On the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that President Obama has presented to the US Congress.
Former Presidential Candidate John McCain loves to be in the media's lights and has said that he will vote against the President's Plan because "It won't create enough jobs." (!)
John McCain revels in his Maverick! reputation. Is his saying he will vote "No" an attempt to regain credibility with the Republican conservatives who were not pleased with his Presidential Campaign?
In the same interview on "Fox News Sunday" John McCain repeated again his "Lower taxes" campaign speech that independent (and some Republican voters) rejected during the November election.
Or John McCain raising his objections as a bargaining ploy to gain some concession so that he can again play the Maverick! finally voting against the Republican Party's conservative "free market" principles as he "crosses over the aisle" as an example of his "bipartisanship."
Both John McCain and President Obama support the Cap-and-Trade Bill that the US Senate wants to use to impose higher gasoline and utility bill taxes on Americans, Click Underlined Link:
http://www.communati.com/steve-lee/John-mccap-and-trade-has-few-ideas
There is an American economic myth that the corporate media keep repeating, Click Underlined Link:
http://www.communati.com/node/3250
This is a copy of the e-mail from Doug Middleton. A guy I admire who was in the forefront yeas ago to help people get out of credit card debt for literally PENNIES on the dollar. He Welcomes Your Comments. E-mail HIM!
It's over.
John McCain went down to defeat today in what was an obvious, predictable loss.
Claiming to be a "maverick" while in reality being anything but, Senator McCain came across instead as alternatively a petulant child and an apologist for bankers that have robbed America blind for the previous six years. As one of the "Aye" voters both for the $700 billion robbery of taxpayer bill (an affront that Barack Obama shares) and the "bankruptcy reform" bill that put a noose around American's necks, he finally "got his" on the national political stage.
America spoke, and said not just "no", but "hell no."
Unlike when we spoke to you Senator McCain when you were voting for the bailout, this time you're obligated to listen.
Unfortunately the McCain campaign turned out to be nothing more than apologists for the liars, cheats and frauds.
I called this back in July, and there are times I hate being right.
This is one of them.
In reality there is nothing to like here in this election season. America's economy is headed for the hole in the center of the bowl no matter what we do, and the imperative now must be to guarantee that the bankers and fraudsters don't make off with any more of our money, to claw back what we can, and to protect the funding capacity of our government, not to protect bankers and attempt to do what is mathematically impossible.
I have only faint hope that President-elect Obama will accomplish any of that in his time as President, and even less faith that he will be able to interdict the present idiocy prior to his inauguration.
It takes a strong man to stand up to the banking interests that bribe everyone up and down Washington DC. President Obama is only 10% likely to do the right thing, a President McCain was 0% likely to do so.
I do see, however, two possibilities and no middle ground, which gives me some hope. One possibility is that President Obama will proceed to play "pigman handout-a-thon", in which case our nation is headed for an economic collapse that will make The Depression look like a cakewalk.
Should President Obama listen to such idiots as Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson, this outcome is assured. Two years from now the Democratic Party will suffer the worst defeat in the history of the Republic, being mortally wounded and forever removed from American Politics. Four years from now President Obama will depart with his tail between his legs and head home to Chicago with a new middle name - "Hoover".
The depths to which American could sink under such a series of mistakes cannot be underestimated. It is entirely possible that a worst-case scenario could come to pass, including a political failure in our nation.
Barack Obama understands what this could mean, since he has ancestors who dealt with not being free men - and one hopes he is conscious of the risk that continuing down the "bailout path" brings in this regard. This risk cannot be overstated; it is REAL. Political and monetary failure, if it occurs, has an extremely high risk of leading to a form of government that is very different than our founding fathers intended, and none of us want to see.
The second possibility is that President Obama actually thinks on his own and comes to recognize that he's not a figurehead, nor is he a puppet of the bankers and fraudsters - that he was sent to Washington DC for a reason.
To imprison all the fraudsters both on Wall Street and Main Street, and recover every nickel possible from their ill-gotten gains for ordinary Americans.
To clean up American Finance and implement The Genesis Plan or something akin to it, forcing full transparency and limits on leverage throughout the financial system.
To tell The American People that no, you cannot have houses appreciate faster than incomes, that the maximum sustainable home price is 3.5x income, and that spending more than 36% of your pretax income on all your debt, housing included, is both unreasonable and unsafe, leaving you one minor household disaster away from bankruptcy.
This pronouncement, along with policies that encourage same, will lead to a rapid revaluation of home prices downward, and clear the market.
