Iraq: "The Outcome Of The War Will Merit The Sacrifice"

Those were the words of George Bush after the 4000 deaths of Americans in Iraq was recorded this past week.  Mr. Bush continues to be in denial on why he started this war and he and his supporters who want to continue this war are too small of a people to admit to their mistakes and incompetence.  As a result Americans will continue to die over WMD that did not exist.

 

Anyone who is following this war knows that American and Iraqi casualties have been going back up since the first of the year.  Bush and his administration are now trying, through the news media, to compare the deaths in Iraq to those that the U.S. has suffered in our two world wars, Korea, and Vietnam.  They do so to try to minimize the deaths in Iraq and use other wars where there is no comparison.  In those wars, the U.S. was not the aggressor nor were any preemptive wars.  Our opponents in those wars had millions of troops we faced in battle.  In Iraq, by our own count, Al Qaeda and the Sunnis and Shiite who are carrying out the civil war number less than 5,000---a great difference than the other wars that the Bush administration mentions.

 

Now in its 6th year, Bush, McCain, Cheney and the neocons intend to keep our military in Iraq for years to come.  This will be remembered as Vietnam, number two.  We are already well pass the half way point of that war.  Our men and women in uniform are being used as pawns, with 3 and 4 deployments, continually putting their lives at risk, even though Bush proclaimed over 4 years ago, "mission accomplished." The only mission Bush has accomplished, unfortunately, is destabilizing the entire Middle East and making America hated around the world.  

 

Our troops go where the President tells them, without complaint, to do their job well and serve their country.  The least a Commander-in-Chief can do for them is to make sure that they are fighting the war for the reason the war was started in the first place.  This President violated that responsibility to our troops.  

 

It should be noted with great concern the remark Bush made on March 29, 2008 at a joint news conference with the Canadian prime minister.  Bush said that we are in Iraq to establish Democracy in Iraq and the Middle East.  That statement, as we start the 6th year of war, was not the reason he gave the people for going to war in 2003.  Another bold face lie. History will not and should not be kind to Mr. Bush. He used the services of our men and women in uniform to mold the Middle East and Iraq in his own warped ideology.  He purposely misled them, and the country, on why we went to war.  Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, said this week that Bush misled the Congress about the intelligence and about the reasons for going to war.  He also noted that Bush had already decided to go to war in Iraq even before Congress voted for the resolution he asked for. Democrats have long been saying that.  Now a well respected Republican is.  These are impeachable offenses and the President needs to be judged on that level of thinking.  

The Morning Dose---3/30

Today's Morning Dose comes from the Washington Post and is entitled, Don't Stop Campaigning:

_____________________________________________________________

The growing chorus among some Democrats and other interested observers for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) to get out of the race for the Democratic Party's nomination for president is troubling. We're not promoting Ms. Clinton over Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), or either of them over Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), for that matter. A time may come when someone should gracefully bow out. But their extended contest informs the electorate and serves to battle-test them both. We don't see why the process should be short-circuited when millions of votes are yet to be cast and two qualified candidates believe themselves to be the best potential Democratic nominee...

One proffered justification for ending the campaign now, in fact, is the assumption that we know pretty much how everything will turn out. Ms. Clinton will win Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama will carry North Carolina and so on. But throughout this campaign, just about everything we've "known" has been wrong: Mr. McCain was finished, Ms. Clinton was inevitable, Mr. Obama had New Hampshire locked up. No doubt the Democrats have gotten themselves into a fix with rules that may leave the final decision to unelected superdelegates -- but why is the answer to that less democracy? Why not give as many voters as possible a chance?

Last week they tackled the economy and the mortgage meltdown. But there are plenty more questions for voters to consider. How would the candidates pay for their billions in increased spending on health care, energy and education? With diplomacy toward North Korea faltering, how would they handle its nuclear ambitions? What's the future of affirmative action? The list of issues to hash out is endless, and doing so in polite political combat could produce a stronger Democratic candidate for the fall and a better-informed electorate....

And this contest is far from over. While Mr. Obama leads Ms. Clinton in the popular vote and in the number of pledged delegates, it's assumed that neither candidate will win the 2,024 delegates needed to secure the nomination.

Count Every Vote!

