leaves us vulnerable to the whims of some hostile foreign governments. Any time a situation called for a scientific study, Mr. Bush made sure to stack the deck, in order to make sure that the panel concluded what he wanted them to conclude. His approach is the antithesis of the principle of scientific inquiry. I honestly do not know whether or not global warming is as big a problem as Al Gore suggests, but it does appear to be a bigger problem than Mr. Bush has ever cared to acknowledge. The longer the problem is put off, the more drastic the consequences will be. Mr. Bush has been an advocate of free trade, but he has supported steel industry and farm legislation that violate trade agreements (to be fair about it, most recent presidents have supported free trade in theory more than in practice). In addition, he has been consistently hostile to all international organizations, regarding them as infringements on American sovereignty, and he did not see fit to make an exception for the World Trade Organization. Although it is not a popular cause, free trade is in the general interest of the American people. Mr. Bush seems to understand this, but he never spent much effort promoting it. That is too bad, because with a recession facing us, and Democrats in solid control of Congress, expansion of trade opportunities within the next several years looks very unlikely. Back to the Middle East, it may not have been possible for President Bush to solve the problem between Israel and the Palestinians, but he never made much of an effort in that area, and the situation there is worse now than it was when he became president eight years ago.

In summary, although our verdict on the George W. Bush presidency for now must be regarded as tentative, it is hard for me to see a realistic possibility that his presidency will be regarded as anything but a failure. He claimed that he would pursue a “humble” foreign policy, but instead his record on foreign affairs was the most arrogant in memory. He ordered an invasion of a country that had not attacked the U.S. or its allies, nor was it an imminent threat to do so. The consequences of this totally unnecessary war have left America weaker (economically, militarily, diplomatically) than it would otherwise be. During the Bush presidency, America has been less respected by the rest of the world than at any other time in several generations. This is important, because the world is continually becoming more interconnected. Our country is still the most powerful in the world, but in dealing with other countries in the future, our power to persuade will be far more important than our power to coerce. Mr. Bush talked of the conservative virtues of limited government, but his actions were the opposite of his expressed intentions. He had the federal government overrule the states when a state decided on a policy that was not to his liking (medical marijuana, for example). One of his major goals, with the enthusiastic assistance of Dick Cheney, was to strengthen the presidency by claiming that it is not subject to constraints by the law, or by actions by Congress or the courts. These extreme interpretations of presidential power may well have the effect of weakening the presidency. That is what happened following similarly imperial claims of presidential power by Richard Nixon. I am not judging Mr. Bush harshly because his goals and priorities might be different from mine. Instead, I am saying that he is a failed president because he failed in terms of his own stated goals.

Reflections on the 2008 campaign

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:41:36 EST

On the last day of 2008, I am looking back on the political developments this year. In www.my.barackobama.com, I have written over 100 essays in the past year, and posted comments to many more that were written by others. I have also gained the benefit of acquiring several dozen new “friends” who I will very likely never meet, and the exchange of ideas has been very enjoyable. All of us who regularly contributed postings to mbo.com can look back and observe snapshots of our own attitudes over the course of the year, like a photo album but with words rather than pictures. It is an unusual pleasure to have been able to enthusiastically support, as opposed to merely settle for, a presidential candidate, and still a rarer pleasure to have that candidate win the general election. Barack Obama is about to become president at a time of great challenges, and it is not reasonable to expect that all of the problems he inherits will be fully solved any time soon. I am hopeful that he will do a good job, and that his decisions will be the correct ones most of the time.

In looking back on my own writing over the course of this past year, I can see that I (like most bloggers in varying degrees) sometimes had the tendency to overstate the case. For example, there were some harsher statements about Bill and Hillary Clinton than they deserved. Hey, that is what happens when we get on our electronic soapbox. I regarded some of their public statements against Obama – when Senators Obama and Clinton were competing for the Democratic presidential nomination – as offensive and unworthy of accomplished public officials. Then again, many of our most admired political leaders throughout American history engaged in much worse political claptrap than anything either of the Clintons said or did in this campaign. It is easy to lose perspective.

If Obama did not run for president, or if his campaign fizzled out at the beginning, I could have comfortably supported Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, or Chris Dodd for president. They are all good people, and I think that any of them would have made a good president, although I always believed that Obama was the best available candidate. Once it became apparent that either Obama or Clinton would be the nominee, Joe Biden was my first choice for vice-president, and I was glad to see him get the job.

I was much less comfortable with Hillary Clinton as a candidate, although I almost certainly would have voted for her over any Republican nominee this year. Part of my problem with Mrs. Clinton as president is that, for all of her obvious intelligence and knowledge of the issues, she did a very poor job with her healthcare reform efforts in 1993. Her only experience in actually running anything did not go well at all. Later on, I was also appalled by what I regarded as very obnoxious behavior on her part toward Barack Obama. On reflection, I probably made too much of that at the time.

Many Obama supporters were admirers of John Edwards, but I cannot agree at all on the merits of Mr. Edwards. If he had won the Democratic nomination, I still am not sure if I could have brought myself to vote for him over Senator McCain. Many people admire Edwards for his calling public attention to poverty in America, noting that most politicians at least claim to be fighting for the middle class (where most Americans, including yours truly, identify themselves). Few politicians, other than those representing districts with high rates of poverty, talk about poverty at all, and it is arguably to Mr. Edwards’ credit that he raises the issue. That may be true, but I also believe that his policies would in the long run be disastrous for the people he is allegedly trying to help. The other problem I had with Edwards was his grandstanding about being the only candidate willing to “take on corporate America.” That strikes me as very similar to when Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin talked about the “real Americans,” as opposed to those of us who are apparently fake Americans. In the case of both John Edwards and Sarah Palin, it appeared to me that if they could have their way, a major segment of the American population would not be welcome to have their views represented in Washington. As far as the later revelations about Mr. Edwards’ philandering were concerned, I was just relieved that he had made himself politically irrelevant.

The other two Democrats seeking the presidency at the beginning of the year, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, were both political jokes as far as I was concerned, and did not need to be taken seriously.

Among the Republicans running for president at the beginning of the year, I thought that John McCain was their best candidate. I liked him in 2000, when he competed with George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination. As in the case of Hillary Clinton, I was more negative in my comments about John McCain during 2008 than he probably deserved. McCain is basically a good person. On the other hand, I doubt that he would have made a good president. My biggest single objection to McCain as president was that he intended to appoint more right wing judges to the Supreme Court (and presumably the other federal courts). Thanks to a concerted effort by Republican presidents over the past generation, the courts are already overrepresented by right wing judges. McCain and all the other Republicans seeking the presidency this year were dedicated to continuing that trend. In varying ways, I thought that the other Republican presidential contenders, with the exception of Ron Paul, had all of McCain’s faults and none of his virtues. I do not think that Ron Paul would make a good president, and he never had a realistic chance for his party’s nomination, but I still like the guy. In a way, he is the conscience of his party, a reminder of conservatism’s libertarian roots.

As an amateur student of American history and the presidency, I have become persuaded that one of the qualities common to our better presidents has been a strong sense of history. The good presidents have understood what worked in the past, and what didn’t work, and they knew how to apply the lessons from the past to the present situation. A good president also has to be a good manager. He (or, some day, she) cannot be much better, although it is possible to be much worse, than the people he hires for his cabinet and White House staff. He has to be able to delegate a lot of the work to these people, but at the same time the ultimate responsibility is his. I think that Barack Obama has the qualities that can make him a great president [Whether or not things actually turn out that way, we will not know for quite some time]. He is a big reader of history and related subjects, and some of his reading choices have been exactly what I would have recommended, in the event that he was to solicit my opinion. He is surrounding himself with very talented and knowledgeable people. It also at least appears that he wants honest advice from these people, as opposed to some presidents who have tended to ignore or dismiss advisors who dared to tell the president anything that conflicted with his own preconceived ideas. The president should encourage spirited debate among his advisors, but once the policy has been decided, those same advisors should be able to publicly support the president, or else resign. If a particular advisor finds that the president no longer values his input, he should resign. It seemed to me that Colin Powell should have resigned as Bush’s Secretary of State long before he actually left the job, rather than continue to publicly support a policy he knew was wrong.

As Obama takes office on January 20, some of the challenges he faces will be formidable. I hope that the Obama presidency will focus on long term solutions to problems. This applies to a lot of areas, but I am thinking specifically about the economy. Much of the current economic crisis is the result of people and institutions pursuing short term goals. As long as asset prices were rising, investors and home owners benefited from highly leveraged deals. The Detroit-based auto makers emphasized the SUVs and light trucks because that was where the profits were best. A few years ago, Congress even passed a law giving tax favored treatment to businesses that bought SUVs (as opposed to ordinary passenger cars). Managers at investment banks and industrial corporations were paid huge bonuses based on short term results. All these things seemed to help keep the economy humming along… for awhile. The pursuit of short term results is often contrary to the longer term interest. A company that cuts out (or drastically reduces) spending on maintenance or on research and development can make one quarterly income statement look good, but it is likely to have a negative impact on its future. I think it is likely that the economy will get worse, maybe for a year or so, before it gets better, and I hope that Obama (and Congress) will have the wisdom to avoid the kind of quick fixes that seem to address some problem, but which make the situation much worse in the long run. For example, they should resist their protectionist inclinations, even though there could be a political price to pay.

Anyway, having supported Barack Obama’s candidacy from the beginning, I got what I wished for. My candidate got elected, along with my preferred choice for vice-president. I hope that I will continue to be pleased with the election results in the years to come.

An update on the team of rivals

The Bard of Wilmette — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:08:37 EST

I have recently read two books about the presidential campaign. Submitted for your approval – as Rod Serling used to say when introducing his Twilight Zone episodes – the setting is basically as follows: The United States is engaged in an undeclared war, which originally enjoyed popular support, but the war has been seriously mismanaged. The general public has observed incompetent leadership at the top, and many who originally supported the war have now come to believe that the war was a mistake. The incumbent (and soon to be retiring) President of the United States has seen his own popularity drastically reduced, for several reasons but mainly because of the widespread perception that the war was both badly conceived and poorly executed. In the Democratic Party, the two leading anti-war presidential contenders are both sitting members of the U.S. Senate. They are ideologically similar, and policy differences between the two of them are minor. Unfortunately, these two senators personally detest each other. This is cause for great concern among Democrats, because a badly divided party would likely result in their losing a presidential election they otherwise should have a good chance of winning.

Sound familiar? As you probably have figured out by now, the year is… 1968. The unpopular president is Lyndon Johnson. The two feuding Democratic senators running for president are Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy. As we all know now, Senator Kennedy was assassinated, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic nomination, but with the Democratic Party sharply divided between the pro-war and anti-war factions, Republican nominee Richard Nixon won a close but decisive election.

There are some parallels between the 1968 and 2008 political situations, although one significant difference is that, despite some bitter exchanges, the personal relationship between Senators Obama and Clinton was nowhere near as bad as the antipathy between McCarthy and Kennedy in 1968. Many of the supporters of either Obama or Clinton declared that they would find it impossible to support the other candidate in the general election, but in the end, the great majority of Clinton backers wound up voting for Obama in November, and I think it is likely that, had Hillary Clinton managed to win the nomination, most Obama supporters would have voted for her against Senator McCain. It was a hard fought contest for the Democratic nomination this year, but after Obama officially won the prize, both Hillary and Bill Clinton delivered when it mattered. For months, the Clintons did everything they could to suggest that Barack Obama was not qualified to be president, even to the point of implying at times that John McCain would be preferable to Obama as president. When Obama still won the nomination, the Clintons did an about face and enthusiastically endorsed him, as if all the previous criticism of Obama was meaningless. In a way, it was meaningless. To put it another way, it was politics. Different candidates compete hard for their party’s nomination, and the losing candidates then support the nominee of their own party in the general election.

I do not know the exact nature of the personal relationship between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but it is a reasonable guess that at least to some degree, they are friends. They are fellow Democrats, ideologically similar, and have been Senate colleagues for the past four years. It is likely that Mrs. Clinton resented her younger colleague’s aggressive, and ultimately successful, pursuit of a presidential nomination that she believed was rightfully hers. In spite of that, both Clinton and Obama understand the nature of politics, and there appears to be a mutual respect between the two of them. That mutual respect was missing in the relationship between Kennedy and McCarthy forty years earlier. Obama did not have to offer Clinton the job of Secretary of State, and she did not have to accept it. Both of them had good alternatives available to them.

Shortly after the election, I wrote in a blog post that I hoped that Bill Richardson, and not Hillary Clinton, would get the top job at State. As it turns out, the job will be Clinton’s. There is no use now in wishing that Obama had made a different choice, and I hope that Mrs. Clinton will do an excellent job. I read somebody’s commentary to the effect that as Secretary of State, Clinton would undermine the Obama presidency by trying to advance her own agenda for 2012. That is (very probably) nonsense. If Mrs. Clinton really intended to challenge Mr. Obama for the 2012 presidential nomination, there is no way that she would accept an offer to serve in his cabinet. If President Obama is made to look bad in the area of foreign policy, Secretary of State Clinton would certainly not look good. For now, Obama and Clinton have a commonality of interests. Obama has assembled a team of very talented and accomplished people to serve in his cabinet and other top posts. If he can use these people effectively, Obama can be a great president. For Hillary Clinton and the other top officials, their own reputations will be best enhanced if they succeed in making the president look good. Mrs. Clinton most likely will never become President of the United States. That is probably a disappointing reality to Mrs. Clinton and her fans. However, she does have the opportunity to establish a valuable legacy for herself in American history, by being the best Secretary of State that she can be.

Rev. Warren's role on Jan. 20 is not important

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:22:59 EST

President-Elect Barack Obama has incurred a lot of hostility to his decision to have Rev. Rick Warren, a well-known televangelist, lead a prayer at the presidential inauguration. The principal reason for the opposition is that Rev. Warren is believed to be anti-gay, and that giving him the honor of leading a prayer at the inauguration is a huge insult to a group of Americans that strongly supported Obama in the election.

Rev. Warren would not have been my choice, but I think the hostile reaction is excessive. Personally, I never pay any attention to what any preacher says at a presidential inauguration. The one exception I recall is when Rev. Martin Luther King Sr. gave a rousing speech at the inauguration of President Jimmy Carter. Other than that, I do not know who the preachers are, or what they say. It is just part of a ceremony. To me, objecting to the presence of Rev. Warren is like being a guest at somebody’s wedding and complaining about the couple’s choice of music being used in the ceremony. Rev. Warren is not my proverbial cup of tea, but I fail to see that it is an important issue.

Is Rev. Warren really anti-gay, as his accusers suggest? The accusers certainly have a basis to believe that he is. He has said that anybody (gays included) are welcome to attend his church, but that gays who do not renounce their “lifestyle” cannot be members of his church. And of course, he was strongly in favor of California’s (his home state’s) Proposition 8, which would have the effect of prohibiting and invalidating same-sex marriages in that state. On the other hand, his record suggests that he is not infected with the same kind of ugly bigotry that characterizes some other celebrated TV preachers.

My own position on same-sex marriage is basically the same as that of President-Elect Obama. I am open to persuasion to the contrary, but it seems to me that civil unions (marriage in everything but name) plus protection against discrimination should be sufficient to address the legitimate civil rights issues, regarding gay rights. Social acceptance cannot be legislated; it takes time and patience. I think that most people can accept the idea of civil unions, and maybe after several years and we find that the sky is not falling, same-sex marriage by name will also gain wider acceptance. If I lived in California, I would have voted against Proposition 8. While I am not really an advocate of same-sex marriage, I believe that it is a mistake to make them constitutionally prohibited, which Proposition 8 does at the state level. On the other hand, there is too widespread a tendency to label people as bigots if they disagree with us on this or some other issue.

Think of the major civil rights legislation from the 1960’s. While it is probably fair to say that nearly all bigots opposed those civil rights measures, it is not fair to say that bigotry was a motivation for everybody who opposed those laws. There were principled conservatives who were personally against discrimination but who also believed that it was not the business of the federal government to prohibit what was admittedly obnoxious behavior. Their reasoning was wrong, of course. Before the passage of those laws, a significant segment of the American population was effectively denied many basic rights, including: the right to vote, job opportunities, decent education, and availability of housing and public accommodations. The federal government had a legitimate interest in safeguarding the rights of citizens whose civil rights were otherwise denied. The fact that the principled conservatives were allied with the bigots in opposing the civil right laws – although for different reasons – did not make them bigots themselves, even though they were (by any reasonable person’s reckoning today) on the wrong side of the issue.

In a similar way, I think that the people who voted in favor of Proposition 8 were mistaken, but it is too simple just to label everybody who voted for it (and those in other states who cheered it on) as bigots. Some of those who voted for it probably thought, rather than voting for same-sex marriage to be permanently prohibited in California, that civil unions are okay but they did not want to have same-sex marriage recognized immediately. That would be a misunderstanding of the wording of the proposition, but the point is that many of those who voted in favor of Proposition 8 are not really “anti-gay.” Others who voted for it undoubtedly feel that – as I suggested above – civil unions and anti-discrimination laws (regarding jobs, housing, etc.) are sufficient in meeting the legitimate civil rights issues regarding gays. Reasonable people can disagree over that issue, but I cannot accept the notion that all of those who believe that the word “marriage” should apply specifically to a union of one man and one woman are “anti-gay.”

To those who are upset about Rev. Warren having a high profile role at the inauguration of Barack Obama, I suggest that they accept – at least for now – the notion that President-Elect Obama just wants to reach out to a wide variety of Americans, including groups that did not support him in the election campaign. Watch what he does as president. I think he will satisfy most people who might be suspicious about his commitment to civil rights. The selection of Rev. Warren is a symbolic gesture to the evangelicals, and it has no other practical significance.

Omar Dyer for Governor: His plans on for New Jersey.

Omar Dyer — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:15:25 EST

Building a Foundation!

As this nation strives for new leadership, we have to be patient on the direction we are going. We have been in a 10 year -- uncontested balance of wasteless government. We just knocked down the building of greed. We are know working on digging up that bad under-rooted foundation. We are now laying the brick works of a new foundation. A stable ground where, Government Intervention was need to stop the ways of greed.

People are asking for help, and they want it right now. I say: let's stop looking at the figures on numbers in the budget. When you tear down a bad building to build a new one it's going to cost you plenty. When you have everyone with their hands out, you need to make them wait. No more blank checks, and worry later on projects. We need people that's going to give you an itemized plan on everything the money will be spent on. Page by Page, Price by Price, company investment with company confirmation (Meaning a letter head on expenses): That's how you lay out the foundation of a business. A Business needs to grow on ideas, and not money to create ideas. Yes, there's loopholes in business opportunities. Yet, we can't create martial law on the next administration. We are throwing money around like it grows on trees.