To tell The American People that "free trade" sounds fine in theory, but that as practiced over the last 20 years it has led to tremendous distortions in foreign exchange and interest rates, not to mention millions of Americans losing their jobs to overseas workers who aren't better at what they do - they are just cheaper, mostly because they are either coming from or still living in slave-like conditions. Perhaps President Obama will do something to correct that imbalance, although you can bet the "masters of American Capitalism" will scream loud and long about any such attempt.
To tell The American People that the age of bubblenomics is over - that one must earn enough money to buy what one wishes to purchase, and if you can't, then you're unable to afford it - and that this applies to government as well.
To tell The American People that an Obama Administation will not permit The Fed to print money, nor to monetize bad assets - whether they be fraudulent mortgages, bad credit card debt, upside down auto loans or anything else. That such bad debt must instead be forced to default, and those who wrote that paper must eat their loss, no matter how painful and whether or not it results in business failure.
Tough but necessary words - words that are exactly opposite that which President Bush uttered after 9/11.
This is the change that America voted for Senator, now President-Elect Obama.
Is this the change that we truly can believe in, or were those mere words in a Presidential campaign?
We shall soon find out.
Douglas Middleton
The common definition of maverick in the U.S. and Canada is “an unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, traditionally considered the property of the first person who brands it.” If indeed this definition is what Senator McCain and Governor Palin refer to in their use of the term, then we should most absolutely fear McCain. Although he astonishingly asserts the untrue notion that Senator Obama got his political start in the living room of a terrorist, we can say that McCain was branded early in his own career by none other than the American financial terrorist, Charles Keating. Unfortunately, I believe his inability to focus on current problems with our economy and the world economy as a whole is substantially due to two points: McCain has little to no conceptualization of economic forecasting or implementation, and I sadly guess that somewhere on his hide is branded CK, not meaning Calvin Klein.
Here is the video, Karaoke style.
Here are the lyrics.
Words evolve like fish and are sometimes just as slippery. But it’s always a little sad to witness a perfectly good word wither and die on the vine of our lush and leafy language. This year, amidst one of the most compelling and important elections in American history, we mourn the passing of another word—Maverick.
John McCain ambled into the campaign as if he owned the word. And rightly so, in some ways he did. We don’t need to be reminded (again and again and again…and again) that Senator McCain was a war hero that spent four hard years in a Vietnamese prison camp. That when he was offered his freedom he turned it down to let those who’d been imprisoned longer go free. Or that his stilted and overwrought walk and mannerisms is the result of bone swallowing beatings and torture that would make all of us crumble.
Political mythologizing aside, if that doesn’t show some beef-stew maverick-ness, then I don’t what else does. McCain’s years in congress, as we know (once again, and again, and again), were marked by maverick-sized tussles with his own party that branded him the unbranded. Until this year, I’ve always held a rather spongy spot for Senator McCain. Without a doubt, the world would still be a better place had McCain won the 2000 GOP nomination instead of Bush, who administered an exquisite Roveian torture on McCain that disfigured his name and reputation during the primaries.
But they couldn’t take away the maverick in McCain. In fact it grew as he slipped further into his role as the unfettered senator in hot pursuit of greased government pork. All fine and good, all very maverickesque, I suppose, even for a liverish-looking snowbird with a comb-over.
Yet it’s easy to forget where maverick came from in the first place and what it’s doing in our lives. As a surfer, I’m afraid the first association that comes to mind is Maverick’s, the heavy, 25-foot-plus waves that break off California's Half Moon Bay coast. Maverick’s got its name back in 1961 from a dog (by the same name) that swam out to the break with its owner. Dog-paddling into the fury of the roiling ocean exemplifies the notion of maverick, at least in the canine world.
But as it turns out the word originates, in part, from the animal kingdom. Maverick comes out of Texas by way of a man named Samuel Augustus Maverick—land baron, lawyer, politician and reluctant cattle rancher. Maverick refused to brand his cattle, which in Texas in the 1860’s was considered a major faux pas, akin, I suppose, to a Republican calling Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell “agents of intolerance” as McCain did when he was still living up to his namesake.
Sam Maverick didn’t brand his cattle, the story goes, because he really couldn’t care less about ranching and the fact that he considered branding an inhumane practice; quaint bovine thoughtfulness when you consider that Maverick owned slaves. Whatever the motivation, his fellow ranchers accused Maverick of being able to claim all the wandering, unbranded cattle as his own, an important consideration before the invention of the barbed wire fence. It was reported that Maverick got into many a heated, six-shooters-drawn fights over the ownership of unbranded herds that might or might not have been his.