-"One of our most sacred rights as Americans is the right to make our voice heard at the polls." (11/8/05)

-"Working as a civil rights attorney to make sure that everybody's vote counted." (11/20/07)

-"There is no place for politics in this debate, no room for those who feel they can gain a partisan advantage by keeping people away from the polls". (1/31/07)

-"That we can participate in the political process...and that our votes will be counted." (7/24/04)

Those were the words of Senator Barack Obama, a man now apparently opposed to all that he stated previously.  The third quote really speaks to the essence of the problem with not holding revotes in Florida and Michigan.  It is now well known that it was the attorneys of the Obama campaign who blocked revotes from happening.  Why?  Because they might put him behind in the popular vote, and Obama didn't want to risk losing.  

The point is that silencing people is not the way to go.  I, as I'm sure the people of Florida and Michigan feel, could not care less about the process; couldn't care less about the DNC's stupid rules.  After all, the people of Florida and Michigan didn't choose to move their primaries up.  They didn't choose to have their delegates stripped.  But they did, however, choose to show up in huge numbers to vote for the candidate of their choice.  

Why should the American people have to suffer for the DNC's rules?  Since when did PROCESS become more important than PEOPLE in America?  There is no positive excuse for Obama to make.  He, for his political benefit, is refusing to let the people of Florida and Michigan have a say in this election.  

Just remember, first, when asked if he would allow the delegates to be seated as they were, he said no, because his name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and he didn't get to campaign in Florida.  Then, last month, when confronted with the opportunity to have his name on the ballot and to campaign in those two states, he rejected the plan.  Why so scared, Barack Obama?  That's really all this is---cowardice.  But let me pose a question to Obama and his supporters---Is it winning if the only way you can win is to silence millions of Americans?  I think not, but apparently Obama disagrees.  

This Is What It Means For So Many:

Happy Women's History Month!!!

Senator McCain's Speech on Foreign Policy

Senator McCain, in what was billed as a major foreign policy speech, this week in Los Angeles made the case why his supporters should vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election.  The following phrases were used by Senator McCain:

 

Calls for stronger ties with allies and cautioned that American power does not mean that we can do what we want, wherever we want, whenever we want.  The government should close Guantanamo Bay prison and work with allies to forge a new understanding on how to treat detainees.  America needs to be good stewards of our planet and urge steps to limit green house gas emissions. 

 

Those are the same positions that Democrats have long been advocating.  However, this is an election year,  so John McCain is trying to distance himself from Bush and his past support of Bush's policies.  The Senator will say anything to try and mask his blunders concerning foreign policy.  McCain was an early backer of going it alone in Iraq.  His late embrace of diplomacy is only a campaign speech.  Remember the Republican control of Congress which McCain was part of backed Bush's policies to the hilt.

 

As for his call for a new understanding on how to treat detainees, it is a mere political statement because we already have one.  It's called the Geneva Convention and America's own rules and regulations for treating detainees.  McCain has flipped flopped on this issue now for sometime.  His attitude on the Iraq war is still the same: stay the course with no end in sight and no plan or policy to define success, much less end the war.

 

Senator McCain also mentioned early in his speech President Truman's leadership in foreign policy.  Republican presidential hopefuls always talk about past Democratic presidents when they are looking for votes because those Presidents were good at developing foreign policies that worked.  One thing is for certain, President Truman would never have invaded and occupied a country over WMD that did not exist.  He would have recognized that Iraq was not a threat to our national security.  He would have also had something to say in strong words to McCain, Bush, and others who still support this unnecessary war. 

 

The Senator will be making many speeches before November in an effort to change his image and positions he has held on the war, the economy, the planet, immigration and etc., and you can be sure he will be moving closer to the Democrats' positions on those issues.  What the people need to remember is that the Republicans have made an art out of lying and the policies McCain now backs away from, are the same ones he has proudly defended for many many years in the Senate.

The Morning Dose---3/29

Here's a new series, The Morning Dose,  which I would like to continue every few days, where I take an interesting article and simply post excerpts from it.  Instead of commenting on the article in my post, I'll let you, the reader, form your own opinion on it.  If necessary, I'll post a comment I have on it in the comments section.  