I'm running for public office because the problems we face are too great. Everyone I have talked to claims that my skills in leadership, and my skills in knowledge on Government can lead this state back to the glory days. They said I need to wait 4 years, and get experience. We can't wait 4 more years of do nothing, everything thrown at the wall on election day. Or 4 year proposal that just happens to come about on election week. The hidden scandals with political pundits getting back for losing. We need an economic Governor: where cutting spending in Education won't Be the only source to save money. Where raising property taxes won't be the only out source to stimulate an economy. Or giving small rebates, while inflation rise, can't be the only tax supplement to give an economic boom in down spots.

I plan to give you 21 century governing for 21 century problems. I plan to make all cities, and county records on bills exposed on the internet. Our problems are not tide to the melt down on Wall Street. Our problems came about because of the non-over sight to the inflation happening on Main Street, or People's Street. While you get sweetened deals, the price of living is on the rise. Wages are on the verge of collapsing. I'm tired of these collectors using greed to profit deals. I'm tired of politicians nickname becoming Scandals. I'm tired of dirty attack ad, or out of character name calling, stealing votes -- and lack of dive to turn out the vote. I'm tired of if you're with this party you can't side with the ideas of the other. I'm tired of the all or nothing approach, or what have you done for me lately. The, you need experience to lead! You need to be in the system to lead.

The problems we face today and the direction our leaders are looking into is not the vision of Barack Obama. We can bring real change into New Jersey, and here's how. With the T.A.R.P. Program from the 700 billion dollar bailout: Obama created a EDA board in New Jersey. Well, we Need a leader from Obama's camp that understands how to fill in the systems need. Economic Development Authority will be in charge of bonds. The same type of bond plan that I proposed -- which will work with Omar Dyer, which is me at the controls. You need too know when to spur a down turn in the state economy. The bonds will give a small relief. We need people to man power these jobs. This will allow small business to get the information need to man power their business. That's how an economy grows. What my opponents propose are cuts to education, and raising taxes. My opponents are looking at figures and running around with their heads cut of. We need a leader that will solve problems on a month to month basis, year to year -- with a day by day approach. Like solving Health Care, I believe the more people you have working the less health care will cost. That's why it's important to get people back to work. Then there's rent and mortgage problems: I plan to eliminate property tax, and implant a no increase flat rent -- eminent domain free law for seniors over 60. This is the best way to recycle the Medicad System, by allowing our seniors to have more cash in their hands. They can't balance rent / mortgages, and have food / energy, health care cost rise on a limited budget. With the way we have inflated the economy a pension can't retire you, and Social Security will only tease you. We need to make sure that when you retire / you retire. That don't mean you retire from a middle class job, to join the kids at the retail store. That's what I'm going to bring to Trenton.

My Job creation plan will cost more at the start to create the foundation, but as the years go through and you allow the system to grow. We can save more money than any competitive state. This is why I'm running for Governor. So I sask you: Do age give you front running rights to lead. Look at the other plans, then look at mine. If you want to get out of the ditch my age shouldn't hold back a leader your tax dollars created.

(Join the Omar Dyer for New Jersey campaign, and don't wait until the end, be the first to talk about Omar Dyer. This is the type of leadership we need.

www. coaches101. org

Obama should reconsider the union bill

The Bard of Wilmette — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:24:28 EST

I have been an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama’s presidential prospects since the beginning, and his actions since the election have generally acted to reinforce my optimism regarding his coming presidency. Having said this, however, there are a few issues where I believe he is on the wrong side.

One of these is the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which is promoted by organized labor. EFCA would replace the current system, where the employees of a given group vote by secret ballot on whether or not to affiliate with a union. If I understand it correctly, under the current system, the election is required once the union organizers get the signatures from 30% of the employees. Those employees are not necessarily requesting to be part of the union, but in many cases are initially just exploring the possibility. They are looking to have an election, but without committing in advance on how they will vote. It seems to me that the present system works pretty well. With the decision being made by secret ballot, workers can choose their preference without pressure or retribution either from the union itself, the co-workers, or the employer. This is the real employee free choice.

In contrast, EFCA would require an employer to recognize a union – without an election – once organizers collect signed cards from a majority of employees. Some of these employees might be interested in considering the possibility, but EFCA would effectively remove that step in the process. It is not hard to imagine the pressure or intimidation that a worker could feel when forced to publicly declare his or her decision.

In a way, EFCA is like the line-item veto that most presidents and some pundits advocate. It might have good effects some of the time, but the advocates of both measures tend to ignore the negative effects. The main effect will be to strengthen the hand of the unions (in the case of EFCA) or the president (in the case of the line-item veto). While in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama actually advocated EFCA because it would supposedly protect workers from intimidation by their employers. Mr. President-Elect, that does not make any sense. Current law provides protections for workers from retribution by employers for attempting to unionize. In any case, one of the most valuable rights a worker has right now is the right to a secret ballot, and EFCA would take that right away. Shouldn’t a worker also be protected from intimidation on the part of the co-workers and the unions?

This issue has nothing to do with the historical importance of unions. The rise of the unions a few generations ago led to raising the living standards for millions of workers. I don’t think there is a serious dispute that raising those previously appalling working conditions and living standards was a good thing. There also cannot be much doubt that it was the rise of the unions that made those positive changes possible. Still, it does not logically follow that, because the unions helped many workers in the past, strengthening the position of the unions in the 21st Century will be good for workers going forward.

I believe that Barack Obama has shown excellent judgment on many issues, and in his approach to problem solving. It appears to me that he has chosen an excellent cabinet and other top advisors, and he will make sure that he is at least aware of the arguments that run contrary to his initial policy inclinations. I hope that EFCA will be one of the issues where he reconsiders his position.

Omar Dyer is running for Governor of New Jersey: Change is coming!

Omar Dyer — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:27:29 EST

As a member of the Change Campaign I hope we all join in support for Omar Dyer: As he took and stole the Next Generation of Leaders title.

Change is Coming:

Omar Dyer is running for Gov. Of New Jersey. He's ideas, and vision for New Jersey is what this state needs. Three weeks ago, Omar Dyer implanted a bond system. This system is a vital creation, that can benefit a week economy. The media pundits called Dyer a joke, and rivals claimed he was making monopoly money.

Barack Obama is open to all ideas, and saw that his young strong supporter had an idea that can give immediate relief to the economy. So this weekend New Jersey became one of the first States to implant a economic system, where bonds are a vital tool.

We in New Jersey need a Governor that will know about the economy. We need a smart Governor, and not a political Governor. The old system of suspending programs, cutting reliable taxes will not work. Just Like Jon Corzine's Toll Hike: Little did you know Corzine wanted to implant this hike a couple of years ago. This was a campaign move to riddle New Jersey. If Jon Corzine was a good Commander in Chief, he would have consulted with the senators and state representatives; this is where he would have learned: The senate passed a bill that granted earmark bills to the transit authority for infrastructure on roads and bridges. So his Toll Hike would cause serious intangible acts on New Jersey's economy, that's why I want to repeal that mandatory law. I want to eliminate property taxes for seniors over 65, and give them a relief so they will have more money in their pockets to spend. The question is: how will you pay for it, well I plan on imposing a windfall profits tax: and use that profit to bond and rebate the American people.

No more will profit gains go to the buddies funding campaigns, no more will corporate money will rule political engineering. This will be an all hands on approach: That's why United Way, has stuck with Coaches! 101 -- my personal community based business. They knew that good leadership comes from the bottom up.

That's why I'm standing right here in front of you today. That will to fight eminent domain; cause I used every educational tool I know to stop my mother's home from becoming foreclosed, during the financial melt down. So, I will be thinking about keeping people in their homes, if you elect me as your Gov. / Commander in Chief: of New Jersey. I know how to govern, and would like to work with you and work for you.

The system needs an economic chief, who can change the way we see, plus view politics. A Government that will work on all levels, and that's why I'm working with United Way. I don't want you to donate to my campaign if you don't trust me. I want you to donate to united way and then donate your time to canvass for real change. I'm not using this as a campaign pitch to ride a wave. Then once I get in, I become one of many: If you work with me. Get people to vote for me, knock on some doors for me, start a phone banking system for me: have political watch parties for me, and use those donation to campaign for me. I will bring government into your homes, bring Obam: like ideas to New Jersey. During Obama's campaign he found a few students to inspire him, who got him all fired up, and ady to go. I'm looking for that same student to fire me up. I'm looking to groom the next leader, as Obama groomed me. That's what change means, and that's government. The new bonds proposal, we can bring responsible government to New Jersey.

Pundits will say; "I never heard of Omar Dyer, he didn't attend the local meeting, or donate to anyone's campaign." You never heard of Omar Dyer is only because you didn't want too. Omar Dyer became a known figure when Rainbow Push: mentored him, and BBSA (Big Brothers, Sisters Association) groomed him. Omar Dyer became a known figure when Color of Change; gave him a spot on their board. The media pudits are well aware of the name Omar Dyer, that's why they call the kid: the biggest celebrity in the world. The media will not do a report on Omar Dyer because he doesn't drop millions of dollors on news ads. Their backwards ideology of writing on popularity is vague. They have their favorites. And that's why I'm on the internet. Since Omar Dyer announced that he wanted run for Governor: 50 people jumped into the pool, 5 of Dyer's associates have jumped in the pool to run for mayor. Omar Dyer has the same view, vision and ideas as Bsrack Obama. That's why his bond system
Was implanted in New Jersey.

Obama and Blagojevich

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:59:09 EST

President-Elect Barack Obama has been criticized by some Republican politicians and pundits for his cautious initial response to the scandal surrounding Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. In today’s (12/11/08) Wall Street Journal, for example, columnist John Fund lays out the case for tainting Mr. Obama with Illinois’s culture of sleaze. The fact that Obama has been closely associated with Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, who in turn has been a close ally of Mr. Blagojevich, is apparently enough to convince Mr. Fund that there is something sinister about Obama’s apparently limited reaction to the explosive criminal charges against the governor. Mr. Fund also cites the rantings of a soapbox columnist, John Kass of the Chicago Tribune, as supporting evidence for his own claims.

Rod Blagojevich, Barack Obama, and Mayor Richard Daley are the three highest profile Chicago-based public officials. All of them are Democrats. We can reasonably assume that they all know each other, and it should be no surprise that, being elected officials from the same political party, they endorse each other in elections. It does not mean that they are friends, or that they are in any practical sense political allies, other than by definition. In Illinois, the Democrats control both houses of the state legislature and all of the statewide political offices. Given that starting point, it is amazing that Governor Blagojevich has almost no political friends at all, with the possible exception of Emil Jones.

I don’t know whether or not the president-elect has taken the time to read the 76-page complaint against Mr. Blagojevich. I get the impression he has been busy with other matters in recent days. Both by temperament and by training, Mr. Obama knows that it would be inappropriate for him to shoot his mouth off about the Blagojevich matter before he knows more details. His low-key initial response is appropriate. However, I do think that the president-elect should soon weigh in on the issue, and in very unambiguous terms.

I am well aware that Mr. Blagojevich is entitled to the legal presumption of innocence, although the U.S. Attorney’s case appears to be very strong. I also assume that the U.S. Attorney is ready to offer a plea deal, something like this:

“The case against you is overwhelming. Try to fight the charges, take your chances with the jury, and we will see to it that you get at least twenty years, and “minimum security” will not be an option. You will almost certainly be convicted, and would be an old man before you regain your freedom. Or… Resign your office immediately, plead guilty to the charges, and we will recommend five years in a minimum security prison. You could rejoin your family and get your life back while still relatively young and healthy. This offer stands for 24 hours.”

If Blagojevich really believes he is innocent, he should not plead guilty, but his own attorneys should explain to him just what he is up against. Blagojevich’s immediate predecessor as Illinois governor, George Ryan, is in prison for his own misdeeds, and the case against Blagojevich is much stronger than the case was against Ryan.

Whether Blagojevich decides to fight the charges or not, he should resign immediately, or at minimum take a leave of absence for long enough for Illinois’ lieutenant governor, Pat Quinn, to appoint the new U.S. Senator. Any appointment made by Blagojevich would be badly tainted, regardless of whether or not Blagojevich is eventually convicted.

If bad taste offends you, do not read the following...

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 10:40:37 EST

Today is Thanksgiving – a very enjoyable holiday – so why would I risk ruining that positive feeling with a suggestion in very bad taste? I guess that is just the kind of person I am. The other day, we all saw the scene on television where Alaska Governor Sarah Palin “pardoned” one turkey at a turkey farm near Wasilla, and then amiably chatted away with a TV reporter while the gruesome slaughter of another turkey took place on camera a few yards behind her. During the recent campaign, a contributing factor to Ms. Palin’s stardom was her hunting prowess. There is nothing quite like shooting animals from an airplane to bring out the best character traits in all of us… or so I have heard.

The scene at the turkey farm got me to thinking: Who, or what, would I most like to have slaughtered under the smiling gaze of Sarah Palin? The two possibilities that come to my mind are both characters from irritating television commercials: the gecko in those Geico Insurance ads (in the animal category) and the Commissioner of the More Taste League in those Miller Lite ads (in the human category).

Okay, now the disclaimer, like the ones you hear at the end of so many commercials on TV or radio: This is not intended to advocate the murder of actors who are trying to make a living pitching a product. It is the fictitious characters themselves who I would like to see bumped off. No harm intended to any real person or animal.

The bailout, or buyout, of Detroit

The Bard of Wilmette — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:01:33 EST

One of the great things about being an American is that anybody can express his or her opinion, no matter how idiotic it may seem to be. With that in mind, I have a suggestion regarding a prospective bailout of the so-called “Big Three” Detroit-based automobile manufacturers. First, a disclaimer, even though it may be so obvious that it does not need to be stated: I am not an expert on this subject, or come to think of it, on any subject.

The combined market capitalization of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler has been reduced to such a low level that the federal government could easily buy a controlling interest in any or all of these companies… at a cost which would be a small fraction of what I believe would be the total economic cost if one or more of these businesses was to fail. Rather than a bailout, I am suggesting a buyout. The details would be subject to debate and negotiation, but as a starting point, I would have the buyout contain the following characteristics:

The U.S. government (“Uncle Sam”) would buy a controlling interest (between 51-100%) in GM and Ford, at the October 31, 2008 price per share. Shareholders would not be forced to sell, but if the deal fails to go through, those shareholders would be at serious risk of their stock being worthless. The same offer would be made to Chrysler’s ownership, with a price set by independent appraisal if there is no ready agreement on the price.
Most top management would be fired. Some carefully chosen exceptions could be retained. No salaries would exceed that of the President of the United States.
The new board and management would run the business(es) with the goal of returning it to the private sector as a profitable enterprise. This would require:

reducing the number of brands, to the extent that they are redundant, and
renegotiating labor contracts. Some factory jobs will be lost, and others will be subject to wage reductions.

Legacy costs will have to be reduced. Retirees would lose, let’s say, 30% of their defined benefit pensions.
Secured creditors of the Big 3 would accept 90 cents on the dollar for all receivables that were open as of December 1, 2008. Unsecured creditors would accept 80%.
Uncle Sam will guarantee the labor, pension, bond, and accounts payable obligations, subject to the limitations noted above.
As an owner, Uncle Sam will, if it seems to be appropriate, also invest in making the business(es) more technically advanced, to enhance “shareholder” value.
The government-run enterprise would have a projected maximum time of five years. If it cannot be re-privatized within that time, it would subject to an orderly liquidation, unless Congress authorizes an extension.

The effect of all these measures is that everybody involved – shareholders, white and blue collar employees, retirees, creditors – will have to give up some of what they thought was secure, but hopefully averting a major financial catastrophe that is the likely alternative.

The image of the CEOs flying into Washington this week in their private jets, and then asking for taxpayer assistance, is funny, in a grim sort of way. It demonstrates just how clueless they really are. I would like to hear them say something like: “You can demand my resignation as a condition of financial assistance, or if you prefer, retain my services at a fraction of my previous compensation. However, do not let millions of innocent people suffer because you think that I am arrogant and/or incompetent.” In my opinion, important decisions should not be heavily influenced by the obnoxious behavior of the messenger. As much as I dislike the notion of GM and the others being “too big to fail,” I believe that the consequences would be so devastating to the U.S. economy that we cannot afford to be ideologically pure. I believe in capitalism and free markets, and the principle that the system involves failure as well as success. Many observers say, “Let them fail, or reorganize after a Chapter 11 filing.”

If I could be persuaded that the only people getting hurt in the process would be the shareholders and a bunch of overpaid employees, I would probably agree. The reality is different. There are a lot of currently well-run and financially healthy companies that could be ruined by the bankruptcy of any or all of the auto makers. These companies include the suppliers to the auto makers, and the suppliers of the suppliers, and so on. For many U.S. businesses, both inside and outside the automotive industry, an aggregate of billions of dollars worth of accounts receivable would quickly become worthless. This is not at all similar to having a major U.S. airline file Chapter 11.

Anyway, this is what I believe would be a wise course of action for the federal government, regarding how to avert economic disaster resulting from the failure of the Detroit-based auto makers. Everybody involved will have to suffer some loss, but this is the only way I can think of that has a chance of keeping an undeniable recession from becoming a major depression. One more thing: this will have to happen quickly. The program suggested here may be very unappealing, and for many reasons, but waiting the two months until Barack Obama takes office may be too late. If GM, for example, files Chapter 11, a lot of additional damage will result, and I am not at all sure that the damage will be reversible.

Anybody got a better idea?

President Barack Obama Inauguration Day 2009 - Washington, DC Group!!! 9

Carol Maric — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:51:18 EST

An open invitation to join : President Barack Obama Inauguration Day 2009 - Washington, DC Group!!!

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/InaugurationDay2009

Make plans to be in DC on this historical day!

Make plans to be tuned in with TV and/or the Internet.

Be out in public with friends and fellow citizens.

A Grand and Wonderful Celebration!

Clinton for Sec. of State? I prefer Richardson

The Bard of Wilmette — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:08:50 EST

From inside Barack Obama’s staff, which had been unusually disciplined regarding message, comes the “leak” that President-elect Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton met to discuss the possibility of Clinton serving as Obama’s Secretary of State. The prospect of Clinton as Secretary of State is very interesting, to say the least, but I am curious about the leak itself. Did Obama authorize the leak to the press? If so, why? If not, how is he going to handle it? As of this writing, it is not clear whether Obama actually offered Clinton the job, or that if he offers her the job, she would accept it. My own feeling is that this press leak was a poor idea. If Obama authorized it, he made a mistake in doing so. If somebody on his staff acted unilaterally, he should fire that person, because he cannot have staff members pursuing their own agendas. Maybe everything will turn out very well, but the situation has needlessly invited the potential for major embarrassment to the incoming administration.