So for lack of a better name, cattlemen began to call unbranded cattle mavericks and the word stuck. Maverick’s ranching antics may have not been to everyone’s taste, but he has more in common with McCain in another historical twist. Though Maverick had participated in the signing of the Texas Declaration of Independence in 1836, Mexico regarded Texas as a rebellious territory and in 1842 sent troops to show the Gringos they were still in charge.
Maverick and other Texans tried to flee but were captured and forced on a three month-long march to the prison town of Perote, east of Mexico City. Maverick and his Anglo cohorts were given hard labor and endured food rations. When Maverick complained about the treatment he was put into solitary confinement. Like McCain, Maverick was offered his freedom only if he would admit that Mexico had a legitimate claim on Texas. Maverick refused, saying, “'I cannot persuade myself that such an annexation, on any terms, would be advantageous to Texas, and I therefore cannot say so, for I regard a lie as a crime, and one which I cannot commit even to secure my release.” Maverick would go on to be a state legislator and become known as a Texas patriot.
For what it’s worth, Maverick also happened to be a progressive Democrat. He died in San Antonio in 1870 holding nearly 60,000 acres of land, and of course all those countless unbranded cows. So how did McCain come to butcher the good name of a Texas patriot and render his maverick-ness meaningless? It’s all too evident that once McCain became the GOP’s nominee, once his own party branded him, a party whose base is the Christian conservatives, his maverick image and the very word itself began to lose all meaning. Sure, McCain is still desperately brash and unpredictable as the suspense leading up to the last debates attests and more importantly, the grave, flippant choice of his maverick-lite running mate Sarah Palin. Yet there’s a big difference between being plain old stubborn and being a maverick.
The Oxford American Dictionary defines Maverick as “an unorthodox or independent-minded person: a person who refuses to conform to a particular party or group.” McCain has shown that he is not only a flip-flopper, but a sell-out to boot. Perhaps the sad lesson in our fractured political make-up is it’s simply impossible to be a true maverick and win an election.
Thankfully, though, with the death and murder of one word comes the hope of a replacement of another to enter the lexicon. McCained: verb. 1. A person of singular and restless grit who, through the influence of power and desire to triumph, loses all vestiges of their former self. 2. A person (usually a patriot) relegated to a footnote in history by succumbing to a dominant ideology that is notably backward in thinking. 3. Forced betrayal of principles resulting in dangerous conformity and conventionality.
Even my dog, Maverick, is for Obama!
The fact that John McCain selected Sara Palin as a running mate and potential commander in chief is an obvious example of his very poor “maverick” judgment.
It is true that Sarah may have been a perfect President, clueless and no knowledge of what’s going on would have been very possible and plausible coming from her. Sort of like a puppet President.
Witchcraft would not have fixed the Economic crisis either.
Sarah Palin was not ready or prepared for this position at all and I think the Sarah Palin “blowout” reflects more on John McCain’s judgment, competence, and capability of making good decisions that affect all Americans.
Obama on the other hand selected a tested and seasoned Senator Joe Biden. How can this decision making capability even be compared?
So, I don't talk on here about McCain a lot. In general, I don't like what he's been saying or doing lately. A few years ago - even five months ago, I might have voted for the man. But then he seemed to undo everything that I thought was quality about him and walk his party line...as well as its ethics.
One thing that really gets annoying when listening to him is how his "experience in Vietnam" somehow ties to his capability to be president. People deem him a hero, a patriot and more. Having personally experienced some military service, I'm not exactly sure how that correlates to being the president of a country and dealing with economic and social issues.
Besides, haven't we already made too many choices based on the fear of Iraq? Perhaps it is time to make choices that encompass Iraq as well as the OTHER parts of running a country.
But I never thought to question McCain's military history. It was so often repeated, ad nauseum, that it didn't occur to me that his Vietnam experience might just be another fabrication, another bit of mediocrity dressed up in a few medals and punchy words like patriotism and hero.
Rolling Stone put together a 10 page writeup on the "maverick" McCain, and makes one consider what being a hero and a reformer really means. This writeup, using McCain's own words, his voting and political history, is very insightful on the man currently campaigning to be president.
Things like his infidelities, his risky behavior, his tendency to deregulate on behalf of his buddies - these are disturbing to read. How can we not pay attention to the man behind the curtain of the "straight-talk express" when his whole existence is built on priviledge, self-serving choices, and flip-flops to fit whatever check is heading his way.