The Morning Dose today comes from Mark Ambinder, over at the Atlantic.  It's titled, How to Count the Popular Vote:

___________________________________________________________

So -- my fairly conservative calculation has Clinton netting about 446,000 votes between now and June 3. Under all scenarios that exclude Florida and Michigan votes -- and count the votes of Washington's primary -- Obama still retains a popular vote lead of not more than 330,000 -- or an advantage of less than one and a half percent.

Under a scenario that includes the Florida and Michigan votes for Clinton, gives Obama all of the uncommitted Michigan votes, estimates the votes for all the caucus states and includes the Washington primary, Clinton wins by about 16,000 votes -- or about a tenth of one percent.

Which scenario is "right?" Under DNC rules, until the credentials committee figures out which delegations to seat, Florida and Michigan do not exist. But the voters in those states certainly do in the existential sense -- and if we're answering the question by figuring out how many Democrats voted for Obama versus how many Democrats voted for Clinton.

Are there historical precedents? Well, Democrats like to count every vote. So -- advantage Hillary? But there has to be some tempering factor to account for Obama's name not being on the Michigan ballot. Ok, but then there has to be some tempering factor to account for the fact that Obama's campaign made the decision to stay off the Michigan ballot as least as much because they feared losing the state to Clinton as they wanted to make a statement to Iowans about the integrity of the calendar process.

So...This Is How Obama Wins...

Having some extra time on my hands, and still outraged at the Obama campaign's refusal to cooperate with revotes in Florida and Michigan, I began running the numbers to see just how Sen. Clinton would fair if Michigan and Florida were counted as per the January results.  What I found was pretty interesting:

Okay, by counting Florida and Michigan, you also count their superdelegates.  I estimate that Sen. Clinton would get a 40-50 superdelegate bounce by counting those two states.  Then you look at the pledged delegates.  I have to estimate she would get a net of about 50.  All together that would bring Sen. Clinton within about 20 delegates of Sen. Obama heading into the convention, just as things stand now.  Considering big enough wins in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Indiana, and West Virginia, and Clinton could potentially overtake Obama even in pledged delegates.

The problem still stands though.  That problem is Barack Obama.  I love how he claims that the people should decide, while at the same time having his lawyers stand in the way of millions of Americans voting.  Same thing with Pelosi.  She said, just today, that the will of the American people must be honored.  Well, how about applying that standard to Florida and Michigan.  They are, after all, people and Americans, aren't they?  So is this how Obama wins?  By silencing millions of voters?  Is this democracy?  Cause let's face the current outlook: the only way Obama ends with more popular votes, and potentially delegates, is if Florida and Michigan don't vote.  Sad, really, really sad.  

Interesting Tidbit for All You Hill-Haters

I'm all to well aware of those Obama supporters, both in the media (who are we kidding, everyone in the media loves Obama) and in the blogosphere who are calling for Sen. Hillary Clinton to drop out this instant.  Well, unfortunately for those who share this close-minded view, most Democrats don't agree.

In the latest Rasmussen poll, just 22% of Democrats feel Clinton should drop out.  That may seem like a high number...that is until you look at the number of Democrats who want Obama to drop out: 22%.  That's right---it's a tie.  So, before everyone goes on another crusade, signing petitions and the such telling Clinton to get out, maybe I should do the same for Obama. After all, Democrats want him to drop out just as much as they do Clinton.  But you know what?  I'm not going to do that and no one should.  Let's let the Democratic voters decide.  There are still 10 contests left and the issue with Florida and Michigan to be resolved.  

A second interesting tidbit comes to us from Gallup and it is the number of Democrats who wouldn't vote for the other candidate should theirs not get the nomination.  Remember when Obama claimed he would get Clinton supporters, but she couldn't get his.  Not so says the voters.  An astounding 28% of Clinton supporters say they would not support Obama.  Even more disturbing, they say that instead of just staying home, which is damaging enough, they would vote for McCain.  To compare, just 19% (still a lot, I know) would not support Clinton.