I hope that in the case of all the people who are being considered for any position in the new president’s cabinet, Obama would make certain rules and expectations clear. Something like this:

You are being considered for this important post because I want to have the best cabinet possible, and I believe that you have the intelligence, experience, judgment and temperament to do an outstanding job. Assuming that you take the job, there are certain things we need to remember at all times. You will be the head of the department, but I will be the president and ultimately responsible for all the actions of my administration. Your job is to carry out my policies. I want your honest advice. I do not want you to simply reinforce my own preconceived inclinations, if that is contrary to your own judgment. You can and should argue your case, whether in private conversations with me or in a cabinet meeting. However, I may on occasion decide against your recommendations, and once the decision is made, your job is to help carry out the president’s policies. I welcome private dissent, but if we reach a point where you cannot publicly support my administration’s policies, you should resign. You will choose your own top deputy, subject to my approval. You will have wide latitude regarding how you choose to run your department. The President’s Cabinet is a team of talented individuals, but it must function effectively as a team, and the president’s authority as “head coach” can never be in doubt. To extend the sports analogy for just the moment, I believe in giving credit to the players for our successes, and I will take the responsibility for our failures. However, if and when we reach a point where either you or I decide that it is time for a parting of the ways, I expect the resignation to be quiet and dignified.

Back to the subject of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, I think it is possible that she can be a good one, but I also have some nagging doubts about whether or not she will be a good team player, and whether or not her administrative skills are good enough. If she is offered and takes the job, and two years later, President Obama decides that he needs to make a change, will she resign gracefully? I know that Obama was very impressed with Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, and I can understand the case for making Hillary Clinton Obama’s Secretary of State, but I have my doubts.

For a long time, my preference for that post has been Bill Richardson. Mr. Richardson has the diplomatic credentials at least equal to those of Mrs. Clinton, along with better administrative experience, and (in my opinion) less political and emotional baggage. While it looks like the job is Clinton’s if she wants it (if the job is not being offered to her, then the press leak was uncharacteristically reckless), I hope that the job ultimately goes to Richardson. If Obama wants to make a political payoff to Clinton, which would be understandable, my suggestion is that he appoint her to fill a vacancy in the federal judiciary, along with the understanding that she would at least receive serious consideration later on for the Supreme Court. If Hillary Clinton is going to be our next Secretary of State, I hope she will be a good one and prove my doubts wrong.

A suggestion on behalf of foreign trade

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:09:52 EST

Everybody who knows me personally is well aware that I have strongly supported the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama, and that I am very pleased with his election victory. It has been my feeling that Obama has the intelligence, the real life experience, the temperament, political skills, and (in most cases) the policy inclinations that could make him an outstanding president. At any rate, we will soon be able to find out.

One policy area that has concerned me is trade policy. Obama claims to believe in free markets and free trade, and I have no doubt that he understands the intellectual arguments in support of those principles. Unfortunately, his Senate actions in these areas suggest that his support of free trade is mainly as an abstract idea.

A Wall Street Journal editorial has a useful suggestion. Let the outgoing president take the political heat for some free trade deals which have merit but not popular support. I do not have much regard for the WSJ when it comes to purely political issues (the war on terror, judicial appointments, etc.), but when it comes to economic issues, they really know their subject. Check out the following:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122645083164919237.html

President Obama and political correctness

The Bard of Wilmette — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:04:23 EST

Our president-elect, Barack Obama, will face many tough challenges when he assumes the presidency this coming January 20. I hope that he will not aggravate those already difficult circumstances by having to worry about political correctness.

On the personal level, Barack and Michelle Obama have two decisions to make regarding their family life. Where are they going to send their daughters to school? Also, what kind of dog are they going to get? Just in case Barack and Michelle were about to solicit my opinion on these important topics, I will take this opportunity to state the obvious: In your capacity as parents, act in the interests of your children, and ignore any political ramifications.

I read today that the mayor of Washington, Adrian Fenty, has put out the word that he at least hopes that the Obamas will consider sending Malia and Sasha to a public school in Washington, D.C. It seemed to me that President Carter sent his daughter to a public school because that would reinforce his just-plain-folk image. Perhaps I am being unfair to Mr. Carter, and to the D.C. public schools, but Barack and Michelle Obama should send their daughters to whatever school will best serve the interests of Malia and Sasha. If that should happen to be a private school, even if it is one with considerable snob appeal, then that is where those kids should go. The educational environment is a big consideration, as is the social environment, and the fact that Secret Service protection will be ever-present for the president’s immediate family. What Barack and Michelle should not consider at all is how the choice of a school for their children will impact his political standing.

In a similar way, the choice of a First Dog should be based on what is good for the family. The dog should not be a political prop any more than the children’s school. According to the president-elect, one of his children has allergies to most dogs, but apparently certain dog breeds should not be a problem. He stated his preference for getting a dog from a shelter, but noted that this goal tends to conflict with the more important issue of the allergy in the household. Personally, I think that mutts are often great dogs. My favorite dog was a Save-a-Pet mutt who lasted about 13 years. Then again, nobody in our household has dog allergies. I am sure that, in the end, the Obamas will do the sensible thing and get a dog who presents little or no risk of allergic reactions in the Obama family. Whatever dog they wind up getting, I just hope that political considerations will not enter into the decision-making process.

Okay, so much for two issues that are interesting but of no real importance outside the Obama family. There is a more substantive political correctness matter facing Mr. Obama. Larry Summers, a highly respected Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration, is believed to be under serious consideration for the same job in the upcoming Obama administration. However, there is serious opposition to Mr. Summers, because of remarks he made as Harvard University President a few years ago. Mr. Summers noted that, while men and women on average performed about equally in academic achievement in math and science, the variance among men was greater, so that men were over represented at both the top and bottom ends of the spectrum. He suggested that these differences should be studied, both to verify (or refute) the observations, and (if those observations appear to be verified) to test possible hypotheses that might explain the reason for these differences. Mr. Summers never suggested any inherent inferiority of women, but some of the P-C police declared that he was guilty of being out to keep all young women barefoot and pregnant.

Let me add a personal note here. I am the father of two sons (and no daughters). None of the three of us have ever been especially good science students. In contrast, my sister was an outstanding science student, and she has a good job now doing… scientific stuff. She probably would be annoyed to have me publicly characterize her as an “accomplished scientist,” but that label fits her more than almost anybody else I know.

I cannot see that Larry Summers is guilty of any serious wrong-headed thinking. Even if his premise (that males are more likely than females to reach the top academic percentile in math and science) is wrong, he was speaking as the head of a prestigious academic institution, where inquiry and challenging conventional wisdom are supposed to be the way of life. If we think he is wrong, instead of condemning him for heresy, demonstrate the error of his ways by constructing a superior study that will (or at least might) refute his assertions.

We should also keep in mind that Larry Summers is under consideration for Treasury Secretary. I believe that his alleged views about the differences in abilities between men and women have been badly misconstrued, but even if that is not the case, it is of no relevance to the government post in question. If Mr. Summers was under consideration for heading the Department of Health and Human Services, or Education, I could at least understand the objections, and I might agree that the controversy at Harvard would deserve careful scrutiny.

The economy is in recession, possibly the worst recession in the lifetime of most of us, and President Obama will need the best Treasury Secretary he can get. Maybe that person is Larry Summers. The Treasury Secretary should be chosen on the basis of how it is believed he or she will perform in that capacity, and not on the basis of whether he/she offended some people with remarks made on an unrelated subject a few years ago. Maybe somebody else would be better than Mr. Summers for that job, but the decision should be on factors directly relevant to the specific job.

The problems with Palin are McCain's fault

The Bard of Wilmette — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 10:17:50 EST

I thought that I might have written my last post in my.barackobama.com, but I could not resist registering a comment on the sniping by some unnamed McCain campaign officials regarding Sarah Palin.

Personally, I always thought that Governor Palin was a terrible choice to be John McCain’s vice-president. I make no judgment on whether or not Palin is a good governor of Alaska, but it quickly became apparent that she was hopelessly out of her depth as a candidate for national office. From what I know about her political philosophy, she is (in my opinion) on the wrong side of most policy issues, but that is not my concern. I am not a Republican, and that party hardly needs my advice on which candidates it should select for high public office. My concern regarding Ms. Palin is that she displays an incredible ignorance, and complete lack of curiosity, about the world outside her home state.

I give her the benefit of the doubt by assuming that her alleged ignorance about whether Africa is a continent or country is false. I also assume that the $150,000 wardrobe embarrassment is entirely the fault of others. It still leaves plenty of examples, demonstrated directly by Ms. Palin as opposed to being attributed to her, showing that she is unfit for the job she was seeking. In response to fairly easy questions, she could not name one news magazine or newspaper that she reads, except for pathetically claiming that she reads “all of them.” She could not name one Supreme Court case, other than Roe vs. Wade, where she could comment on the Court’s ruling. She also used the word “maverick” so many times, to describe both Senator McCain and herself, that I got the impression that she believed there was some magic in that word. If was as if her debate strategy was: “Remember to use the word ‘maverick’ any time you can’t think of anything else to say.”

So, John McCain’s personal selection for vice-president turned out to be somebody who could excite the social conservatives in the Republican Party base, but who also turned off many moderate Republicans and conservative intellectuals. Whose fault is that? John McCain, of course. There were plenty of well-qualified Republicans available to McCain, but he rejected all of them, either due to personal dislike (Mitt Romney, for example), or a sense that his personal preference would not be acceptable to the social conservatives (such as Tom Ridge). If he wanted a woman for his running mate, calculating that this would attract many former Hillary Clinton supporters, he could have chosen either of the U.S. Senators from Maine, but again, either Senator Collins or Senator Snowe might be judged to be too moderate for the Republican base. I think that another factor in McCain’s thinking is that he likes to spring surprises, and he certainly did that with his choice of Sarah Palin for V-P. He hardly knew Palin, having met her twice briefly before offering her the V-P candidacy.

As it turned out, the selection of Palin did not work out very well. Palin’s defenders (such as MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough) argue that Palin at least gave McCain a temporary boost in the polls, that no other V-P candidate would have even done that, and that there was no way that any Republican ticket was going to win this year. The first point is true, and the other two are speculative. If the Republicans are going to learn from this election defeat, however, they should face certain realities.

Their presidential candidate selected a running mate who he hardly knew. Contrary to his slogan about putting “country first,” he made the cynical calculation that his running mate would help him get elected (by motivating social conservatives and attracting unhappy Clinton supporters). McCain did not consider that Palin would help him govern after they took office, and he obviously could not have regarded her as an ideal choice to become president in the event that McCain could not complete his term.

Immediately following the election, some unnamed McCain campaign officials trashed Palin to the media, and they really went over the top in doing so. I do not like Sarah Palin, and I believe she is shockingly ignorant regarding matters a candidate for national office should know about, but I cannot believe that Palin’s ignorance goes to the level of not knowing that Africa is a continent. As for the allegation that she does not know which three countries participate in the North American Free Trade Agreement, I think that is possible, but I cannot accept the claim of an anonymous source.

I cannot help wondering if McCain himself quietly approved the leaking of this information to the press. I presume that McCain’s selection of Palin was done in consultation with one or more of these campaign aides who are now feeding trash talk about her to journalists. If the Palin selection was a disaster, McCain and any campaign aide who had a role in choosing her should bear the responsibility.

This episode reminds me of a few years ago, when the company where I work was trying to deal with a small businessman who was both crooked and incompetent. As he was getting caught up in his own lies, he gave us the “I am surrounded by idiots” argument. The reason why things were going wrong, and promises repeatedly broken, was that his employees were hopelessly inept. He is blaming the people he hired, and continues to employ, in spite of their supposed incompetence. I guess that is a lot easier than accepting any responsibility for the actions of his subordinates. Fans of John Cleese might also think of the Basil Fawlty character. Restaurant patron (after receiving the wrong order): “I told your waiter…” Fawlty: “Yes, well, he is hopeless, isn’t he? You might just as well have told the cat!”

In retrospect, Sarah Palin probably should have declined McCain’s offer, and if she was interested in national office, she could have spent the next two or three years quietly becoming better informed about national and international issues, preparing to run in 2012 or 2016. However, when the offer is made, it must be hard to turn it down. As things stand now, Palin is a laughingstock, and it will be a tall order for her to gain credibility for a future presidential run. As for McCain, if he wants to know who is really to blame for the problems with the McCain-Palin ticket, he should look in the mirror.

Midnight: Obama Speaks ... Yes We Did. Yes We Have. .... And Yes We Will.

Scott A. Giordano — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:16:29 EST

Random Thoughts As I Watch and Listen ...

Victory!

Daniel Chambers — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:25:43 EST

You have done it. I cry with emotion. It was worth it. Let us continue for America.

Dan

11:00 P.M. on Election Night

Scott A. Giordano — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:09:43 EST

Our Moment Has Come ...

Re: Robin the Nurse

Robin Laurain — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 20:46:17 EST

My name is Robin the Nurse. Unlike Joe the Plumber, I want Barack Obama to be President of the United States. Joe the Plumber and I have something in common besides both being Americans. We have a fan by the name of Rhonda from Fresno.

Rhonda from Fresno has become my biggest fan/stalker as she has commented on several of my blogs. She talks about Joe the Plumber on one of them. She tells me I am ignorant and in the dark because I support Obama/Biden.

How did I get so lucky to get such a fan? How many profiles are there on MyBo? After reading several of her rants about how great Palin is, I maintained my cool and didn't tell her what an ignorant **** I thought she was ala Dan Akroyd's-"Jane, you ignorant ****!" Oh, but I wanted to. I thought-"wwod, since he is my Messiah",( according to Ms. Fresno).

She even inspired me to write a little prayer which I posted in a reply to one of her rants. What is it about some Christians where they feel they can judge who a real Christian is? I have been told many times what I am because I support Barack Obama. Good Christian isn't usually what comes out of thier mouth's.

Another thing, I love about the Rhonda from Fresno types are when they ask me, "How would you like it if your mother got an abortion and you couldn't be born?" I guess I wouldn't care much, since I wouldn't know that she had one, since I wasn't born." But, if I did know it out of mental telepathy or osmosis or something, this is what I would think: "Wow, my mommy feels so trapped that she wants to abort me. Where is her support system? Didn't they teach her sex education ?Why does she feel she is so alone? Where are all the Christians to help her through this? I feel great comapssion for my Mommy. I wish there was someone to help her." That, Rhonda from Fresno, is how I would feel.

Also, before you start judging who a good Christian is, I want to see your credentials. Did God deputize you to go forth and identify the good Christians? What's that? No, you answered. Oh, I didn't think so. You just took upon your self to cast stones at my morals and that of Barack Obama. Those who live in glass trailors shouldn't throw stones.

I personally abhor abortion. I worked in a clinic that performed them as a counselor. When the clinic realized I was also a nurse, they put me in the room where they performed the abortions. I found myself praying for the soul of the aborted fetus. Never did I feel anything but compassion towards the mother. I realized that I could not do that kind of nursing and left.

I still am pro-choice and I never would vote for a candidate because of one issue. Abortion is a serious decision that a woman needs to make for herself. It should not be made by the Goverment, Rhonda from Fresno, or the good Christians.

So in closing, Rhonda and your followers, keep reading my blogs. Visit my site http:/r.yuwie.com/robin1. Visit Michigan Nurses and Advocates for Obama.

Who knows? You may actually learn something about tolerance, compassion, and love instead of spewing your hate-mongering, bigoted view points. Feel free to bring your good friend, Joe the Plumber with you!

The Final Stretch

Scott A. Giordano — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 20:31:11 EST

It's time to Barack The Vote ...

grassroots voter fraud protection

Duane Kuehn — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:57:37 EDT

Hi All, What a long and sometime tumultuous ride we have had! I am so proud of this country because of fellow people like you. We are America. Of course, it is not over yet. I figure that I cannot just sit home and not vote on Tuesday, because I think it is going to be a "win". Lol I know that I have to keep on others to keep them motivated to go out and vote, for sure. One way is to offer rides to others, especially the elderly, but anyone. Frankly, an admittance, me bad, I know that there have been voting days when I just had to force myself to go out and vote because I just plain didn't feel like driving to the polling place. What always forced me to go is that I know if I do not vote, then I have nothing to say about the outcome. Now, we have to contend with gas prices so I will have to fill my tank (which I can surely not afford) and offer to drive others to the polls. Nevertheless, I see a greater problem here. I am most worried about voter fraud. Computers with too sensitive touch screens (this has to be rigged, as there are too many 'double check's which can be programmed which have not been). From the 2004 gaffs to next Tuesday's vote, I am afraid and I am sure I have a right to be. I believe everyone should be afraid, after what we have seen in the past few elections. One county with around 500 registered voters allegedly posted around 5000 votes for George Bush! There should never be a ballot without a paper trail; this is just plain sense. I am now thinking (do not laugh, I do that sometimes) that I might take a box or a few boxes, a few thousand slips of paper and some pencils to the local polling place. That I would try to sit at the polling place all day and ask voters leaving the booths that they please write, privately, for whom they voted and stick it into the box(s?). Later, after the polling is over, I would count those slips and check to see if there is any big difference between my count, my averages, and the election results posted by the voting precinct I was at all day. Now, I am wondering, what if this happened at local polling places all across the country. Is it possible, a People’s Paper Trail to keep tabs on the big boys? All of you have created and maintained a wondrous grassroots campaign. I will bet you can do the same to make sure this is a clean election. Is anyone else interested in such a thing? It does not have to be fancy but it is something we can do to watchdog our election. Loveya, Duane Kuehn

The Truth About Obama

Daniel Chambers — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:44:38 EDT

Gotta give this blogger credit:

1,117 Lies and Smears About Obama, Refuted

http://truthobama.blogspot.com/

----

It's the Barack Obama Show!

The Bard of Wilmette — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:02:32 EDT

I watched Barack Obama’s half hour infomercial last night (Oct. 29), along with some of his appearance with Bill Clinton in Florida later in the evening. Nobody asked my opinion, but the great thing about these blogs is that nobody has to. We can sound off anyway, so here goes…

I thought the infomercial was well done. It seemed to be calculated mainly toward the former Hillary Clinton supporters not yet sold on Barack Obama. If Obama appears to be heading into this election with about 80% support of those who had voted for Clinton in the primaries, this program looks designed to improve that figure to 85%, if not better. If Obama is successful in getting 85% of the former Clinton supporters in the general election, he should almost certainly succeed in winning the election.