It shows just how ingrained his ambition is, and adding Palin to the ticket makes them an ideal couple.
Read it and weep.
(originally posted at Exponential)
2008 Presidential Debate question for John McCain
Webster's New World Dictionary defines "Maverick" in two ways;
1. one who takes an independent stand, as in politics
2. a lost calf
It has become increasingly clear to me that Sarah Palin's participation in this presidential election can be defined, at best (using Webster's verbiage) a lost calf.
Senator McCain you've stated the most important decision a United States Presidential Candidate makes is their choice of Vice President and that he/she be ready to Serve as President on Day One. Can you tonight, in front of 70+ million television viewers, share why the American people should be comforted, and not afraid, with a potential Sarah Palin presidency?
Laurie Ann Johnson
(To be sung to the tune of "Doin' what comes natur'lly", from the Broadway musical "Annie Get Your Gun", music and original lyrics by Irving Berlin. New lyrics by Gregory Bachelis.)
Folks are scared I’m not prepared
To govern if elected
But I’ll make a great V. P.
Doin’ what the Lord tells me
(Doin’ what the Lord tells her)
Gals like me could never see
The point of facts and figures
I’ve done well politic’lly
You don’t have to know much foreign affairs
When you can see Russia from your front porch stairs
From my earliest days in the PTA
Religious/social issues were my forte'
God advises me
(God advises her)
So here is my first post for my new blog. Welcome. Hopefully you find some info here that makes you think.
So why "No Talking Points"?
Well, while I believe in the Obama mission, and the Democratic Party's causes - I still think people need to think for themselves and not just follow the leader because they said it was so.
a bipartisan legislative investigation in alaska today concluded that sarah palin "unlawfully abused her authority in firing the state's public safety commissioner."
after all that's happened in the political landscape this week, especially all the accusations made by palin herself about obama, her credibility is now officially toast. this is a blatant ethics law violation, and consisted of not 1 or 2, but 19 separate phone calls by both palin and her husband trying to get his ex-brother-in-law fired.
apparently, a maverick is someone who roams the countryside spreading hatred and racism after abusing power and public office for their own personal gain, at least if you use her own quotes against her. of course, now she'll blame political partisanship for this report - even though the investigation was launched before she was even tapped to be the VP nominee - because that's just what a maverick does!
did i mention already how she does not deserve to be anywhere near the white house? i think i did, but i'm not sure...
-h
This is the first time I've seen the complete truth about McCain's past.
Any Undecided voter has got to hear this story! It is a portrayal of an entitled, self-absorbed, incompetant and impetuous womanizing politician. There is nothing noble about McCain's military service or POW experience. In fact, it is great evidence of why he is "unfit to lead". Someone has to call this out and start using it against him. These are all facts and interviews of people that were there when it happened!
Do they understand the definition of the term maverick?!?!?!?!?
Here are several definitions of the term maverick....... If we use the 1st definition from The American Heritage Dictionary, traditionally considered the property of the first person who brands it. Then McCain is still in the back pocket of Charles Keating... which explains why he is so nonchalant about the current economy crisis, {voting for the bail-out and then advising that Bush should veto it...!?!?!?!?} I don't really think that McCain or Palin know the definition, or they wouldn't use the term: From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: 1: an unbranded range animal ; especially : a motherless calf2: an independent individual who does not go along with a group or partyThe American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:
I have heard enough!!! McCain professes that he’s a "Maverick", but tonight he said something that caught my interest. He said he was a Maverick and don’t always get along with my own party... let alone their party (Democrats). My question is that when McCain reaches across the aisle… who will be there to take it? John McCain has already alienated everyone who he could work with.
Further, John McCain alleges "I'm not going to raise taxes, in fact I not going to raise taxes at all..." Doesn't this sound familiar? George bush said it!!! "Read my lips no new taxes"... w
hat happened to being a maverick John???
Dear Republican Voter:
I will hope that if you are voting for John McCain, it is for a reason other than he's the white guy. Many of you will vote the party line no matter what. I can appreciate that. Many democrats are the same way. Still, you have to be a little mad at your party, possibly as much as many of us weren't too thrilled with John Kerry as our party's guy back in 2004. The Republicans, in serving up John McCain amongst the lesser lights who ran this go-round, have not only put lipstick on the pig, but a wig, a dress, and high heels.
I know that if I mention the magazine Rolling Stone, you either have never read it, or remember it from the misspent days of your dope-smoking youth as the thing you thumbed through in the barber shop to look cooler than the old guys.