The point of this post: let's throw conventional wisdom out the window.  The media and Obama supporters want to push Clinton out the race and silence the voters in the upcoming states as well as Florida and Michigan.  They want the clouds to open up, angels to sing, and a voice from above to anoint Obama the nominee.  The voters think differently, however.  So let me ask everyone out there: who should decide our next President----the voters, or Obama supporters and the media?  I would hope the answer is clear.  If not, we have a bigger problem then just a prolonged nominating campaign; we have the destruction of democracy itself.  

Just (Embellished) Words

Many want to point blame at Sen. Clinton for misspeaking.  Well, let's be fair and balanced.  I haven't called out Sen. Obama for his misstatements.  Why?  Because they're just that...misstatements.  But since the Obama campaign and its supporters want to personally attack Sen. Clinton for misspeaking, I think it's only fair game to recognize Sen. Obama's own misstatements. The following is a press release from the Clinton campaign addressing these misstatements:

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. "Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was 'the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.' 'I just did that last year,' he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate." [New York Times, 2/2/08]

Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. "Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: 'I meant the whole civil rights movement.'" [New York Times, 3/5/07]

LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. "As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir 'Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.' Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book." [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "…Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos." [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]

Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.'"White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House' after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions… After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge -- at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago Sun-Times,12/16/07]

FactCheck.org: 'Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.' "Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen – who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama's plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans," neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it's only Clinton's and Edwards' plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama's would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to.” [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]

Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. "As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care…And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage." The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that "The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. […] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a 'cloud' over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year." [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]

ABC News: 'Obama…seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform."ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of "bundlers," those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is "because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that." Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a 'law' that the Illinois Democrat has 'pushed through' but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information." [ABC News, 7/23/07]

Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. "When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from 'Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser’ to ‘Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser' to 'Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll' to 'Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.' Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it." [politico.com, 5/9/07]

Journalists and Their Traps: The Charges and the Facts

Journalists have already bated the trap for the voters during this primary season.  It is especially true concerning the Democratic candidates.  There are some signs that voters are willing to play the game.  The charges go something like this:

 

THE CHARGE:  The prolonged Democratic race is bringing out negatives that will hurt the Democratic party during the general election in November.  

THE FACT:  This campaign is no more negative than any past Democratic campaign and in fact has had many civil debates and moments by both candidates.

 

THE CHARGE:  Clinton should drop out for the sake of party unity.   

THE FACT:  Neither candidate should drop out because neither has won the popular vote nor the necessary 2024 delegates to be the nominee.

 

THE CHARGE:  Clinton is playing the race card.  

THE FACT:  It is the news journalists who are playing the race card with their one sided reporting, tilted towards Obama.  

 

THE CHARGE:  Obama is getting the independent vote and the Republican crossover vote and therefore will be a stronger candidate than Clinton in the general election.  

THE FACT:  Those voters will vote Republican in the general election if Obama is the Democratic nominee, especially now after the Wright story.  Many Republicans also want the weakest Democrat to face in November.

 

THE CHARGE:  Clinton has too many negatives.      

THE FACT:  Clinton has won more large states with more diverse populations than Obama.    The "negative" seed journalists try to plant won't wash.

 

THE CHARGE:  Clinton voted to go to war with Iraq.  

THE FACT:  The vote and resolution passed by Congress did not tell Bush that he had to go to war with Iraq.  The resolution gave the president authority to use that option if war was necessary, but everyone knows that war was not necessary and the president hyped the intelligence.  It was Bush's decision to go to war and we also know that he made that decision before the vote by Congress was actually taken.  Bush was going to war regardless, that is why he bypassed the U.N. after telling Congress and the people that he would go through it.

 

THE CHARGE:  Obama would not have voted for the resolution.  

THE FACT:  Obama was not in Congress at the time, so no one knows how he would have voted, including (according to what he said in '04) Obama himself.  We do know, however, that since he has been in Congress, he has voted to continue the war, which is an indication on how he would have voted had he been a Senator at the time. 

 

THE CHARGE:  Journalists are fair and balanced in their reporting on the campaign.  

THE FACT:  John McCain is getting a free ride with his negative comments and his ignorance, flip flops, and false statements concerning the war in Iraq and Al Qaeda being trained in Iran.  Ditto on his voting record in Congress.  A sure sign of their support.  Obama is also getting the majority of positive coverage.  Journalists excuse him for anything negative his campaign says while holding Clinton to a different standard. 