The program profiled a few families who are personally appealing characters, who face some challenges, and who live in so-called battleground states. The tone of the message from Obama was completely positive. There was no mention of Bush, McCain, or any of their allies. The one minor criticism I have of the program is that in order to blunt the McCain campaign’s attacks on Obama’s alleged socialism and “sharing the wealth,” I would like to have seen a small business owner included among those hard working Americans profiled in the program. This could be an owner of an independent store or restaurant (or maybe even a plumbing service, with licensed plumbers), who enjoys a high current income but who also knows that this high income level may be short lived. Many of these people are also Obama supporters, but they are never represented in Obama’s ads or public statements.

As for the first public campaign appearance of Barack Obama with Bill Clinton, I thought it was overdue, but much better late than never. Although I have long suspected that Bill and Hillary Clinton will privately vote for John McCain in this election, it does not really matter. They have both credibly come across as Obama supporters since the beginning of the Democratic convention. As good a public speaker as Obama is, there is nobody who can match Bill Clinton’s combination of high intellect and working class appeal. Obama needs Clinton’s assistance in appealing to a significant portion to the traditional Democratic Party base, and Clinton needs Obama’s help in restoring his own public image with Blacks and liberal intellectuals – two important elements of the electorate whose regard for Bill Clinton had declined during the primary campaign. It seemed to me that Obama and Bill Clinton should have made appearances together earlier than last night, even if motivated by mutual self-interest rather than genuine friendship. On the other hand, if Obama wins this election, we can argue that he will have used both Bill and Hillary Clinton in exactly the right dosages.

McCain set the rules, and he still complains

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:54:29 EDT

In his final efforts to rescue his uphill efforts to win the upcoming presidential election, Senator John McCain is making a variety of wild charges and complaints against Senator Barack Obama. The problem for Senator McCain is that he has basically set the ground rules, and he is still losing. The election is still six days away, and anything can happen. Barack Obama has not yet won the election, and while his chances look promising, it is still possible that Obama can lose this election to McCain. We cannot be over-confident.

The McCain campaign is complaining that Obama “lied” about his supposed promise to be subject to the federal matching fund rules. Many in the news media, including some who support Obama’s candidacy, are on record as agreeing with McCain’s version of the story. As I see it, Obama’s only mistake was to have hinted in the first place that he would agree to be bound by the constraints of the federal matching funds. His agreement was subject to conditions that would not (and almost certainly could not) be met. This included the advertising by the so-called “527” groups and by the political parties. Obama should never have even implied that he would accept federal matching funds and be bound by the resulting limits on campaign spending. Obama does have more campaign funds than McCain does, but the effective advantage is less than some news reports suggest. The Republican Party has more money than does the Democratic Party, and they have spent a big portion of their treasury advantage on behalf of McCain’s presidential efforts. The 527’s are completely uncontrolled, of course. Barack Obama said in his book, The Audacity of Hope, that political fund raising is the part of his job that he likes the least. Whether he likes it or not, it is clear by now that Obama is very good at that aspect of his job. More to the point, John McCain had a big part in writing the rules regarding campaign financing. Does he remember McCain-Feingold? What Obama is really guilty of is mastering the rules of campaign financing that were handed to him, and playing the game far better than anybody else. McCain is the last person in the world who should have a valid complaint on this issue. Did McCain, or any other Republican, ever suggest that they had an unfair advantage when they were the ones who had superior financial resources?

The McCain campaign is also emphasizing Obama’s supposed list of unsavory friends and allies. McCain himself, to his partial credit, has largely avoided grandstanding about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former pastor, although vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin has graciously agreed to pinch-hit on that subject. McCain has spent a lot of personal effort tying Obama to former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and now their campaign is emphasizing Obama’s possible friendship with Rashid Khalidi (who they claim is a former spokesman for the PLO; in any case, McCain also has historical ties to Mr. Khalidi). Obama’s actual ties to all of these people are far less sinister than his political opponents try to suggest, but IF that is the standard – guilt by association, no matter how vague that association may be – than McCain’s own list of unsavory friends easily rivals that of Obama. Is it necessary to cite a few examples? How about Todd Palin (“first dude” and husband of Sarah) and his Alaska Independence Party? How about Rev. John Hagee, a high profile bigot whose support McCain actively solicited, before he repudiated the reverend when that connection became embarrassing? How about the U.S. Council for World Freedom, which, despite its apparently benign name, was linked to former Nazi collaborators and right-wing death squads in Central America? How about financial crook Charles Keating? For the most part, the Obama campaign has avoided playing up McCain’s associations with these people. It did briefly run an ad reminding us of McCain’s connections to Mr. Keating, but even that was only in response to McCain’s attack ads implying that Obama is a close friend of Bill Ayers, who committed politically motivated acts of arson way back when Obama was a young child. The only real guilt-by-association that the Obama campaign has emphasized, regarding Senator McCain, is McCain’s high degree of support for the policies of President George W. Bush.

McCain is also making a big deal out of his own supposed superior experience, compared to that of Obama. Historically, resume credentials have been a poor predictor of presidential performance, but even assuming McCain’s claims (1. that his experience for the job of president is far superior to Obama’s; 2. that this superior experience implies superior wisdom and judgment, and is therefore an important indicator that McCain would be the better presidential choice) to be true, why in the world did McCain select Sarah Palin to be his heartbeat away from the presidency? Regardless of whether or not we agree with Ms. Palin on policy issues, she has shown that she is shockingly ignorant on matters outside the state of Alaska. Name one Supreme Court case, besides Roe v. Wade, where you disagreed with the Court’s decision. Can’t think of one? Okay. Name one magazine or newspaper that you read as a source of news. Can’t name one of them, either? Okay. What can you tell us about the actual job of the vice-president? That he or she is in charge of the Senate?

Finally, the McCain campaign has basically conceded that the Democrats are likely to strengthen their presently narrow control of both Houses of Congress, and they are issuing dire warnings of what will happen if the Democrats also capture the White House, with the implication that over time, the federal judiciary also will eventually tilt in the Democrats’ direction. They tell us that one-party rule would be a disaster. Did Senator McCain, or any other notable Republican, complain about one-party rule when their own party had effective control of all branches of the federal government from 2001-2007? I didn’t think so. I have my own concerns about one political party having overwhelming control of all branches of the government. The Democrats may be as prone to overreaching (when they get the opportunity) as were the Republicans. There are some policy issues (free trade being one example) that I believe will not be well served with Democrats strongly in control of Congress as well as the White House. Still, McCain is an obvious hypocrite when he warns of the dangers of one-party rule when he clearly had no problem when his own party was in control.

In all these cases, John McCain has basically set the rules, and failed his own tests. If McCain loses his bid for the presidency next week, it will be a well-deserved loss. In part, McCain is a victim of circumstances (I could not resist stealing a line from Curly Howard of the Three Stooges) beyond his control: unpopular incumbent president, economic crisis, etc. He was probably the best candidate of the Republicans who were running for president at the beginning of this year, but he has not run a good campaign. In part, his problem was that he had to try to solidify the party base AND keep his popularity with independents, but he could not effectively do both, so he opted for the party base. In contrast, Obama has run a skillful campaign, appears to have a reasonably unified party, and I hope and expect that he will be elected. His margin of victory may be large or small, but one way or another, his odds look good.

Barack's Info-Mercial ...

Scott A. Giordano — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:20:24 EDT

A powerful remind of why I've supported Obama from day 1 of his campaign ...

Times Change - Charles Krauthammer

Daniel Chambers — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:59:54 EDT

I think you are familiar with this guy. Heres what he wrote exactly 2 years ago:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDY5MDE5NTM4NWNkMWJlMzBiM2Q0OTA1Zjg5NjYyOGI

comments?

Obama and tax policy

The Bard of Wilmette — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:30:52 EDT

One of the phrases recently jumped on by the McCain campaign is that Obama is determined to “share the wealth.” This is a phrase that scares a lot of people, and John McCain himself has called it “socialism,” which is a word designed to scare everybody who was not already scared by “share the wealth.” As one who is probably a little more conservative than most Obama supporters, I am one of those who might be concerned about the implications of socialism and Obama… if I believed it was true.

It is clear that Barack Obama does intend to increase the progressive nature of the federal income tax. Even if carried out to a limited extent, this can be construed as sharing the wealth. As far as I can tell, the top federal income tax rate (for taxpayers with incomes in excess of $250,000) would rise from 35% to 39.6%. Capital gains taxes would rise from 15% to 20%, and dividends would be taxed at 20% rather than at the higher ordinary income rates. In total, this would certainly represent a tax increase for high-income taxpayers, but not really a huge increase, and those who characterize it as socialism are either lying or they have no idea what that word means.

A point I have tried to make in some previous blog postings – and which I have not seen addressed by any candidate or journalist – is that the real collective tax burden on the American people is government spending, not current year government revenue collections. Regardless of how worthy the expenditures, or where they are being spent (wars, social programs, roads, pensions, interest on the debt, etc.), all these things have to be paid for, and the question is: who is expected to pay? Regarding who is expected to pay, the two main principles to consider are:

Who has the ability to pay?
Who is deriving the benefits?

The progressive federal income tax structure is based on the principle that people with high incomes can afford to pay a higher percentage of those incomes to fund the government programs. Regressive taxes, such as excise taxes (alcohol, cigarettes, gasoline, etc), are based on the principle that people pay based on the consumption of those products. There is nothing wrong with either kind of tax. Obviously, we would all like to pay less, rather than more, in taxes of all kinds.

However, government spending must be paid for, and if we do not pay for it now, we simply increase the burden to our children. What I found to be most objectionable about President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 “tax cuts” is that they were not accompanied by reduced government spending. In fact, government spending increased sharply, thanks in no small part to two wars. Mr. Bush’s “tax cuts” actually amounted to tax increases in the form of IOU’s to be paid for by our descendents.

Barack Obama has laid out some plans that will mean increased government spending. I have no doubt that most of these programs are worthy, but I am very skeptical about his assertions that these programs can be paid for – given the already huge deficit at present – with only modest tax increases for the wealthy and tax decreases for nearly everybody else. John McCain also has promised tax cuts, and he makes the completely implausible claim that he will balance the budget within the next few years. McCain says he would “freeze” spending, except for a few areas that already cover most government spending, and says he would eliminate the dreaded “earmarks,” as if that would solve the problem. I am all in favor of getting rid of the earmarks, but the implication that this would solve our budget problems is like having a weight-conscious person eating a lunch consisting of three huge cheeseburgers, super-sized French fries, a chocolate sundae… and a Diet Coke instead of regular Coke.

I want to be clear that I strongly support Barack Obama for president, and for many reasons. If he is elected, which seems likely, I think he has the potential to be a great president. I do not agree with him on every single issue, but he has many qualities that I admire, and I am confident that those of us who in some manner participated in his campaign will be glad that we did. Still, I cannot be very confident that Obama’s fiscal management will be sound, but then again, McCain would be even worse.

Blacks Vote Barack Because He Is Black?

Ricardo — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:10:56 EDT

To All the Nanas, Toots & Grans of This World

I came to support Barack Obama because I grew more and more fed up with the fact that in a world of plenty many children go to bed without a roof over their heads and hungry. I grew more and more disillusioned that the most powerful and the richest nation on God’s Earth could not feed, clothe and provide a large swathe of its citizens with the basic decency of affordable healthcare. Most of all, I was depressed about a senseless war that drained the whole world of the basic freedoms we were supposed to be fighting to protect. I wanted a sensible person in the White House and all the White houses across this globe who would not ban a mother from carrying a baby’s formula milk on to a plane without the humiliation of first having to taste it in full public view, or where a passenger travelling on an airliner could not carry a bottle of water through security but could buy a liter of whiskey in a bottle and carry that onboard.

So even though I am black, I was looking more and more for plain old commonsense. And on reading about Barack and listening to him I was shocked to find a man who bristled with just basic commonsense.

Then I discovered that he is just about the same age as I am. He is going grey like I am, travelled a lot and lived in different states and even territories like I have, nearly as handsome as I am, we both have African fathers who were not around much and he was raised by his grandmother as I was.

Now that last fact of being raised by his grandmother was truly the clincher. Because I know that there is no better love than that given by a grandparent for a grandchild. My grandmother went up to the heavens when she was over 100 years old. She lived in Africa and I had the good fortune of visiting her just over a year before she went up into the clouds to be a kool nebula. When we met for the last time we laughed and cried together, hugged each other. Nana stood up and walked me to the door when I left – she had not walked the previous three months!

Here was a lady of immense class even if poor. Here was a human being of endless compassion even if she was suffering ill health. She was always there for me whether I was genuinely ill or just playing her for a nice meal of calf’s liver which I drummed up when nine years old, that it had been recommended by the doctor because I needed more iron in my blood. And here was the surprise. She knew all along I was telling fibs about the calf’s liver and yet she indulged me. Here was a person whom in all the years I lived with her never once saw her lose her temper or raise her voice. Here was a woman who raised seven surviving children four of whom were college graduates and numerous grandchildren of the same calibre yet did not even have basic education.

Now I have not blossomed into a potential POTUS but I know deep in my heart that I would most certainly be a lesser person but for her love and nurturing; how she spoke to one more with her demeanour and eyes than her lips. She instilled discipline without the crop. She installed the work ethic without enforcement. But most of all she loved abundantly and unconditionally.

When my Nana left this Earth I went to help lay her to rest and I wept. Not of sadness but of the wisdom and incredible love that this world was being denied and the fact that my children, her great grandchildren never got to meet the most special woman who nurtured and shaped my life. Most times I speak to her quietly because I know she would ignore me if I shout or am too loud. She always preferred calm tranquility to bawling and most certainly brain over brawl.

So if you do not understand why Barack suspended his campaign to become POTUS to go see his ailing Toots and running the risk of losing his momentum and lead in a very hard fought and contested race with just two weeks left, it is because without a shadow of doubt, if he were offered the chance or choice to choose between his Toots surviving another year without pain or him winning the presidency, I would bet my bottom dollar that he would choose the former. Because that is how great, Grans are.

And I pray that Toots stays strong beyond the next two weeks to watch her kin show the World not only how the dignified office of the President of The United States ought to be executed but that the most powerful and still most respected nation on Earth does better using its enormous wealth compassionately than in combat. Let’s steal ourselves a moment to reflect for the new global and world order that will be unleashed in the reign of an Obama administration that set the benchmark for generations to come and for replication across the globe. For he is a man with our sensibilities and instincts who recognises that the next two thousand years cannot replicate the distaste and debauchery of the previous two thousand, for times are far too important for business as usual.

So tonight let’s all raise a glass of whatever it is we drink in salute and honor of the Nanas, Toots and Grans of this world without whom our gene pool beside other characteristics would be more the poorer.

Let’s humbly and without fanfare of our own making usher in not just new blood, instincts and ideals but a sense of community, belonging, fairness, respect and yes, responsibility. It is now our turn. Our generation has to make the rules now going forward, and as we judged those generations who failed before us as harshly as we have done, we must work ever so hard to live up to the aspirations and the mantra of our calling that ‘the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice but not by itself. For each one of us has to reach up and lend our weight to help bend it towards justice’. ……Gods speed!

Waaaasup! The Pro-Obama Version

Justin from Sherman Oaks, CA — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:54:40 EDT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq8Uc5BFogE

Thank You Obama, Biden, Hillary ...

Scott A. Giordano — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:24:15 EDT

Win or lose in the weeks ahead,it is time for Democrats to take great pride in knowing our primary candidates came together for the home stretch ...

Bring In The Vote Obama Rally Supporters in King City/Tigard, Thurs 4PM

BikerBamaMike — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:10:41 EDT

TigardObamanators TOB Talk ENews
We have the signs and banners and now most importantly, we NEED your support to hold signs and encourage our Obama Voters to mail in their ballots right away. We need at least a DOZEN people this Thursday as well as Monday and Thursday next week. It's just a few hours and you'll get home in plenty of time for dinner! Bring your friends along and HELP US BRING IN THE VOTE FOR OBAMA! Fired up and ready to go! BikerbamaMike, 503-522-1259

FIRED UP FOR CHANGE RALLY Dates: Sign Waving Visuals to Bring in the Votes

Thursday, Oct 23rd 4-6PM Tigard/King City

Want Your Picture Taken or Be on the 6 o-Clock News? We're Going After EVERY VOTE

Carl's Jr. Restaurant by Safeway's at the corner of 99W & Royalty Parkway

Monday, Oct 27th 4-6PM Tigard/King City

One Week to HISTORY, Cheer On OBAMA & MERKLEY Voters. Enthusiasm & Smiles Wanted!

Hwy 99 by Shari 's Restaurant across from Safeway's.

Shari's Restaurant 15550 SW 116th Ave , & Royalty Parkway

Thursday, Oct 30th 4-6PM Tigard/King City

The Polls are Surging and the TIDE is RISING!!! Join us for a FUN TIME Cheering Voters On!

Carl's Jr. Restaurant by Safeway's at the corner of 99W & Royalty Parkway

Monday, Nov 3rd 4-6PM Tigard/King City

We're Getting a TSUNAMI WARNING ALERT! Voters Scramble to Get Their Ballots turned in by TUESDAY! Come Out & Show Your Support!

Hwy 99 by Shari 's Restaurant across from Safeway's.

Shari's Restaurant 15550 SW 116th Ave , & Royalty Parkway

Tuesday, Nov 4th 3-7PM Tigard/King City - LET'S FINISH STRONG!! BALLOTS DUE by 8PM

It's D-Day and Ticker Tape Time as Washington County Democrats Tip The Scales and Celebrate The Greatest Electoral Event History!

Carl's Jr. Restaurant by Safeway's at the corner of 99W & Royalty Parkway

RALLY SIGN WAVERS RSVP by emailing your name and contact phone indicating the dates you would like to come out for our FIRED UP FOR CHANGE RALLY or call BikerbamaMike, 503-522-1259.

SPECIAL NOTICE: This is open to all OBAMA and DEMOCRAT supporters. High School Student Volunteers, neighbors and friends are welcomed to wave signs with us. Invite your Obama classmates, Student Democrat club organization, even fellow workers to cheer Obama to Victory.

This will be the most talked about ELECTION in U.S. HISTORY and you want look back on this and say, "I MADE A DIFFERENCE FOR CHANGE IN AMERICA !" So remember, YOU ARE THE DIFFERENCE!

Check out the Awesome Signs that drivers will be honking their horns at:

12’ Banners

CHANGE – U BETCHA! VOTE OBAMA!

HONK 4 OBAMA

“THAT ONE” IS “THE ONE”

Signs

SMART STEADY LEADERSHIP

VETS FOR OBAMA BIDEN

No Hail Mary Passes ! No Lipstick! Vote Obama

JEFF MERKLEY MAKES IT HAPPEN

VOTE TODAY OBAMA / MERKLEY

And Many More

I'm BikerBamaMike and I approve this message!

WashCoDems Precinct Captain HD #26 & Proud Community Organizer

We Are the Winds of Change and the Movement that Drives this Campaign!