There is a piece in this month's issue called "Make Believe Maverick" by Tim Dickinson. I will be totally honest: At ten pages, it is a long read. I hope you read it, but even if you don't there are some things that you should know about your man John. If you are a moral person, if you believe in less government, you should check out these seven effective highlights from the article to see if John McCain is still the man for you.
Rolling Stone is out with a scathing expose of John McCain called "Make-Believe Maverick." It's fairly long, but quite a fascinating read. An excerpt:
Then there's torture — the issue most related to McCain's own experience as a POW. In 2005, in a highly public fight, McCain battled the president to stop the torture of enemy combatants, winning a victory to require military personnel to abide by the Army Field Manual when interrogating prisoners. But barely a year later, as he prepared to launch his presidential campaign, McCain cut a deal with the White House that allows the Bush administration to imprison detainees indefinitely and to flout the Geneva Conventions' prohibitions against torture. What his former allies in the anti-torture fight found most troubling was that McCain would not admit to his betrayal. Shortly after cutting the deal, McCain spoke to a group of retired military brass who had been working to ban torture. According to Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former deputy, McCain feigned outrage at Bush and Cheney, as though he too had had the rug pulled out from under him. "We all knew the opposite was the truth," recalls Wilkerson. "That's when I began to lose a little bit of my respect for the man and his bona fides as a straight shooter." But perhaps the most revealing of McCain's flip-flops was his promise, made at the beginning of the year, that he would "raise the level of political dialogue in America." McCain pledged he would "treat my opponents with respect and demand that they treat me with respect." Instead, with Rove protégé Steve Schmidt at the helm, McCain has turned the campaign into a torrent of debasing negativity, misrepresenting Barack Obama's positions on everything from sex education for kindergarteners to middle-class taxes. In September, in one of his most blatant embraces of Rove-like tactics, McCain hired Tucker Eskew — one of Rove's campaign operatives who smeared the senator and his family during the 2000 campaign in South Carolina. Throughout the campaign this year, McCain has tried to make the contest about honor and character. His own writing gives us the standard by which he should be judged. "Always telling the truth in a political campaign," he writes in Worth the Fighting For, "is a great test of character." He adds: "Patriotism that only serves and never risks one's self-interest isn't patriotism at all. It's selfishness. That's a lesson worth relearning from time to time." It's a lesson, it would appear, that the candidate himself could stand to relearn. "I'm sure John McCain loves his country," says Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar under Bush. "But loving your country and lying to the American people are apparently not inconsistent in his view."
Then there's torture — the issue most related to McCain's own experience as a POW. In 2005, in a highly public fight, McCain battled the president to stop the torture of enemy combatants, winning a victory to require military personnel to abide by the Army Field Manual when interrogating prisoners. But barely a year later, as he prepared to launch his presidential campaign, McCain cut a deal with the White House that allows the Bush administration to imprison detainees indefinitely and to flout the Geneva Conventions' prohibitions against torture.
What his former allies in the anti-torture fight found most troubling was that McCain would not admit to his betrayal. Shortly after cutting the deal, McCain spoke to a group of retired military brass who had been working to ban torture. According to Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former deputy, McCain feigned outrage at Bush and Cheney, as though he too had had the rug pulled out from under him. "We all knew the opposite was the truth," recalls Wilkerson. "That's when I began to lose a little bit of my respect for the man and his bona fides as a straight shooter."
But perhaps the most revealing of McCain's flip-flops was his promise, made at the beginning of the year, that he would "raise the level of political dialogue in America." McCain pledged he would "treat my opponents with respect and demand that they treat me with respect." Instead, with Rove protégé Steve Schmidt at the helm, McCain has turned the campaign into a torrent of debasing negativity, misrepresenting Barack Obama's positions on everything from sex education for kindergarteners to middle-class taxes. In September, in one of his most blatant embraces of Rove-like tactics, McCain hired Tucker Eskew — one of Rove's campaign operatives who smeared the senator and his family during the 2000 campaign in South Carolina.
Throughout the campaign this year, McCain has tried to make the contest about honor and character. His own writing gives us the standard by which he should be judged. "Always telling the truth in a political campaign," he writes in Worth the Fighting For, "is a great test of character." He adds: "Patriotism that only serves and never risks one's self-interest isn't patriotism at all. It's selfishness. That's a lesson worth relearning from time to time." It's a lesson, it would appear, that the candidate himself could stand to relearn.
"I'm sure John McCain loves his country," says Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar under Bush. "But loving your country and lying to the American people are apparently not inconsistent in his view."