 

THE CHARGE:  Obama can bring unity to the Democratic party; Clinton can not.  

THE FACT:  Two words: "Reagan-Democrats".  They're the crucial swing voters in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc.  Clinton has won them overwhelmingly; Obama hasn't.  

 

Journalists are trying any trick they can think of to influence the vote of the people for the candidate they themselves support.  They did it during the run up to war with Iraq over WMD that did not exist by not seeking the truth from Bush and by promoting the war on their own.  They are really a sad bunch.  They have no shame or respect for their own profession and certainly do not care about our Democratic process with its checks and balances.  They are part of the problem to our political system---a far cry from what our founding fathers had envisioned.  Hopefully enough people can think for themselves; that would make all the difference.  

"How Dare She!"---Give Me a Break

"How dare Hillary Clinton bring up Rev. Wright!"  "How dare Hillary Clinton compare him to Don Imus!"  "How dare Hillary Clinton say that she wouldn't have Wright as her pastor!"  "How dare Hillary Clinton say that she would leave the church had she been a part of it!"  

Those are the kinds of statements I'm hearing all around the blogosphere and in the main-stream media.  Give me a break! Hillary was asked a question and she answered it honestly.  What would you people want her to do?  Lie?  Nod in agreement with Obama's positions?  I think not.

Kudos to Sen. Clinton for finally saying what millions of Americans feel concerning the Obama-Wright issue.  Many don't realize just how many relate to what she said.  The "latte-liberals" and the inside D.C. crowd just can't fathom how anyone can disagree with Obama and his pastor. Well I have news for them: "main street" cares; the Reagan-Democrats care; and they agree with what Hillary Clinton said today. It still amazes me how outraged and amazed so many are with Hillary's statements. What do we want from our candidates?  To shut up and never express their feelings?  I, for one, want to hear their opinions. And, I'd be willing to bet, millions of Democrats agree with her opinion.  

Republican Presidents = Disaster for Taxpayers

Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush lacked/lack a real economic and fiscal policy and brought/bring financial disaster to our country and its people.  Under Reagan, the Savings and Loan Industry collapsed and the federal government had to bail them out to the tune of $100 billion, which was, of course, paid for by the taxpayers.

 

Now under George W. Bush, the mortgage and financial industry has collapsed.  The housing market has been devastated and foreclosure is at an all time high.  And now one of the largest firms on Wall Street, Bear Stearns, has been taken over by J.P. Morgan that was engineered by the federal government with a $30 billion loan.  The concern, we are told, was a possible meltdown in the financial market and a run on Bear Stearns trading commitments. 

 

Make no mistake about these two huge problems under Reagan and Bush.  They are the direct result of the conservative ideology that corporate America will police itself and that no oversight is needed.  It's also the result of corporate America being in bed with conservative Republicans.  They know if a problem arises, these so called conservatives will bail them out with taxpayers' money.

 

All of this and a economy that is going south, declining jobs, and the price of oil continuing to rise at record levels.  The stock market is going south and guess who has the money to buy up stocks when they go down. Yea, you are right, the people who control wealth.

 

In my three part series, The U.S. Economy: Which Party Performs Best, it was pointed out how Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 had/have no economic policy and how their reckless deficit spending has put our country at risk. These three Presidents have put the country and its people in so much debt, we may not be able to recover.  The U.S. is now in a financial meltdown.  Greed and Conservatism go hand and hand.

 

George W. Bush spoke before the New York Economic Club last week concerning the state of the economy.  He showed his ignorance concerning the economy and what is taking place in America today.  This nation and its people must elect a Democratic President in November.  If our fiscal house is not put in order soon, we may witness something more than a depression.  That will not be pretty. 

 

Don't expect any conservative Republican to reverse the policies of these three presidents.  Has anyone heard any Republican talk about the massive debt? They are silent.  The only candidate I have heard talk about going back to fiscal responsibility is Senator Clinton.  Journalists are so full of hype and caught up in the primaries, they fail to talk about the real issues that face and affect the taxpayers.  Lou Dobbs is supposed to be an economic genius, but when is the last time any one heard him talk about deficit spending and debt created by the last three republican presidents?  So much for the people who are supposed to be looking out for America. The American people need to start looking out for themselves by electing leaders who know how to solve this mess.  