A TigardObamanators Community Event

Has McCain Already Won the RAce?

Nurah — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 03:48:52 EDT

Has the fat lady sang? Not yet, and therefore the race is not over and McCain has not won. I wonder why some middle class and poor conservatives vote against their best interest? Obama is the man for the common people. He wants to help the middle class, the poor, the unemployed, the elderly, and the troops, just to name a few. The conservatives who protect big business and the wealthy are represented by McCain-Palin. It is the republicans who are calling Obama a socialist, a terrorist, a communist and the like. These are untrue slurs, yet, they continue to do it. Why? Because they have no issues to share with the people on how they will help you, other then to say they will, without clear details. McCain will keep us in wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe Iran. McCain will tax our health care benefits, he said so at the last debate, after he said, "why should we raise taxes in a time like this?" McCain will continue to give huge tax benefits to big businesses, and like Bush the middle class will pay the heavy load of the tax burden. McCain will not give tax benefits to businesses who stay here and make jobs for Americans, like Obama will. No, he will continue the tax benefits to companies who out-source to poorer nations for larger profits.

When McCain ran against Bush, Bush used the smear campaigning tactic on McCain and it saddened McCain. He spoke against such tactics as low and dirty and said he will run a clean campaign against Obama. Yet, here we are today, with McSame running the same dirty tricks campaign that Bush ran against him. McCain is more of Bush, people, he has boasted that he agreed with Bush and voted with him 90% of the time. Do you want more of Bush? Do you want more jobs leaving our country? Do you want more failed banks and businesses? Do you want more secrets, more shady political practices? Many Americans are suffering and Obama wants to help you, but unfortunately, many of you only care about "pro-life", "gun" and/or "vouchers". How will those issues help bring our troops home? How will those issues help employ you, or create jobs? How will those issues help you keep your homes? How will those issues help you get health care? These my friends are the important issues to consider. Obama will not take your guns away, he will encourage job creation by giving small businesses and businesses who stay in America tax breaks and incentives. He will bring our troops home, he promised he will and we can hold him to his promise. He will create a health care system that will cover all of us, if we want it, and mandated for our children. Obama is the champion for the middle class and the unemployed, even "Joe the plumber" will benefit from an Obama presidency. Obama is from a middle class to low income family, so he knows what we need, he has been there. How is giving tax breaks to the rich a good thing, but giving tax breaks to the middle class is called socialism and/or communism by the McCain camp?

We have to vote what is best for us, and not let the big wigs manipulate us. They are taking our future away from us, they are robbing us of our retirements. Get mad, get very mad, and stop trusting a party that has steered you down the path of poverty and want. Remember Clinton, remember the surplus we had when he left office? Give the democrats a chance to put us back in a surplus. Vote for a man who will talk to our adversaries before rushing off to war. Look we end up talking to them any way, so why not go straight to the talking and by pass the pissing contests? Don't you want our troops back home? Isn't it time for Iraq to stand or fall on their own power? Will we stay there forever to secure peace, and what if they are never able to secure their peace? Why should they when we will stay their indefinitely? There are so many good reasons that the middle class and unemployed should vote for Obama and only two issues that are conservative talking points that Obama does not agree with. The right to choose and vouchers. Clearly Obama is the lesser evil, and in my mind the best man for the job.

But, before I close let me just say that McCain is a war hero and I appreciate his and others contribution to our freedom and safety, but that does not mean he will be a great president. Being in a war is not experience for being a president and McCain's assurances that he will find Bin Laden and that he knows where he is, is reminiscent of Rumsfeld's rant. If McCain knew where Bin Laden was don't you think we would have him by now? What is he waiting for? No, he does not know, or Bush would know and have Bin Laden. Another thing I think about is why does McCain say he can win the war, he knows how. Does being a prisoner of war qualify you to be a war strategist? What war did he win? None I think. Which brings me to his age and his mistakes while on the campaign trails. He has had a man almost as old as him (Liberman) have to correct him on facts in the field of war. He has refereed to the leader of Czech. Republic as Putin, he has chose a woman for vp who has less experience then him. If he is unable to do his job, Sarah will be the president and that would be horrific. She is fanning the flames of hatred and bigotry. She lies when she says that Obama will take money from small businesses and give it to whom he decides. Obama wants to give small businesses tax relief. She has lied on Obama for political gain, and she can't answer a question by legitimate journalists. Come on people, wake up and vote your interest, vote for someone who wants to help you and your children.

URGENT HELP: Obama Rally Sign Supporters Needed Today, 4PM King City/Tigard!

BikerBamaMike — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:38:05 EDT

TigardObamanators TOB Talk ENews

We have the signs and banners and now most importantly, we NEED your support to hold signs and encourage our Obama Voters to mail in their ballots right away. We need at least a DOZEN people today and Thursday for the next two weeks. It's just a few hours and you'll get home in plenty of time for dinner! Bring your friends along and HELP US BRING IN THE VOTE FOR OBAMA! Read Derrick's report below, call up a few friends and meet us at Shari's Restaurant in King City/Tigard today at 4PM. Fired up and ready to go! BikerbamaMike, 503-522-1259

Derrick's 10-19 blog report:

I should have taken photos of our completed signs and banners. They are colorful and lively. We have groups forming to hold them up along 99W at King City several evenings a week to show excitement and support for Obama and encourage folks to vote now for Obama and Merkley. Contact Michael Crabbe [classicisland@yahoo.com] or call 503-522-1259.

12’ Banners

CHANGE – U BETCHA! VOTE OBAMA!

HONK 4 OBAMA

“THAT ONE” IS “THE ONE”

Signs

SMART STEADY LEADERSHIP

VETS FOR OBAMA BIDEN

No Hail Mary Passes ! No Lipstick! Vote Obama

JEFF MERKLEY MAKES IT HAPPEN

VOTE TODAY OBAMA / MERKLEY

And Many More

Fired up for Change Rally Dates

Monday, Oct 20th 4-6PM Tigard/King City - URGENT SUPPORTERS NEEDED TODAY!!!

Hwy 99 by Shari 's Restaurant across from Safeway's.

Shari's Restaurant 15550 SW 116th Ave , & Royalty Parkway

see Mapquest Directions and location below!

Thursday, Oct 23rd 4-6PM Tigard/King City

Carl's Jr. Restaurant by Safeway's at the corner of 99W & Royalty Parkway

Monday, Oct 27th 4-6PM Tigard/King City

Hwy 99 by Shari 's Restaurant across from Safeway's.

Shari's Restaurant 15550 SW 116th Ave , & Royalty Parkway

Thursday, Oct 30th 4-6PM Tigard/King City

Carl's Jr. Restaurant by Safeway's at the corner of 99W & Royalty Parkway

Monday, Nov 3rd 4-6PM Tigard/King City

Hwy 99 by Shari 's Restaurant across from Safeway's.

Shari's Restaurant 15550 SW 116th Ave , & Royalty Parkway

Tuesday, Nov 4th 3-7PM Tigard/King City

Carl's Jr. Restaurant by Safeway's at the corner of 99W & Royalty Parkway

RALLY SIGN WAVERS RSVP by emailing your name and contact phone indicating the dates you would like to come out for our FIRED UP FOR CHANGE RALLY!

This will be the most talked about ELECTION in U.S. HISTORY and you want look back on this and say, "I MADE A DIFFERENCE... FOR CHANGE IN AMERICA !" So remember, YOU ARE THE DIFFERENCE!

I'm BikerBamaMike and I approve this message!

WashCoDems Precinct Captain HD #26 & Proud Community Organizer

We Are the Winds of Change and the Movement that Drives this Campaign!

Obama supporters ready to slack in the stretch?

Daniel Chambers — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:19:01 EDT

The race to the Bottom by Josh Marshall

If you're thinking to yourself that there's little more than two weeks before election day and Obama has a solid lead in the polls, don't be so sure.

Yes, it looks good for the Democrats. But you need to play close attention to the McCain campaign's final weeks' strategy under and just above the radar. McCain's final strategy relies on two pillars. The first is aggressively playing to voters' fears of electing a black president. Make no mistake: not just his campaign in a general sense, but McCain himself and his top handful of advisers, are banking on the residual racism in a changing America to get them over the finish line. The second is an aggressive use of innuendo to convince casual voters that Obama is in league with Islamic terrorists bent on killing Americans.

Many people have asked whether enough Americans really care any more about the cultural convulsions of the 1960s. The answer? It doesn't matter. For the McCain campaign, Bill Ayers has nothing to do with 60s radicalism. Ayers is nothing more than a tool that permits McCain, Palin and all their surrogates to use the noun "terrorist" in polite company in the same sentence as "Obama," over and over and over again. It allows them to cobble together a 'respectable' version of those Obama smear emails they can push in commercials and robocalls and surrogate talking points every hour of every day.

Stripped down to its components McCain's message to voters is this: "Don't forget. He's definitely black. And he may be a terrorist." That's the message. The nuts and bolts is a concerted effort to keep Democrats from voting -- through intimidation, by striking new voters from the rolls, which is going to happen to lots of them, clogging polling stations to create delays that keep late day (predominantly) Obama voters from voting altogether. Smears in the air and voter suppression on the ground.

Many people say, well ... all this stuff just hasn't worked. But the truth is that the really corrupt and vicious part of McCain's effort only comes now because it's only in the last couple weeks that you can pull stuff that the press won't get to call you on before election day -- after which it doesn't matter. Will it take Obama down? So far McCain's gutter campaign has hurt him more than helped. But there's no reason to be sure it will continue that way. And many Obama supporters, sure the election is basically wrapped up, appear ready to slack in the stretch and let McCain smear and cheat his way into office.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/238245.php

Another Strong Republican Endorsement Colin Powell Endorses Obama

Scott A. Giordano — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:16:24 EDT

Powell notes that Obama will bring transformational change and provide steady leadership ...

FIRED UP FOR CHANGE RALLY ~ Let's Bring in the Vote for CHANGE!

BikerBamaMike — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 17:12:33 EDT

FIRED UP FOR CHANGE RALLY (a Bring in the Vote Event)

This ELECTION will be the most phenomenal event as we rewrite U.S. HISTORY, open new frontiers and set new record highs along the way in terms of grassroot support across the U.S. from people like you who are inspired by HOPE and CHANGE. You want look back on this memorable time and say, "I MADE A DIFFERENCE FOR CHANGE IN AMERICA!" So remember, YOU ARE THE DIFFERENCE, YES YOU ARE!

We're inviting Fired Up and Ready To Go Obama and Merkley supporters to join us on the following dates and locations to Wave Signs and Bring In The VOTE For OBAMA-BIDEN & JEFF MERKLEY!

FIRED UP FOR CHANGE RALLY dates:

CLICK HERE http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gprfgz

Monday, Oct 20th 4-6PM Tigard/King City
Hwy 99 by Shari's Restaurant across from Safeway's.
Shari's Restaurant 15550 SW 116th Ave, & Royalty Parkway

Thursday, Oct 23rd 4-6PM Tigard/King City
Carl's Jr. Restaurant by Safeway's at the corner of 99W & Royalty Parkway

Monday, Oct 27th 4-6PM Tigard/King City
Hwy 99 by Shari's Restaurant across from Safeway's.
Shari's Restaurant 15550 SW 116th Ave, & Royalty Parkway

Thursday, Oct 30th 4-6PM Tigard/King City
Carl's Jr. Restaurant by Safeway's at the corner of 99W & Royalty Parkway

Monday, Nov 3rd 4-6PM Tigard/King City
Hwy 99 by Shari's Restaurant across from Safeway's.
Shari's Restaurant 15550 SW 116th Ave, & Royalty Parkway

Tuesday, Nov 4th 3-7PM Tigard/King City
Carl's Jr. Restaurant by Safeway's at the corner of 99W & Royalty Parkway

CLICK HERE http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gprfgz

RALLY SIGN WAVERS RSVP by emailing your name and contact phone indicating the dates you would like to come out for our FIRED UP FOR CHANGE RALLY!

SPECIAL NOTICE: This is open to all OBAMA and DEMOCRAT supporters. High School Student Volunteers, neighbors and friends are welcomed to wave signs with us. Invite your Obama classmates, Student Democrat club organization, even fellow workers to cheer Obama to Victory.

The express purpose of this event is to support CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN and elect OBAMA for President of the United States of America and JEFF MERKLEY for U.S. Senator! Bring your OBAMA SIGNS, or we will provide Obama-Biden and Jeff Merkley signs and banners.

CLICK HERE http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gprfgz

Email TigardObamanators Community Organizer Michael BikerBamaMike at, classicisland@yahoo.com or call, 503-522-1259

Thank you for all you do to support Obama-Biden and Jeff Merkley!

I'm BikerBamaMike and I approve this message!
WashCoDem Precinct Captain District 26 Area #397 & Proud Community Organizer
We Are the Winds of Change and the Movement that Drives this Campaign!

A TigardObamanators Community Event

FIRED UP FOR CHANGE RALLY (Bring in the Vote Event)

BikerBamaMike — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:28:50 EDT

Our country's most HISTORIC ELECTION in your lifetime is just upon us. We need your enthusiastic and passionate grassroots support for BARACK OBAMA and JOE BIDEN, the people's choice, Oregon's choice! Come out for a FUN ~ HIGH POWERED FIRED UP FOR CHANGE RALLY to Hold Signs and wave to passing traffic with "fired up and ready to GO" Team Obama supporters! Dress up with your brightest ObamaWear, T-shirts, hats, buttons, and noismakers and of course bring lots of energy, enthusiasm and SMILES! It's a great time, lots of fun, plus people will cheer you on, wave and honk their horns in support of our man Obama. You fire them up, inspire and remind them to VOTE and turn in their ballots!! That's our goal! It MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE to our Democratic base supporters and UNDECIDED voters and more importantly, it is VITAL to our BRING IN THE VOTE effort!

Bring your OBAMA SIGNS, or we will provide Obama-Biden and Jeff Merkley signs and banners.

The express purpose of this event is to support CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN and elect OBAMA for President of the United States of America and JEFF MERKLEY FOR Congressional Senator!

FIRED UP FOR CHANGE RALLY dates:

CLICK HERE http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gprfgz

Monday, Oct 20th 4-6PM Tigard/King City
Hwy 99 by Shari's Restaurant across from Safeway's.
Shari's Restaurant 15550 SW 116th Ave, & Royalty Parkway

Thursday, Oct 23rd 4-6PM Tigard/King City
Safeway Store at 99W & Royalty Parkway

Monday, Oct 27th 4-6PM Tigard/King City
Hwy 99 by Shari's Restaurant across from Safeway's.
Shari's Restaurant 15550 SW 116th Ave, & Royalty Parkway

Thursday, Oct 30th 4-6PM Tigard/King City
Safeway Store at 99W & Royalty Parkway

Monday, Nov 3rd 4-6PM Tigard/King City
Hwy 99 by Shari's Restaurant across from Safeway's.
Shari's Restaurant 15550 SW 116th Ave, & Royalty Parkway

Tuesday, Nov 4th 3-7PM Tigard/King City
Safeway Store at 99W & Royalty Parkway

CLICK HERE http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gprfgz

Email TigardObamanators Community Organizer Michael BikerBamaMike at, classicisland@yahoo.com or call, 503-522-1259

Thank you for all you do to support Obama-Biden and Jeff Merkley!

I'm BikerBamaMike and I approve this message!
Precinct Captain District 26 Area #397 & Proud Community Organizer
We Are the Winds of Change and the Movement that Drives this Campaign!

A TigardObamanators Community Event

BEST OBAMA DESIGN & SLOGAN SIGN PAINTING CONTEST

BikerBamaMike — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 07:51:19 EDT

BRING IN THE VOTE "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN" SIGN PAINTING PARTY

CLICK HERE: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gprfpb

SUN, OCT 19th 1pm - 3:30pm, King City Town Hall, Art Room
15245 SW 116th Ave, and Royalty Parkway.
Off 99W by the Arco Gas Station across from Safeway

THE BEST OBAMA SLOGAN & DESIGN CONTEST
Grand Prize Slogan & Design Wins A Really Cool Prize!

Submit your entry for
The Best Obama for President Campaign Slogan & Design CONTEST
The Top SLOGAN & DESIGN WINS an Obama, "Change We Can Believe In" Commemorative T-Shirt from EntermusBlues artist Nanette Y. Harris.

Calling ALL Graphic Artists and Volunteer Painters this is your BIG CHANCE, perhaps the greatest opportunity of a lifetime to make a difference in this historic Presidential Campaign. Bring your artistic skills and talent to create bright, bold and colorful SIGNS which enthusiastic OBAMA supporters will display in targeted high profile Washington County locations till November 4th Election Day. It's a zany but effective way to capture driver's attention and encourage people to VOTE FOR OBAMA on their way home from work.

CLICK HERE: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gprfpb

The Grand Prize Winner will be selected by one of the following entry submissions on Sunday, October 19th:

A. Custom painted sign created at this Sunday's Sign Painting Party, or

B. Submitting Slogans for Rally signs by email to classicisland@yahoo.com by noon this Sunday the 19th; i.e. example, "Honk 4 Obama," "Obama4 Prez U Betcha," or "Obama-Biden 4 Change & Hope", or

C. Sending a picture entry of your own origninal ART, design, or campaign slogan. Please email a pdf or word file attachement of your slogan/design artwork to BikerBamaMike at classicisland@yahoo.com.

Please NOTE: Selected rally sign entries will be donated to the TigardObamanators Obama For President Campaign and displayed proudly as part of the BRING IN THE VOTE FIRED UP FOR CHANGE RALLIES to inspire a 100% Democrat Voter Turnout and insure a Landslide Victory here in Oregon right up till election day!

The express purpose of this event is to support CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN and elect OBAMA for President of the United States of America! Judges decisions are final and solely based upon originality, creativity and visual appeal. Thank you for all you do to support Obama for President.

Materials We Have:

Four 2'x3' plasticore white panels
40' of 24" white vinyl banner material that we can cut to whatever size we want
A quart each of red, white and blue paint
One 2.5" paint brush (firm)

Materials we need:

Blank White Poster board in various sizes - Qty 20 (3'x4', '2x3', 3'x6')
White Vinal or Canvas banners - Qty 5 (3'x5', 4'x6' or other size canvas banners)
Red, blue paint (oil based or water-based), plus other bright colors
Paint brushes, disposable foam paint brushes, all sizes - Qty 8
Commercial/Industrial stapler and staples
Wooden sign handles (2"x1"x4') - Qty 20
Dowels -Qty 10 (2" x 5')

FIRED UP FOR CHANGE RALLIES
http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gprfgz CLICK HERE

Hold Signs and wave to passing traffic with "fired up for CHANGE" Team Obama supporters! Come with your brightest ObamaWear - T-shirts, hats, buttons, lots of energy, enthusiasm and SMILES. It's fun plus people will cheer you on, wave and honk their horns in support of our man Obama and you fire them up, inspire and remind them to VOTE and turn in their ballots!! That's our goal!

Scheduled Fired Up For Change Rally Dates:

Monday, Oct 20th 4-6PM Tigard/King City
Hwy 99 by Shari's Restaurant across from Safeway's.
Shari's Restaurant 15550 SW 116th Ave, & Royalty Parkway

Thursday, Oct 23rd 4-6PM Tigard/King City
Safeway Store at 99W & Royalty Parkway

Monday, Oct 27th 4-6PM Tigard/King City
Hwy 99 by Shari's Restaurant across from Safeway's.
Shari's Restaurant 15550 SW 116th Ave, & Royalty Parkway

Thursday, Oct 30th 4-6PM Tigard/King City
Safeway Store at 99W & Royalty Parkway

Monday, Nov 3rd 4-6PM Tigard/King City
Hwy 99 by Shari's Restaurant across from Safeway's.
Shari's Restaurant 15550 SW 116th Ave, & Royalty Parkway

Tuesday, Nov 4th 3-7PM Tigard/King City
Safeway Store at 99W & Royalty Parkway

CLICK HERE http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gprfgz

RALLY SIGN WAVERS RSVP by emailing your name and contact phone indicating the dates you would like to come out for our Drive For Change Rally! ATTENTION TIGARD/TUALATIN High School and any Student Volunteers and friends are welcomed to wave signs with us. Invite your Obama classmates, Student Democrat club organization, and school friends to cheer Obama to Victory.

Email TigardObamanators Community Organizer Michael BikerBamaMike at, classicisland@yahoo.com or call,503-522-1259

I'm BikerBamaMike and I approve this message!
Precinct Captain District 26 Area #397 & Proud Community Organizer
We Are the Winds of Change and the Movement that Drives this Campaign!

A TigardObamanators Community Event in cooperation with the King City Democrats

Support Elwyn Tinklenberg in Minnesota

Daniel Chambers — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 22:00:15 EDT

Who is Elwyn Tinklenberg?

I say that question is not as important as who he is running against for U.S. Congress.

Namely, Michele Bachmann.

Ms. Bachmann today during an interview on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, called Barack anti-American and called for the media to investigate both houses of Congress to identify "liberal, leftist, possibly anti-American," members.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/17/gop-rep-channels-mccarthy_n_135735.html

This is a wingnut who possibly rivals Palin.

She leads in the polls by 3-4 points, but with 15% undecided, I think she is vunerable.

I have therefore just contributed $200 to Tinklenberg. Please consider helping Tinklenberg defeat this wacko.

You can do it at by using the link below;

http://www.tinklenberg08.com/

Yes We Can, in every state. (I'm from Illinois)

dan

Election night - getting a good night's sleep

The Bard of Wilmette — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:25:35 EDT

A Canadian friend asked me last night about watching the election returns on the evening of November 4. When will we really know who won? When can I go to bed? I had not thought about it, but my response was basically the following:

Look for the results in four states in the Eastern Time Zone: Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. The polls in all four states should be closed before 8:00 PM (Eastern Time). The TV networks have a tendency to use exit polls to call the election winner, unless the exit polls are too close to call. If Obama wins at least two of those four states, I would feel very confident that he wins the overall election, even though voting is still going on in many other states. Actually, if he wins even one of those four states, I think his chances are good, but I would be a little concerned if he does not win at least two of those four.

Personally, I do not like exit polls, and if I was ever approached by a reporter after emerging from the polling location, I would lie about my vote, and I believe it would be a good thing if all Americans would do the same thing. Before exit polls, the networks used sample precincts: selected precincts that were believed to represent the state as a whole, with a high degree of accuracy. Those sample precincts were counted quickly, and often a "projected winner" of that state could quickly be announced. At least in those days, projected winners were based on some actual vote counts. With exit polls, a winner is often announced five seconds after the polls have supposedly closed, and of course, with no votes actually counted. Still, it appears that most people answer truthfully to reporters. We could have a strong indication of the election winner relatively early in the evening.

It appears to me that Obama's chances look very good in Virginia, and clearly better than 50/50 in both Ohio and Florida. North Carolina is more iffy, but still quite possible for Obama. Assuming that all the states now showing either Obama or McCain with a clear lead vote according to expectations, and even assuming that the remaining "toss up" states (e.g. Missouri) go with McCain, I am confident that it will be Obama and Biden who will be celebrating... as long as they can win two, and perhaps just one, of the states referred to above.

With the debates over, most voters have been able to make up their minds on who they prefer. We need strong voter turnout, and I think that Obama supporters are generally more enthusiastic than are McCain supporters. I see just two possibilities that might derail Obama's path to the White House. First, a major terrorist attack before the election, which would swing many voter concerns back to the area of McCain's supposed strength. Second, Obama doing something really outrageous, such as declaring that he is Napolean. I certainly hope that neither of these things happens.

McCain is Out of Control

Jim Thompson — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:21:55 EDT

I can't believe the McCain campaign is so unbelievably inept. Apart from the Joe the Plumber debacle, where Joe makes less than $250K per year and would benefit better from Senator Obama's proposals, to the fact that he is not licensed and has a tax lien filed against his properties to this new piece of breaking news!

Apparentley the 'leftist group" ACORN who McCain brought up in the final debate, is a group McCain knows well. He spoke at one of their rallies in Florida in 2006. See the WALL STREET JOURNAL article on this here:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/acorn-mccain-have-you-lost/story.aspx?guid=%7B9DF1C9E0-F0BA-4509-B4EC-AF741171DEAC%7D&dist=hppr

Where the heck was the McCain Campaign's debate prep!?! They did no vetting on Palin, Joe the Plumber and have now attacked an organization with whom McCain cavorted. Is this what we would want in an Administration??? Who are these people!?!

Welcome President Obama!

Joe the Plumber's Ass Crack is Showing

Jim Thompson — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:09:53 EDT

If you watched the debate, you might find this interesting.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14652.html

It is kind of sad that the McCain campaign didn't really learn a lesson about their lack of thoroughly vetting Sarah Palin. They hang their candidate's entire final debate performance and message on one guy, Joe the Plumber. It turns out that Joe doesn't have a license, owes back taxes and has a rant on YouTube about how he hates Social Security. Morever, his name isn't really even Joe.

McCain has admitted that he has never used a computer. Apparently his staff has never heard of Google.

Is this how McCain is "putting America first?"

The Bard of Wilmette — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:23:20 EDT

Yesterday’s (October 14) Globe and Mail, Canada’s leading national newspaper, contained an editorial that nicely sums up an outsider’s friendly but detached viewpoint regarding the recent tactics of the McCain campaign. It was printed on the day of national elections in Canada, but mindful of the importance of America’s election campaign to Canada and elsewhere, the Globe and Mail still figured that this was worthy of editorial space in their newspaper. Here is a link to that editorial:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081014.EMCCAIN14/TPStory/?query=mccain+editorial

Most of us – Democrats, independents, and moderate Republicans – who support Barack Obama’s efforts to become our next president probably were in agreement that of all the Republicans who were running for president at the beginning of this year, John McCain was the most respectable of the lot, and that he would at least be a significant improvement over President George W. Bush. So… would all of you still agree with that statement? Compared with the other GOP contenders who appeared in the early candidates’ debates, I suppose that McCain is still preferable to the others, but not by much. It says a lot more about the sorry lot of Republican contenders than it does about McCain’s merits. As for his being an improvement over Bush (in the event that McCain is elected), it is hard for me to imagine that he could be worse, but the John McCain I used to respect several years ago is long gone.

Had I been honestly advising the McCain campaign, I would have recommended that he take somebody such as Mitt Romney or Charlie Crist to be his running mate. I am no fan of either Romney or Crist, but both men at least project some level of competence, and probably would have made McCain more electable. From the cynical viewpoint of an Obama supporter, I am glad that McCain chose Sarah Palin for V-P… assuming that their ticket loses the election.

The Palin selection is an illustration of what kind of president John McCain will be, if he does become our next president. He ignores the best advice of those who are presumably his most trusted aides. Instead of a carefully planned process of trying to reach a decision of potentially great importance, McCain went with a gut feeling, choosing a running mate who was nearly a total stranger to him. If it works out, he looks like a genius; if not, he looks like a complete fool. In other words, he is the “decider,” and he is going to play his hunch. Doesn’t that sound like somebody we know all too well?

Sarah Palin was chosen for this role because of two assumptions. First, she would excite the Republican Party base of so-called social conservatives. Second, she might draw a lot of Hillary Clinton supporters who believed that Senator Clinton was “robbed” of the Democratic nomination. In both cases, the reason was that she would help McCain get elected. The notion that, after they take office in January, she would help McCain govern, or that she is qualified to serve as president in case later events make that necessary, clearly did not enter into McCain’s decision making. Does this sound like a candidate who truly puts “country first,” as the McCain campaign slogan would have us believe?

Lately, the McCain campaign has been trying to scare the American public into thinking that Barack Obama is on the side of the terrorists and against the American people. It is a desperate attempt to win the election by demonizing the opposition. The tactic often works, but I do not think it will work this time. We have an economy in crisis and two wars going on. In these circumstances, tying Obama with the actions committed 40 years ago (when Obama was a young child) by a former violent radical mainly serves to make McCain look ridiculous.

I will be satisfied with any kind of Obama victory on November 4, but I really hope that he wins by a double-digit margin in the popular vote, and a comfortable electoral vote margin that includes “blue” states in all sections of the country. If that happens, maybe the Republicans will reconsider what they really stand for. There are some respectable Republicans in positions of responsibility, but the candidate selection process seems to weed them out, or as in the case of Senator McCain, induces them to sell their souls.

The Road Ahead

Scott A. Giordano — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:38:32 EDT

Obama supporters have reason to hope but can't afford to rest on our laurels ...

A Key Republican Speaks for Us?

Scott A. Giordano — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:07:25 EDT

Leading Republican makes solid case why he is supporting Obama, not McCain ...

The Facts Speak for Themselves ...

Scott A. Giordano — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:19:54 EDT

Bipartisan Alaska Panel concludes Sarah Palin abused her power of office.

President Palin? (No, the other one.)

Jedidiah Palosaari — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:47:33 EDT

Today, in the ongoing Troopergate investigation, it was revealed that Governor Palin's husband, Todd, repeatedly tried to get government officials to get his former brother-in-law fired. The thing is, Governor Palin didn't know a thing about this.

I'm fine with a spouse being involved in governing with the governing spouse. I thought it was very cool that Hillary was so involved in President Clinton's government. But there was no doubt who was in charge- the one elected President. I'm glad if Todd is involved with Palin's work. But it raises other rather disturbing issues.

The Religious Right is far more comfortable with Todd being involved with Sarah than they were with Hillary being involved with Bill. This is just blatant sexism. There is this belief that it's just fine if the man who wasn't elected is involved with government, but not if the woman who wasn't elected. Remember all the screams of rage that the Religious Right had at the thought of a woman (Hillary) having actually work to do when Bill was President.

This also raises the question of how well Sarah Palin governs. Todd is involved- great. But Todd is involved, and Sarah doesn't know what Todd is doing?!? That is the clear testimony he gave today. (I'm assuming he's not lying.) That means that her husband is going around doing things in government, and the Governor has no knowledge of it! Let us leave aside the question of what kind of marriage this is. What kind of Governor is this? How can we trust her to be Vice-President if she has that weak of understanding and control as Governor?

But it gets far worse than this. For, if McCain were elected, we all know there is a great chance that he would die in office, of old age. If we elected McCain, we are also almost assuredly electing a President Palin. And many are disturbed with this notion, because we have no idea who the real Palin is- we've known her for five weeks, with few interviews or opportunities to get to know her. But now, it would appear that precedent would suggest that a Vice-President or President Sarah Palin would also involve substantial work by a First Gentleman Todd. And his behind-the-scenes work would evidently be rather unknown by a President Sarah Palin.

If she's going to be elected, and if she might be President, and he will be working in government without the knowledge of the sitting President, we, the public, have a right to know about this guy we wouldn't be electing but would be running the nation. Which brings us to a rather urgent question. Who is Todd Palin? And when do we start vetting him?

Obama Wins Second Presidential Debate

Scott A. Giordano — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:16:16 EDT

McCain's $300 Billion Proposal is Also a $300 Billion Contradiction ...

Do not wear Obama stuff to the polls

Justin from Sherman Oaks, CA — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:13:48 EDT

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE ADVISE EVERYONE YOU KNOW THAT THEY
> ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT
> GO TO THE POLLS WEARING ANY OBAMA SHIRTS, PINS OR HATS, IT
> IS AGAINST THE
> LAW AND WILL BE GROUNDS TO HAVE THE POLLING OFFICIALS TO
> TURN YOU AWAY.
>
> THIS IS CONSIDERED CAMPAIGNING, AND NO ONE CAN CAMPAIGN
> WITHIN "X" AMOUNT OF
> FEET OF THE POLLS. THEY ARE BANKING ON US BEING EXCITED AND
> NOT BEING AWARE
> OF THIS LONG STANDING LAW THAT YOU CAN BET WILL BE ENFORCED
> THIS
> YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> THEY ARE BANKING THAT IF YOU ARE TURNED AWAY, YOU WILL NOT
> GO HOME AND
> CHANGE YOUR CLOTHES.. PLEASE JUST DON'T WEAR OBAMA GEAR
> OF ANY SORTS TO THE
> POLLS!!
>
> PLEASE SHARE THIS INFORMATION . AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO
> WERE ALREADY AWARE
> . THIS IS NOT MEANT TO INSULT YOUR INTELLIGENCE.

McCain and Palin are bad for America

The Bard of Wilmette — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:46:40 EDT

Greetings from The Great White North. Yours truly is away for awhile, with almost no access to American television or radio, so I will be less in touch with the U.S. political campaign for the next two weeks. However, I did pick up a copy of a Montreal newspaper today (by the way, Obama is very popular in Canada), and read that Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin is sending out the message that Senator Barack Obama is "palling around with terrorists" and implying that Obama would gladly sell out America's interests in order to further his own career.

It seems to me that the people who truly weaken America are those who do everything they can to undermine its basic values. The people who mainly come to my mind on this subject are George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, and Sarah Palin. I know, there are others, such as former Bush cabinet officials like Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales, but at this late date, I will not waste time on them. The main villains in this drama are the incumbent president and vice-president and their chosen would-be successors. They act in a variety of ways, and with a combination of motives.

The record on Bush and Cheney is clear. They will almost certainly go down in history as the most disastrous White House team in a very long time, even making Nixon and Agnew look downright honorable by comparison.

What about John McCain, war hero and all that? I do not deny that there are aspects of McCain's record that deserve our respect, but I do suggest that the positive elements in his background are of little relevance to the present day, or more importantly, to what kind of a president he would be. It is not just that he was wrong about all the major assumptions justifying the Iraq war. Not only was he wrong then, he has apparently learned nothing since then. Based on money already spent and known commitments for the future, the financial cost of this war will be far more than the "bail-out" or "rescue" of the banking and financial services industries. The war was completely unnecessary, based on completely phony pretenses, and has made America weaker militarily, diplomatically, and economically. McCain still does not get it. Ah yes, you might say, the war was wrong, but at least McCain backed it out of honest motives. Maybe that is true; I am not sure. If he is still so clueless about the damage done by this war on so many levels, and refuses to even consider the evidence, what does it matter if his motives were sincere or not?

I think that McCain is also no more respectful of the U.S. Constitution than is George W. Bush. McCain is eager to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who will turn a blind eye to abuses of power by the president. He has said that the case of Bournediene v. Bush, where the Court ruled that Guantanamo Bay is under de facto U.S. sovereignty, is the worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court. In effect, the Court ruled that there are some limits to the president's power to abuse the rights of people suspected of nasty deeds. Of course, it did not rule that any terror suspects had to be turned loose or tried in civilian courts. I hope that a lot of self-described conservatives out there find it ironic that it is a so-called "conservative" president who is arrogating to himself the extra-constitutional authority that should be anathema to conservatives who believe in small government.

Finally, regarding John McCain, this is the man whose campaign slogan is "country first." He has said explicitly that Barack Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election. In doing so, McCain is strongly suggesting that (in contrast to his own "country first" motto) Obama is so unpatriotic that he would never act in America's best interests unless it happened to coincide with his (Obama's) personal interests. And what was John McCain's first presidential decision? He selected as his running mate Sarah Palin, who might help McCain get elected, but who is by no stretch of the imagination the best qualified person to assume the presidency in the event that McCain got elected but was unable to complete his term of office. This is not putting the country first; this is putting McCain first, and the country at some much lower priority.

As far as I am concerned, the selection of Sarah Palin as the Republicans' V-P nominee is more of a negative reflection on McCain than it is on Palin. She may, or my not, be a good governor of Alaska, for all I know. Whether she is doing a good job or not in Alaska, it is quite obvious that she is way out of her depth for national politics. Up until now, I have given her the benefit of the doubt that she is just a pawn in McCain's cynical calculations that his choosing her - regardless of her lack of fitness for the job - would get him elected. Now, I cannot be so charitable. Her attack on Obama is so crazy that I have to put her in the same category with McCain (and Bush and Cheney). These people are so hungry for power that they will sell out America's values and principles in order to advance their own personal prospects. This is quite the opposite of "country first." If McCain and Palin want to attack Obama for his supposedly wrong-headed policies, I have no problem with that. In this case, they are practically accusing Obama of treason. This lowers the level of political debate in America, which in turn is likely to have the effect (if McCain and Palin are successful in this campaign) of making sure that good and honorable people will be turned off to public service in the future.

I do not agree with Obama on every policy issue, but I am convinced that Obama and Biden are good people, with the intelligence, temperament, and judgment to make a good governing team. I am trying to do my part to help get them elected. In contrast, McCain and Palin do not have these same qualities, at least not in sufficient amounts. They want to continue this idiotic war indefinitely, they lack a basic understanding of the Constitution, and they seem to be unable to distinguish between dissent and treason. For a long time, I believed that McCain, for all his faults, would at least be an improvement over Bush. I am no longer confident that this is true.

Why Can't John McCain talk about Issues?

Omar Dyer — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:50:05 EDT

You can be serious with John McCain: on May 22, 2008: he had a No Vote on a bill that helped Farmers.H.R. 2419: Prohibits persons with adjusted gross non-farm income of over $500,000 or adjusted gross farm income of over $750,000 from receiving certain types of subsidies (Sec. 1604). -- John McCain didn't vote: bill passed, with an 82-13 vote.