Click here for Part I of The U.S. Economy: Which Parties Performs Best

Click here for Part II of The U.S. Economy: Which Parties Performs Best

Click here for Part III of The U.S. Economy: Which Parties Performs Best

John McCain: An Uninformed United States Senator

Senator John McCain, in his recent visits to Iraq and the Middle East in order to show that he is Presidential, continues to show how uninformed he really is.  Like Bush, he is in denial about why we went to war in Iraq and what is really taking place there.  He speaks of victory, but still can not define it for our men and women in uniform or the American people who have sacrificed so much.  He says the surge is working, but it has yet to accomplish the mission of the surge over a year later. 

 

Now McCain has said several times that Iran is training Al Qaeda and sending them back across the border into Iraq.  He, with the help of Joe Lieberman, had to correct his statement as being factually wrong.  Is it beyond any Republican to tell the truth concerning this war in Iraq?  And McCain wants to be the next Commander in Chief? The so called straight talker can not be trusted any more that George Bush.  He has the same problem when he talks about Iran, Syria, and other countries sending troops into Iraq.  Those countries, and even our allies, laugh at that statement because the United States sent 180,000 troops into Iraq and have been occupying Iraq for 5 years now.  Bush has put our country in the position of not being able to speak from the position of moral authority when he talks about the actions of others.  And of course McCain follows that line.

 

George Bush, the Republicans in Congress who have rubber stamped his reckless action, and Sen. McCain believe in a democracy that is foreign to our founding fathers' actions and commitments.  Democracy to Bush is a one way street of his neoconservative ideology.  He is right and every one else is wrong.  Sadly, Senator McCain's neocon ideology follows that same path.  That does not bode well for the country's future should he become President.  America can't handle four more years of Bush.  

The State of the '08 Democratic Race

Does Obama really have the Democratic nomination locked up like many pundits and journalists are saying?  Is Clinton really too far behind in delegates and the popular vote to catch up as many pundits and journalists are saying?  

 

There are so many people trying to influence the outcome of this race that it is hard to understand where they are coming from.  They are also the same people who say let the people decide, a real whopper of contradiction.

 

The only sure thing as of this writing is that Obama is leading in delegates and the popular vote.  Can Clinton catch Obama and pass him in the delegate and popular vote count?  Of course she can.  It is an uphill battle, but she is still in the game.

 

There has been much talk of what role the Super Delegates should play.  The Obama supporters say they should go with the candidate with the most delegates.  However, that is not the role of the Super Delegates.  If it were, it would be in the DNC rules and they would not be called "Super" Delegates.  They are called Super Delegates because they are free to take into consideration many other factors that go along with selecting the best person to represent the Democratic party, and ultimately be President.  This is nothing new, even to those who disagree.  The candidate, pundits, and journalists knew the rules before this contest even started.  

 

Journalists who support Obama, and most of them do, fail to inform the people of the real role of the Super Delegates.  Rather, they just push the idea that they should act like regular delegates.  What the public needs is a pro-Clinton journalist to push the idea that maybe a regular delegate should act like a Super Delegate.  Get the idea, "fair and balanced."

 

Then we have those pundits and journalists who want to rush to judgement and openly urge Clinton to withdraw.  They camouflage that with the statement, "for the good of the party".  The Democrats are having the best race in my life time and are showing the people what democracy is all about, and that is what's "good for the party", even if it goes to the convention.

 

The people of Florida and Michigan who went to the poles and cast their votes in the Democratic primary should have their voices heard.  It is obvious that would help Clinton, but the people did vote that way.  They should not have to pay for the mistakes of their state and the DNC.  That is the only legitimate answer.  The voters in both states casts their votes for the candidates on the ballot and/or on the uncommitted slate.  That is the way they should be divided.  The voters could have cast their votes for all uncommitted if they wanted to, but a majority choose Clinton.  That was the voter's business and choice and it should be honored.  The Obama campaign does not even want the Florida-Michigan vote to count in the popular vote.  Are these people really Democrats?  What will they dream up next?  Just treat the people's votes as if it never happened?  What kind of democracy is that?