When it comes to protecting the American interest in Homeland Security: John McCain couldn't even strip a vote. On Sep 30 of 2008 the president signed: H.R. 2638, the vote in the Senate passed it, and John McCain couldn't register a vote to Protect you: the American People. Yet, he is better on Foreign Affairs, then his party members. You don't only protect America overseas: You also protect them at Home (Domestic). When you needed protection, John McCain didn't show up for the vote.

He voted No on the Railroad Amendment: which will create jobs in New Jersey, and help the transit get the proper training it needed. He first didn't show up for the vote to bring the amendment to the floor and then voted NO on the later bill. Again another chance to create jobs in America, and because it was a Democratic bill: John McCain said: NO.

Alaskan Ambition

StopTheInsanity — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 02:54:01 EDT

I dunno... perhaps it's just the way it's framed or perhaps it's just her "maverick" personality.

But I get the impression that Sarah Palin may actually be HOPING John McCain kicks the bucket so she can take over if they win the election. Feisty? I dunno... maybe hungry and ambitious in a way we have yet to see...

But hey, she's a hockey mom, what harm could she possibly pose the US, right?

===========================================================

Palin questions McCain's concession of Michigan

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer

2 hours, 4 minutes ago

SAN ANTONIO - Sarah Palin questioned Republican presidential candidate John McCain's decision to abandon efforts to win Michigan, a campaign move she only learned about Friday morning when she read it in the newspapers.

In an interview with Fox News Channel Friday, the Alaska governor said she was disappointed that the McCain campaign decided to stop competing in Michigan. In an indication that the vice presidential candidate had not been part of the decision, she said she had "read that this morning and I fired off a quick e-mail" questioning the move.

"Todd and I, we'd be happy to get to Michigan and walk through those plants of the car manufacturers," Palin said, referring to her husband. "We'd be so happy to get to speak to the people in Michigan who are hurting because the economy is hurting."

Palin acknowledged the GOP ticket's lackluster poll ratings in the state, but said: "I want to get back to Michigan and I want to try."

Word of the McCain campaign's decision to move staff out of Michigan and stop advertising in the state broke around midday Thursday — the same day as Palin's vice presidential debate against Democrat Joe Biden. The campaign had decided Wednesday night that the $1 million a week it was spending in Michigan wasn't worth it with internal polls showing Democratic nominee Barack Obama approaching a double-digit lead.

On Friday, Palin sought to re-establish herself as an asset for Republican John McCain's struggling presidential candidacy, branding their Democratic rivals as liberals not ready to lead in a time of crisis.

Fresh off an upbeat debate performance, Palin told a ballroom full of $1,000 donors in Dallas that McCain advisers warned her that Biden was "a skilled debater."

"Now I know what they meant," she said. "He did his best to convince us that the two most liberal members of the Senate belong in the White House. But that was a tough sell, and especially in a time of crisis for our country."

The Alaska governor's fiesty tone came as she eased back into the campaign trail. She attended two fundraisers Friday in Texas and also meet privately with Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens to discuss energy policy. Pickens, once a major Republican Party donor, is sitting out this campaign to promote a plan to expand wind power.

As a governor of Alaska, Palin has dealt with a variety of oil and gas issues. She told the Dallas donors that as vice president, "one issue I will be leading is energy independence."

The campaign has planned a series of rallies for Palin in other battlegrounds. Among the stops scheduled for the days ahead are Colorado, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. She will also be in California this weekend for a fundraiser and rally.

Based on the schedule, the campaign appears to be relying on Palin to invigorate Republican voters in Colorado and North Carolina, states that have reliably voted Republican in past presidential elections. Obama leads in polls in Florida and Pennsylvania.

Palin is hitting the road after being sequestered for three days of debate preparation at McCain's Sedona, Ariz., compound and after interviews with ABC and CBS where she stumbled over foreign and domestic policy issues.

Palin told Fox News that she would spend more time speaking to reporters, a switch from the tightly managed media relations during the past month.

"I look forward to speaking to the media more and more every day and providing whatever access the media would want," Palin said.

Palin said she had been "annoyed" in her interviews with CBS News anchor Katie Couric and had been caught off guard when asked what newspapers and magazines she read and to name Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with — questions Palin appeared not to be able to answer.

Her responses, Palin said, were "an indication of being outside that Washington elite, outside of the media elite also."

But Palin held her own in the debate with Biden, displaying facility with some issues such as energy and comfort as an advocate for McCain and as a hard-hitting critic of Obama.

Later, in San Antonio, she let on that she was breathing a little easier now.

"Last night was fun, the debate," she told donors at the Marriott Rivercenter. "I was glad it was over when it ended."

VP Debate Poll Results

Scott A. Giordano — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 23:08:42 EDT

Read the Full Results of the Biden Blowout ... The Numbers Speak For Themselves.

No time to be complacent

Daniel Chambers — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 22:25:45 EDT

While we see Barak "surging" in the polls , and this gives us great hope, I must bring up the topic of the "Bradly Effect" in which 5-10 % of polled voters lied because of race. We need to factor in this possible effect to our expectations and more especially to our efforts to do every thing we can in the so called "batleground states".

Bradley Effect or not, we must not let up. Plase do all that you are able. This is too inportant to get lazy about.

Suggestions to the Campaign

StopTheInsanity — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:04:24 EDT

After the recent debates, the following should be considered within the Obama Campaign:

1) Stick to the facts. Distorting facts only puts us in the "more of the same" politics that we are against. Fact checking by media pundits is posted almost immediately after each debate and should have as few of our candidates statements listed. If they are listed and especially if the information stated was correct yet spun as a lie by the media, we should correct those claims and make them available online.

2) Relax, smile, and connect with the viewers during the debates. Hit the points with solid conviction, but make that connection first. McCain and Palin are trying to do that, though it works for Palin a little more than McCain. Even when she seemed a bit rattled during the debate (nervous, voice quavered a little, etc), she still came across as connecting with viewers. Palin excels when she is the making a connection, regardless what little she may know or have been prepared for. Clinton had that ability too, except he also was armed with a great amount of knowledge. That is who our condidates need to emulate and we will blow out the competition.

3) Develop new catch phrases. Add something that zings McCain and Palin a bit if possible. It's been a long campaign and it's time to refresh as we enter the final laps.

4) Focus on the future and our strengths. "The past is prologue" was a good response to the charge of focusing on the past 8 years, however mix in more of both. Paint from past to future and emphasize the future vision. McCain is stuck in the past, Obama LAUNCHES into the future. McCain follows, Obama LEADS. Biden challenges, Palin stalls. etc.

5) Less negativity - more HOPE, VISION, and UNITY. Back it up with our plans, policies, background, and outline on how to get there. Inject more specifics, but stay positive. Great leaders sell a vision and possibilities, not doom and fear.

Biden Debates, while Palin Gives Speech

Scott A. Giordano — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:34:57 EDT

The VP debate clearly showed Biden's leadership skills and knowledge, while Palin stuck her campaign stump speech.

John McCain on Earmarks: He Lied!

Omar Dyer — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:58:15 EDT

John McCain is all about V.E.T.O. when it comes to EARMARKS. Well, John McCain last bill he sponsored was an EARKMArk.

S. 722

"To direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to jointly conduct a study of certain land adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument in the State of Arizona."

While John McCain has missed 738 of 4104 roll call votes at a (18%) rating since 02/02/1993.

On Oct 1 he voted No on H.R. 2095, while missing the 10/29/08 vote for H.R. 2095. You are saying what do these bills have to do with you. The railroad Saftey Act will insure America that the hard working transit official get the training and rest they need. John McCain thought Americans need to work hard on less so he voted NO. His buddies are: Jefferson Sessions, Richard Shelby, Jon, Kyl, John McCain, Wayne, Allard, Mel Martinez, C. Chambliss, Larry Craig, Samuel Brownback, Jim Bunning, David Vitter,Christopher Bond, John Ensign, Judd Gregg, John Sununu, Richard Burr, George Voinovich, Thomas Coburn, James Inhofe, Jim DeMint, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, John Barrasso, and Michael Enzi. These are the Republicans that have not ever worked with the other part to help sponsor a bill.

John McCain is about Earmarks and wasteless spending so why did he open: S. 531: 04/07 Senate Bill 1003 (The Navajo Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 Amendments) proposed by AZ Senator & Presidential hopeful John McCain did not come to a resolution! If passed, this bill would have had dire consequences for Dine’ families who continue to live on their ancestral homeland, for the families who have moved and for the land of Black Mesa. While S1003 passed through the Senate, it never made it out of the House Resources Committee to the House floor for a vote. The congressional session ended with no action being taken.

http://www.blackmesais.org/McCain_bill0805.htm

John McCain is more of the same: Tell you that the country is okay on TV and then: votes for Earmarks, and complain about others. When will America get the real John McCain.

House Repubs: want to reck the Country to reclaim the seat in 4 years.

Omar Dyer — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:57:48 EDT

We are in a moment at a time of leadership: the fire and wood chips have been placed in the House of Representatives. When people start to lose their jobs, the secert room chats start to come out: "House Repubs (Reagan File Republicans) are voting against their own party presidents bill. Whoever is elected is screwed and will carry this big anchor around their neck. The repubs, who really don't care that much for McSame: as they call him (John McCain) anyhow, are pretty sure they are going to lose this election. They are hoping to see a dem fail to have a better shot in four years with a legitimate candidate." -- Former NY Sun Reporter

A rumor on the hill leaked from an out of work reporter stated: "House repubs are now losing lots of money in the market, like everyone else. They are caught between a rock and a hard place and most likely will have to pass this bill, but for all the wrong reasons." -- Former NY Sun Reporter

This country is at a moment in time where you can't sink the country; in order to regain the seat 4 years later. That's not leadership: that's rackateering. This is the time when you see the signs of real leadership. Please remember on election day that Barack Obama's campaign is united his party. While John McCain has divided his party. Here's how we got into this mess, a divided county -- where parties will throw wood-chips in a fire for power. You have many reagan file Repubs, and a few freshman Dems -- voting and creating bills for their friends in Wall Street. They are setting the un-regulated laws that has turned this country into greed. You can't blame them for thinking about greed, yet, I hate to say it but: President Bush dropped the ball. He was so hungry on the axis of evil, and forgot about his own house. Which in tern burnt his country -- maybe G. W. Bush didn't know because: NOBODY LISTENED. This is the change we need in Washington, when everyone knows that they can't beat the system. They can't vote for the regulations in Wall Street, and then say: I didn't make that law: The other party did. It's time to unify both parties, and stop the bickering of you did this and they did that. It's time to work for the American people -- because for once they really need it. It doesn't matter if your from the north, south, east west, middle, off the coast, or a terriorty: YOU are an American product. So if one state hurts, the next territory will hurt. We have 600,000 unemployed Americans, and in Washington they are fill-bustering the bills so they can make a few dollars in the market. Maybe their should be a tax on Congress that uses stock market revenues as campaign contribution. What I mean is they are placing their money into a product on Wall Street, and getting funds. That's how we got into this mess, and it started with the Reagan File Republicans: and when Nacy Pelosi told them the party was over they: wanted to remove her from the seat. That's a shame!

COUNTDOWN TO HISTORY House Party, IT’S OUR TIME!!

BikerBamaMike — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:33:30 EDT

CHANGE is but mere weeks away and a resounding Presidential victory within reach. Be a part of this historic once in-a-life-time election breaking new ground, new frontiers, and CHANGING the direction of LEADERSHIP in our country… for the good of all Americans. Join us as we drive to the finish line of Victory. Yes We Can and YES We Will. HOPE is on the way!

COUNTDOWN TO HISTORY HOUSE PARTY: IT’S OUR TIME!!

BRING IN THE VOTE FOR CHANGE

OUR FUTURE DEPENDS ON YOU

OBAMA-BIDEN 2008

BRINGING HOPE & CHANGE TO AMERICA

MAKING REAL CHANGE HAPPEN WITH YOUR VOTE & SUPPORT

Saturday, October 11, 4-6PM

Chris and Gina Cargile’s house

12720 SW 116th Ave (near Walnut & 121st),Tigard, OR. 503-524-8506

This is a Potluck Party so bring your favorite hors' dourves, specialty dishes, desserts, and drinks.

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO RSVP,

http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gshyp5

Mapquest Directions link: http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Tigard&state=OR&address=12720+SW+116th+Ave+&zipcode=97223

This is the BIG EVENT before NOVEMBER 4TH! Bring your passion, excitement, energy and enthusiasm. Featuring,

Ø Special guest speakers

Ø Real People Making a Difference in our community!

Ø Specific Actions to Help Bring in the Vote!

Ø Pick up Obama-Biden / Merkley lawn signs

This is a TigardObamanator Community Event

Time for Hope, Not Complacency

Scott A. Giordano — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:57:36 EDT

We are on an upswing, but we still have a tough road ahead of us ...

Protecting American Voting Rights!

Omar Dyer — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:40:11 EDT

In America, your right to vote makes you an American. In America, your right to vote makes you a tax-payer. In AMerica, your right to vote gets you one step closer at being a citizen. All around the country, voter registration drives, have re-boasted the vibe of voting. Organizations like A.C.O.R.N. which means: Association of Community Organization for Reform Now, have been working too hard in order to get people registered. Yet, the House Republican Base, who's seats are endangered see this organization or any organization like A.C.O.R.N. as a problem. This problem is the same problem that helps people get registered to vote: more like Rock the Vote. In fact both of these two organizations fuel off the same information and ideas set down by the federal government.

What I can't understand is why two programs that do idnentical things, in terms of functioning and voter's rights -- are at the opposite side of the House/ Republican's table: here's an idea! A.C.O.R.N. brings in 90% of their voter drives to the Democratic Party, While Rock the vote brings in 45% of their drives to the Democratic Party. Rock the Vote turns in 55% for the Republican Party, and A.C.O.R.N. turns in 10% to the Republican party -- so this means the Republicans can't inspire their base so they want to pick which program works and what doesn't to favor them. Fact are: 55% of newly registered voters are Democrat, with 25% are independent -- with 20% Republican. Now they want to take away your rights.

The Repubs base wants to say this: These people are criminals, these people are illegally here; these people are not competent enough to vote. Listen, they ARE WRONG: During the primaries, you voted on the voter act initiative; which protects your rights unless you are mentally challenged -- and even then you still have the right to vote with assistance.
Here's you voting rights for 11/4/2008

1: To be registered by 10/4

2: U.S. Citizen that has a residence in the states county for more than 30 days on Election Day: Including a P.O. Box from the stats post office.

3: 18 years of age before Election Day.

4: If you are not in prison or on parole for a felony convicition on or two weeks before election day.

5: College students have a right to use the dormitory as a primary residence -- home or school: and they can oly vote ONCE.

6: Only a person with a misdemeanor conviction can still vote, and they have the right to vote from the jails: MISDEANORS ONLY.

7: A felony conviction can only register: after they have been cleared from: parole, probation, and their current charge.

8: A homeless person can vote if were they usually stay: they can use that place like: a park, a shelter, or a citizen sibling in good standing -- in which they reside in the county of the state they are registering in to vote.

These are the rights you have to vote and these are the rights that A.C.O.R.N. and Rock the Vote is using. One problem: Rock The Vote is an online company, and A.C.O.R.N. is a minority based community program: running under the cleanest rules in America, and just like Coaches! 101 they are under federal investiagtion. I get it when you are clean: you must be evil if you're not a Republican. When you are dirty, and create scandels -- like the financial crisis: you are good with the Republican base. Please be aware of your rights:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_b.htm

Obama OK in 1st debate, but could have been better

The Bard of Wilmette — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 10:56:14 EDT

The polls following the first Obama-McCain debate suggest that Obama at least held his own against McCain in the debate, whose topic was arguably in McCain’s home ballpark. I am glad to see that, because frankly, I was disappointed in Obama’s performance.

This is not to say that McCain supporters have much cause to be proud of their candidate. I was reminded of the debates from eight years ago, when Al Gore, in spite of his obviously superior intellect and command of the issues, came out badly because of his Darth Vader-like breathing into the microphone whenever George W. Bush talked. Gore was perceived as being very dismissive of his opponent, and it cost him politically. On Friday evening, McCain refused to even look at his opponent, even though the candidates had been encouraged to address each other. McCain appeared so contemptuous of Obama that he (McCain) seemed annoyed at having to share the same stage with him. Besides his refusing to look at his campaign rival, or to address him directly, McCain said many times, “Senator Obama fails to understand…”

Obama did manage to get in a few zingers, but my disappointment with Obama’s performance is that for every “Senator Obama does not understand” from McCain, there was a “John is absolutely right” from Obama. It is okay for Senator Obama to acknowledge agreement with Senator McCain once or twice, but he went way overboard, especially after McCain displayed such contempt toward him. This is what I was waiting to hear from Obama during the debate:

“Senator McCain has said half a dozen times already: ‘Senator Obama does not understand this’ or ‘Senator Obama fails to understand that.’ (Then, turning to face McCain directly…) John, I do not need condescending lectures from you regarding the geo-politics of the Middle East, or on the distinction between strategy and tactics. Let’s be very clear on this. For all of your years in Washington and your military background, it is you – John McCain – who were wrong on the fundamental issues related to the war in Iraq. It was you, along with President George W. Bush, who falsely associated Iraq with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It was you, along with President Bush, who greatly exaggerated Iraq’s military capabilities and its threat to its neighbors. It was you, along with President Bush, who greatly underestimated the costs of the Iraq war – in terms of blood, dollars, time, and America’s prestige. This unnecessary war has also had the huge opportunity cost of not being able to deploy the same military resources to more valuable uses. You might argue that these mistakes all occurred five years ago, but earlier this year, you still were trying to make the case that Iran was financing Al Qaeda. This is not true, and it has never been true. America’s adversaries are not necessarily friends or allies of each other. Our president needs to understand these things.”

First Presidential Debate Polls

Scott A. Giordano — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:23:55 EDT

www.drudgereport.com, www.politico.com, www.cnn.com

McCain Wins Debate - Apparently!

Ricardo — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:34:47 EDT

Senator McCain before he even confirmed his participation in tonight's Presidential debate is already advertising that he won the debate.

Here is a man (an American hero) who cannot distinguish day from night, left from right, right from wrong or fact from fiction.

McCain for President? You must be joking!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/mccain_wins_debate.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/26Sep_Friday_WSJ.JPG

Catch a falling star

The Bard of Wilmette — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:11:41 EDT

When John McCain startled nearly everybody by selecting Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his vice-presidential running mate, my first reaction was that this was a poor choice, because she would fire up the Republican Party base but turn off too many others to be of much help to McCain. I figured that she would help solidify McCain’s position in the states that he should be able to win anyway, but make him less competitive in the “battleground” states such as Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Then, it appeared that the Palin selection was a brilliant move by Senator McCain, not only energizing the party base, but also appealing to the socially conservative Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton in the states noted above, and elsewhere. Maybe her star power would actually carry the ticket to victory.

That remains a possibility, of course, but the star now seems to be falling back to earth. Based on her limited press interviews since becoming the Republicans V-P nominee, it is becoming increasingly obvious that Sarah Palin is not up to the job. This is not meant as criticism of Ms. Palin as much as it is of Mr. McCain. For a presidential candidate whose campaign slogan is “Putting America first,” and who has put so much emphasis on his own long career in public service while disparaging the shorter resume of his election opponent, Senator McCain is sending out some confusing signals.

Senator McCain piously proclaimed that he would conduct his campaign in an honorable and respectful tone… and then put out ads slandering Barack Obama with outright lies about his (Obama’s) policy positions, and implying that Obama lacks patriotism. Senator McCain ridiculed Senator Obama’s celebrity status and supposedly limited experience… and then selected a running mate with far less relevant experience than that of Senator Obama, and whose main qualification is that she would add glamour to the ticket. Senator McCain put out a joint statement with Senator Obama about the need for a bi-partisan solution to the current financial and banking crisis… and then unilaterally announced that he wanted to delay the first presidential debate, so that he could focus on the financial crisis… and then his presence in Washington had the apparent effect of derailing the progress toward a bi-partisan agreement to solve the crisis.

I do not know whether or not Sarah Palin is doing a good job as Governor of Alaska, and I make no assumptions to the effect (as some have suggested) that she should have declined McCain’s V-P offer for personal or family reasons. However, it does seem to me that she is way out of her depth to be Vice-President of the United States – the proverbial heartbeat away from the presidency, especially for a septuagenarian president with a personal history of melanoma. The notion that she is the most qualified person to become president in case of McCain’s departure is not at all believable. The fact that McCain actually made this claim tells me that either he is lying or he is extremely naïve. Either way, McCain’s first “presidential” decision – the selection of his would-be successor – does him little credit. Senator McCain, who grandstands about putting America’s general interest ahead of his own personal ambition, selected a running mate based on the cynical calculation that her presence on his ticket would enhance his chances of winning the election. It reminds me of when President George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Ms. Miers’s main qualification was her personal loyalty to Mr. Bush. Conservatives rebelled at the Miers nomination, and it was withdrawn. Nothing like that is likely to happen regarding the GOP vice-presidential nominee, but one widely read and respected conservative columnist, Kathleen Parker, has suggested that a “voluntary” withdrawal from the nomination by Governor Palin might be a good idea. Check out this link:

http://townhall.com/columnists/KathleenParker/2008/09/26/the_palin_problem

John McCain Shows Continued Political Recklessness

Scott A. Giordano — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:24:04 EDT

Here is why ...

The Truths on McCain and Palin Are Out ...

Scott A. Giordano — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:06:03 EDT

Sen. McCain tries to stall VP debate after a disasterous TV interview from Sarah Palin ...

The questions that should be asked in the debates

The Bard of Wilmette — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:52:38 EDT

Candidates John McCain and Barack Obama will face off in their first presidential debate in a few days. The potential exists for the debates to be very informative to the American voters, and to provide them with a solid basis of who to vote for. Then again, if the debates are little more than a forum for each candidate to quote from his standard campaign speeches, there will be little value to them. In the context of the debates, I am not interested in highlighting some gaffe made by either candidate. For example, a would-be McCain presidency will not really rise or fall on his apparent momentary confusion over whether Spain is in Europe or in Latin America, or the supposed Iraq-Pakistan border. For that matter, I really do not give a rat’s ass about how many houses John and Cindy McCain own.

McCain’s assertions about (Shiite) Iran’s support for (Sunni) Al Qaeda are more disturbing, because it suggests a serious ignorance about a very serious challenge for our next president. It does not seem to occur to McCain that America can have two different adversaries that are enemies of each other. Still, it does not belong in the debates. The limited time in the debates will not shed any new light on McCain’s misstatement.

Following are some questions I would like to see asked of Senator McCain:

“Senator McCain, the long-standing key mantra of conservative intellectuals has been the belief in limited government, and an especially limited federal government. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution is basically a list of prohibitions against government interference against the freedom of individuals. Under the current administration, the president has authorized federal agents to spy on American citizens without getting a warrant as required by statutory law, overruled states which had voted to permit medical marijuana for patients with certain conditions, and made extensive use of “signing statements” when signing a bill into law, basically asserting the right to ignore the provisions of a law where he personally disagrees. Are any of these actions consistent with conservative principles?”

“Senator McCain, earlier this summer, the Supreme Court ruled (5-4) in the case of Bournediene v. Bush, that Guantanamo Bay was under de facto U.S. sovereignty, and that, accordingly, the captives there were entitled to the right of habeas corpus. You characterized that decision as one of the worst in the history of the Supreme Court. Can you explain why this was, as you say, one of the worst Court decisions ever?”

“Senator McCain, one of the most enduring legacies of our next president may well be the make-up of the U.S. Supreme Court for the next couple of decades. It seems very likely that the next president will fill at least two vacancies on the Court in the next few years, and of course, there will also be many appointments to the lower federal courts. I will ask you to avoid using cliché lines like “strict constructionist” or “legislating from the bench,” because those often-used phrases have become almost meaningless. With that in mind, what can you tell us what kind of judges President McCain would expect to appoint?”

“Senator McCain, in an interview with Reverend Rick Warren, he asked you in multiple- choice format about how to deal with evil. Presented with four alternative answers, you selected one and simply answered, “Defeat it.” Could you elaborate here? Is the decision to defeat evil – once it has been identified – subject to a cost-benefit analysis?”

“Senator McCain, you opposed President Bush’s tax cut legislation in 2001, when the federal government was still running a surplus, on the grounds that the government could not afford it. Now, in 2008, with the government running record deficits and the tax rate reductions scheduled to end in two years, you support making the 2001 tax cuts permanent. What made you change your mind?”

Senator McCain, some economists argue that it is government spending, rather than current year tax collections, that amount to the real tax burden on the American people. They also say that in this context, it makes no difference where the government is spending the money – defense, social programs, pensions, roads, etc. The real difference is whether the programs are paid for out of current revenues, or conversely, we borrow the money now, so that our children and future descendants can pay it later. Under the Bush “43” presidency, federal spending has increased dramatically, not only in nominal dollars but also as a percentage of GDP. Over the past 7 or 8 years, have the American people really had a tax cut or a tax increase?”

“Senator McCain, one of your campaign slogans is ‘Country first.’ On several occasions, you have claimed that Senator Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election. Do you actually believe that Senator Obama would gladly sacrifice America’s interests if it would improve his odds of personally winning an election? If that is not what you believe, could you please explain your statement?”

“Senator McCain, one of your campaign ads – one of those which ended with “I am John McCain, and I approved this message” – claims that Barack Obama’s one real “accomplishment” in education was legislation that would instruct kindergarteners in comprehensive sex education. Independent fact checking organizations have noted that the claims in your ad are false. Nobody would dispute that distorting a campaign opponent’s record is a routine part of politics, but many observers – not just Democrats and Obama supporters – have suggested that this particular campaign ad goes way beyond distortion. Do you still stand by the claims made in that ad?”

“Senator McCain, the U.S. is presently engaged in two wars, with no quick end in sight. Most Americans, no matter what their political preferences, agree that our troops have performed heroically but have also been overburdened with multiple tours of duty. Many enlistments are not being renewed, and new recruitment numbers are below goals. Is it a realistic possibility that the U.S. will have to resume a military draft in order to bring some relief to the current troops, while maintaining current and anticipated commitments? If you are confident that no draft will be necessary, what will you do to increase military enlistments?”

“Senator McCain, on the subject of whether or not abortions should be legally available, you and Governor Palin are ‘pro life,’ while Senators Obama and Biden are ‘pro choice.” It raises two questions. First, are you and Governor Palin in complete agreement regarding what circumstances, if any, abortions should be permitted? Second, some ‘pro choice’ advocates have suggested that if the real goal is reducing the actual occurrence of abortions to some small fraction of the present level, criminalizing the procedure is less effective than other measures to reduce unwanted pregnancies: improved sex education, greater availability of contraception, greater support for the pregnant woman during and after the pregnancy, etc. Do you agree?”

The above questions have been presented in no particular order, and they are not all appropriate in one specific debate. However, these questions are appropriate.

Democratic VP Candidate, Senator Joe Biden In Virginia

Shawn O'Donnell — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:12:50 EDT

Democratic VP Candidate, Senator Joe Biden In Virginia

AP Poll Finds Racial Undertone In Presidential Election

Ricardo — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 02:44:19 EDT

AP Poll Finds Racial Undertone In Presidential Election

In attempting to determine why a nation in crises after nearly 8 years of Bush the minor’s stewardship of a morally, intellectually and politically bankrupt GOP and its aging nominee John McCain, who changes his views as often as there are storms in the gulf-of Mexico, still running neck-and-neck with the rival Democratic nominee Barack Obama, the poll with the help of Stanford University using very sophisticated analysis came up with a whopper! There is STILL racism in the USA!

Now I must say I am flabbergasted. Racism in the USA? Why, in the land of Lincoln and Roosevelt? The very sophisticated poll combining computer graphics with questions probing latently held views discovered that 40% of all whites and a lot of Democratic voters still held very negative and stereotypical views about blacks. They believed that blacks are their own worst enemies. Were violent, lazy and did not try harder. Only 59% of white Democrats, according to the poll, said they would vote for Barack Obama, and as much as 17% of Hillary Clinton’s supporters are willing to vote against their own interests and pull the clinger for McCain.

Now I am sure that most ordinary people did not require the sophisticated analytical tools of Stanford University to have come to the easy conclusion that there is still racism in the USA. Why else would candidates and parties spend a small fortune in attacking people for their race as the GOP did by attempting to ally Obama and former Fannie Mae Chairman Frank Raines. A more apt reference could have been Jim Johnson who as former Chairman of Fannie Mae was on Obama’s vice presidential selection team until his resignation. So why Raines whom Obama barely knew instead of Johnson? Raines is black and Johnson? You can guess!

More seriously, until recently the MSM had virtually given McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin a pass at being extremely economical with the truth. In fact some might say for telling bare faced lies! But then again a lying old man of their kin is better than any truth telling N…. any day.

But all the analytical tooling cannot hide a huge shock to the American psyche; that of a once mighty nation now in serious decline. America is growing old but doing so rather ungracefully! The mighty US$ is in perpetual decline, the famed US armed services are bogged down in a titanic struggle borne out by the insipient fantasies of men such as John McCain and carried out on the ideological idiosyncratic whim as those of his current running mate Sarah Palin; who is fast being coached to become the standard bearer of the now disgraced neo-conservatives.

The national economy is on life-support with the Federal Reserve (a private bank) urging the nation’s tax payers to bail out a bunch of hoodlums who have grown so greedy but so vast that anything else will lead to the death of the once mighty US economy - the engine room of the global economy! And that dose of urgent chemotherapy? One trillion US Dollars. That is $1,000,000,000,000.

Some Americans may be racist and racism may well be rife in the Democratic Party; after all some very prominent Democrats made their fortunes on the back of slavery and fought abolition tooth and nail. Remember the racist South was once solid Democratic territory. The 1956 Southern Manifesto, a Confederacy throwback some ninety-one years after they had lost the American Civil War, was signed by nineteen United States Senators. Seventy-seven members of the House of Representatives opposed to racial integration in public places also signed it. Of the ninety-six members of Congress who signed the Southern Manifesto, two were Virginia Republican Congressmen [three Southern Republican Congressmen refused to sign]. The rest were all Democrats.

*Senator Richard Russell, Democrat of Georgia, co-authored the 1956 Southern Manifesto strongly defended white supremacy and voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

*Senator Albert Gore Sr., Democrat of Tennessee, voted against 1964 Civil Rights Act

*Senator Sam Ervin, Democrat of North Carolina (the Senator who chaired the Watergate Investigating Committee), signed the 1956 Sothern Manifesto and voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act

*Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat of Mississippi was a staunch segregationist and avowed racist who signed the 1956 Southern Manifesto and voted against 1964 Civil Rights Act and still served under Jimmy Carter as the Chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee and number three to assume the presidency. He served in the Senate till 1978; only some thirty years ago.

But all that notwithstanding however, what I am absolutely convinced about is this; American is not the same and will never be again unless it takes a very serious look at itself. The nation needs to look and reflect upon itself. For the missed opportunities, exploitation and greed under the guise of the free-market. No market is ever free. There is always a price to pay! The previous gravy train that led so many to only care about their self-interests’ and damned the rest, has left the station and never to return. There will be repercussions when Main Street washes away the blinkers and discover, as they will, that they have been had! Lied to! Manipulated!

Only one man is equipped with the candor, freshness, decency, honesty and integrity to deal with this highly explosive domestic tinder-box delicately. Only one man is predisposed to handle the associated international repercussions and pushback that the US will face when other more serenely managed economies suffer, stutter or even fail as a direct consequence of the free wheeler-dealings under the ubiquitous guise of the free market.

For this is a nation in addition to the $1 trillion to rescue high stakes gamblers who may well end-up keeping their ill gotten winnings at the expense of Main Street who may lose even their homes, is indebted to itself and the rest of the world (gross national debt plus debt held by public stock) by an eye-popping $9 trillion. That is $9,000,000,000,000.
Put another way, which is $30,000 per every woman, man & child in America. But you tell that to the lazy, violent blacks not trying hard enough.
The truth of the matter is that America may end up needing Barack Obama more than it knows and certainly more than he needs America. It may not seem a patriotic thing to say but most nations in this World, would welcome him with open arms. There are not that many American leaders in the current crop you can say that about.

Fortunately, there are more Americans across the political spectrum who when the issues demand, it would seem, are prepared to put aside their superficial differences in color. I believe this is what drives Barack Obama in his pursuit of the Presidency. Well, the AP poll found that most whites say that blacks could improve their lot if they tried harder. Well Barack is hard at it trying. Hopefully these same folks will be prepared to help him help America.

So now you know why Barack & Joe have a fight on their hands. Why they together have to fight harder. They know things are far worst than they can talk frankly about without causing fear or panic. Oh, and for now Joe Biden is an honorary black. Barack and Joe will close the deal but they need your help and support. They need you to appeal to the good sense of a common purpose of ordinary folks so that Barack and Joe prevail. We need Barack to be the next POTUS. I am absolutely convinced that he will be. Or do you need a poll to tell you that?

Proud to be We! Will you join Us?

WeDemocrats — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:17:51 EDT

Writers Wanted: Communication among its members is one of the keys to a vibrant effective organization. That's where you come in. Write for us.

Send commentary, letters, and articles to the Editor, Ron McBride, at wtpeditor@wedemocrats.org

Since the beginning of WeDemocrats.org in May of 2006, I had dreamed of an online magazine amongst many other things.

WE! (which stands for We The People) I founded in late 2006, and our first few issues were kind of erratic, but we settled down and began publishing each week on Wednesday, the newest issue is #87 due out Wednesday the 22nd, and it makes me proud to look over the previous issues and see some of the foremost progressives in America as authors of articles.

Jackpot! Register Voters Residing at Shelters

Lady Beryl — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:43:13 EDT

There are only a few days left!

Register to vote the residents of homeless shelters! They can LEGALLY use the shelter address as their permanent address. Get certified to register people and forms at your local Democratic HQ. They will ensure you know and follow the laws of your state/county. For example, Colorado law is that ex-felons can vote unless on parole. However, those on probation may vote

Registering those who reside at shelters to vote is a win-win-win.

1. It is a good civic thing to do for our country. WIN

2. It is good for the Democrats because most struggling and poor people are smart enough to vote Democratic. WIN

3. It is good for the residents at shelters because the process will give them dignity at a time they need it most. WIN

You might have to arrange transportation for them on 11/4 with the Democrats.

Get busy as soon as you can and spread the word!

"White privilege" or more general hypocrisy

The Bard of Wilmette — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:09:59 EDT

The following message was forwarded to my email address. In case anybody cares, it was sent to my white parents from a black friend of theirs. I do not agree 100% with its content, because many of the cited examples of hypocrisy are not really examples of “White Privilege” as much as double standards shown by many so-called “conservatives.” In many cases, the double standards are directed against liberals in general, regardless of race. Still, that is a minor disagreement. In general, it is worthy of reading and discussion. By the way, did Sarah Palin really say that she can see Russia from her house? I live nearly 300 miles from the Canadian border, and I would never claim to be able to see Canada from my house, but I live much closer to Canada than Ms. Palin does to Russia.

This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise
9/13/08

For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because 'every family has challenges,' even as black and Latino families with similar 'challenges' are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a 'f*ckin' redneck,' like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll 'kick their f*ckin' *ss,' and talk about how you like to 'shoot shit' for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're 'untested.'

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance because 'if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me,' and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the 'under God' part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was 'Alaska first,' and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do – like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor – and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you' re somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a 'second look.'

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a 'trick question,' while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a 'light' burden.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole 'change' thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.

White privilege is, in short, the problem.

George Bush: The Sequel?

Scott A. Giordano — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:33:17 EDT

The problem is less McCain and more Palin ...

McCain Campaign Complains to stay in the news

Jim Thompson — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:41:16 EDT

The Tina Fey send up of VP Candidate Palin was incredible. The writing, the delivery, and her demeanor was hysterical. When you become an instant celebrity when running for VP you have to be able to deal with things like SNL.

The McCain campaign is now condemning the skit, saying it was unfair to Palin. HA HA HA! Welcome to the big time, folks. I am convinced that their complaints are nothing more than a ruse to manage the message, complain about unfair press treatment, and to try to endear themselves to their base. What I hear is nothing but a whining campaign starting its slow decline back down after their convention.

No one wants four more years of the Mcsame failing policies that this administration has carried out. Republicans cannot bring change to the mess that they have created. They are the problem. Watch the polls swing wildly toward Obama in the next few weeks.

My name is Jim, and I approve this message.

U.S. Constitution Day is Sept. 17

Taube — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:16:56 EDT

Re-read the U.S. Constitution to honor Constitution Day on Sept. 17, 2008. the 221st anniversary of our nation's founding document. Commemorate what this election is supposed to be about.

download free copy of our Constitution at: http://www.constitutionday.cc/

Helpful link to ConstitutionCenter.org: http://constitutioncenter.org/ConstitutionDay/

Thank you to Senator Robert Byrd for making this a federal holiday, and for always reminding the U.S. Senate of the primacy of the U.S. Constitution in the lives of every American. Kudos to Rep. Ron Paul for his reminder about Constitution Day during the Independent Party Forum at the National Press Club on Sept. 10.