 

In my judgement, what I see happening tells me this race is far from over.  We are getting down to the final primaries and the American people will now have to make up their minds on who can best lead this nation to deal with the many serious challenges Bush will leave behind.  I don't expect journalists to get serious because they have too many axes to grind.  I do, however, expect the voting public to take a good, hard look at the remaining primaries.  The Democratic process may have a surprise ending.   

Doctrines of Obama's Church

The following are excerpts from an article written by Margaret Talev for McClatchy Newspapers:

Jesus is black. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. The white church in America is the Antichrist because it supported slavery and segregation.

Those are some of the more provocative doctrines that animate the theology at the core of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Barack Obama's church....

But in repudiating and putting in context Wright's inflammatory lines about whites and U.S. foreign policy, the Democratic presidential front-runner didn't address other potentially controversial facts about his church and its ties.

Wright has said that a basis for Trinity's philosophies is the work of James Cone, who founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone's seminal 1969 book, "Black Theology & Black Power."

Cone wrote that the United States was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation....

In an interview, Cone said that when he was asked which church most embodied his message, "I would point to that church (Trinity) first." Cone also said he thought that Wright's successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, would continue the tradition.

Obama, 46, who's biracial, joined Trinity in his late twenties when he worked as a community organizer. He says he'll continue to worship there...

It isn't clear where Obama's beliefs and the church's diverge. Through aides, Obama declined requests for an interview or to respond to written questions about his thoughts on Jesus, Cone or liberation theology... 

(For the full article, click here. )

Did Obama attend the church knowing some of these radical doctrines that the church is founded on?  Thats a question that needs to be answered.  

McCain's Secret Weapon...

Obama has Obama Girl.  Hillary has "Hot 4 Hill" Girl.  John McCain has...the McCain Girls.  Take a look if you need a quick laugh:

"A Typical White Person"

Those were the words that Sen. Barack Obama used to describe his white grandmother.  Many in the media seem to be giving Barack Obama a free pass on this one, as are many in the liberal blogosphere.  Yet, in the interest of fairness, let's replace the word "white" with the word "black" and let's say that it was Hillary Clinton who said it.  

We all know what would happen.  There would be outrage.  She would be called a racist.  She would be thrown under the bus and criticized for days and days.  It's not that I'm necessarily saying that Barack Obama hates whites, I don't think he does, but many are not covering this the same way they would if the situation was as I described above.  I'm getting sick and tired of the double standard out there, where Obama gets a pass on controversial statements and Clinton gets bashed and buried.  People are ultra-sensitive when African Americans or Latinos are stereotyped (which is completely understandable), but when whites are stereotyped, the one making the comments gets a free pass.  It's just not right.  We need to start covering the candidates all equally.    

This Can't Help...

Asked why Sen. Barack Obama was qualified for the job of the Presidency, John Kerry told a Massachusetts newspaper that Obama is "uniquely qualified" because "he's a black man".  I don't want to bash Sen. Kerry, whom I have much respect for, but I do think it's outrageous to claim that race, gender, religion, etc., makes one individual "uniquely qualified" over the other to be President and deal with the many issues that face our great country.  Here's the full video:

Obama's Evolving Position on the Iraq War

Just yesterday in North Carolina, Sen. Barack Obama told a large crowd that he has always been opposed to the war since it began.  The facts and quotes, however, tell a different story.  Watch:

Calling Out Daily Kos

I just made a now rare visit over to the Daily Kos website only to find the radicalization of the site bordering on un-American.  Whether you agree or disagree with the author of this user's post (named Red Wolverine), he was instantly censored and troll rated for posting a YouTube video that was apparently in opposition to Sen. Barack Obama.

Again, I'm not saying whether or not I agree with the content of the video since I didn't get a chance to see it due to the Obama-biased moderators deleting it.  What I am saying is that it is completely wrong for someone to be censored and their words and thoughts edited just because their opinions might be unpopular.  

This has become an disturbing issue that is growing on some blogs which heavily support Obama.  Anyone who disagrees with them, or posts something controversial, is censored, verbally attacked, and told never to come back to the site again. Many people with whom I do not agree post comments here at POLITIDOSE, however, I don't go around and delete their remarks simply because I disagree with them.  This is America.  Regardless of which candidate we support, we must be willing to have a serious, honest discussion about the candidates and what is at stake in this election.  This can not happen, however, if we shut everyone up who we disagree with.  

For those reasons, I am calling on Daily Kos and like websites to respect others' views and allow them to be respectfully discussed.  Those were the ideals that America was founded on and they must be allowed to continue.

For those wishing to see the censoring and bashing of the post to which I refer, click the following link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/19/205116/282/734/480325.

Obama's Big Speech: My Take

Sen. Barack Obama, without a doubt, gave a great speech today.  The substance can be debated, but the delivery and tone were spot on and brilliant.  The overall message was correct and is one which I agree with. Racism (along with sexism and homophobia) is an underlying current in American society today and that needs to change.  Prejudices, from both sides of the isle, white and black, need to end.  We need to judge people for who they are, looking not at the color of their skin but at the character demonstrated in their actions.  

With that being said, however, some parts of the speech I still have some problems with.  For starters, Barack Obama refused to distance himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright again today.  He, once again, compared him to a family member.  Again I'l say it: you don't choose your family, you're more or less stuck with them, but you do choose your pastor.  You do choose what church you attend.  Obama chose Wright and stuck by him for 20 plus years.  

Why is that a problem?  Jeremiah Wright is a man who preaches hate and bigotry.  He claims that the U.S. government introduced AIDS to kill off African Americans.  He claims that the U.S. deserved the tragedy that was 9/11.  He claims that god should damn, not bless, this great country.  

Obama can say he wasn't there to hear Rev. Wright make those remarks live.  He can say that he rejects them now that it is the politically necessary thing to do.  But even today, while giving that great speech, Obama didn't explain why he stuck by Wright for 20 years.  Surely he had heard of those remarks.  Surely Obama has been present for some of Wright's many outlandish and incendiary statements.  Why didn't he reject the comments then?  Why didn't he stop attending the church then?  Why wait until now, when the press brings up the story?   It's a little known fact, but Oprah Winfrey used to attend Trinity United Church.  She stopped attending, however, many years ago when apparently Wright began preaching his vulgar, hate-filled sermons.  If Oprah could recognize when something just wasn't okay, she got up and left and never came back. Why didn't Obama do the same?  I'm going to stay on top of Obama until he answers that question because the American people deserve an answer.

Another thing Obama said that I have a problem with is his game of blame the media for taking Wright's remarks out of context.  Exactly how much context do you need when someone says "god damn America"?  Or AIDS being created by our government to kill African Americans?  For Obama to blame the media is simply outrageous.  He has gotten the smoothest ride by the media of anyone who every ran for President.  Trust me, I know the media can be unfair at times.  This just wasn't one of those times and Obama is wrong for trying to make it one.  

Abrams and Gregory's New Shows: A Quick Review

Today was the debut of David Gregory's new show on MSNBC, Race for the White House.  In essence, the show features 6 segments discussed over by a 4 member panel.  Tonight's panel was great, with Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, Eugene Robinson, and Chuck Todd offering their opinions and views. Okay, maybe Robinson and Todd are no good, but I hope Maddow and Scarborough remain regulars, as both got into several heated arguments with each other that were both highly substantive and highly entertaining.  

The biggest surprise for me, however, was how well David Gregory fit into his new role as host.  Think of him as a more lively, more personable Tim Russert, or a less lively, less opinionated Dan Abrams.  As long as the panelists stay as good and the segments stay as lively as they were today, Race for the White House could prove to be a huge success for MSNBC. 

Verdict with Dan Abrams also debuted tonight.  Nothing much to note here, as Verdict pretty much follows the same format as Abram's old self titled show, but again I must say that I love the "On Their Trail" segment. Abrams, although he blatantly injects his opinion into topics, is never tilted towards one candidate, or for that matter, one ideology, over the other. On one issue he might agree with Obama; the next McCain; the next Clinton.  It's just really refreshing to get commentary without a clear bias behind them.  

With that being said, I encourage all of you to check out MSNBC's new primetime lineup.  Gregory's show looks very promising, Matthew's is getting better, and Abrams continues to "tell it as he sees it".  (The only downside is the none-stop bias of Keith Olbermann, formerly the best MSNBC host.)