Veepstakes: My Prediction Time

Joseph made his predictions just a few nights ago and now I guess it's my turn: 

I believe Senator McCain will choose former Governor Mitt Romney because of his experience with managing and the economy, something Senator McCain lacks in both the reality and the public mind.

 

I believe Senator Obama will choose Senator Jack Reed.  Senator Reed has military and foreign policy experience which Senator Obama lacks.  

 

My own choice for McCain would be Senator Chuck Hagel or Senator Richard Lugar.  Both have common sense and political and foreign policy experience.  They would bring some sanity to McCain's know-it-all attitude.

 

My own choice for Obama would be General Wesley Clark, Senator Jim Webb, or Senator Hillary Clinton.  I once wanted to see Senator Joe Biden as VP, but now feel that he would be more valuable as Secretary of State in an Obama administration.  Clark and Webb have military experience and although Clinton does not, she has the overall experience to make a difference.

 

If I had to pick a potential surprise, a wildcard if you will, I would go with Senator Lindsay Graham for McCain and Governor Ed Rendell or former Senator Sam Nunn for Obama.

 

Whoever Obama and McCain choose, however, lets just hope the next President does not choose another Dick Cheney type.  Only time will tell.

Innovation: Lost in America

Webster's New World Dictionary defines innovation as such:  1) The act or process of innovating;  2) Something newly introduced, new method, custom device, etc.;  3) Change in the way of doing things.

 

Our fore fathers were innovative in the contents of our constitution.  Democracy is a way of life that allows us to be innovative.  American business and industry has been innovative in the past in what they produce and the American people have been innovative in adjusting to conditions thrust upon them.  Sadly, only the former and the latter are working for America and its people at the present time.

 

Corporate America is in the dark age of innovation.  We have a crisis with the use of fossil fuels for many years but noone in corporate America is willing to take the lead and be innovative.  Auto manufacturing have to be told by the government to build better vehicles with better gas mileage.  The oil and gas industry continues to push for more drilling and in pristine places instead of working to produce alternate fuels.  The list can go on and on with all the problems we have today and I know the people understand where I am coming from.

 

The problem is two fold:  Corporate and political greed.  One can not exist without the other.  Why does corporate America have to innovate when they can get corporate welfare and tax breaks from the government for any little thing?  Why do CEO's have to think about innovation when they take home millions even when their companies do poorly?  And why should elected officials perform when they can get elected and reelected because of all the money they receive from lobbyist in the form of campaign contributions?  Make no mistake, our country can handle the problems that are with us today with the right leadership from our elected officials and corporate America.  Innovation can not be bought.  It is an attitude of progress for wanting and creating some thing new and useful to move humankind forward.

 

In order for people to understand how greed has retarded innovation in America I will pass on the following information published in the book, " A Time To Fight" by Senator Jim Webb.  It tells the sad story of what is happening in America.

 

In 1968 The average Corporate CEO made 20 times the salary of his average worker.  Today that multiple is over 400 times his average worker.

 

Japanese CEO's make 10 times the salary of the average worker.

 

German and S. Korean CEO's make 11 times the salary of the average worker.

 

French CEO's make 16 times the salary of the average worker.

 

Italian CEO's make 19 times the salary of the average worker;  Canadian CEO's make 21 times the salary of the average worker;  British CEO's make 25 times the salary of the average worker.

 

All of these foreign CEO's direct companies that compete with the United States.

 

The most productive Countries, Germany, Japan and S. Korea have  the least amount of income disparity between their CEO's and their workers.

 

Half of the stocks in America are owned by 1% of the people.

 

This great disparity between American executives and their workers is a disgrace and has grown at a time when workers are upon hard times.  The American worker should share more in the wealth they helped create but instead, wealth is being transferred to their CEO's.  And get this, corporate America has been cutting back on their workers, retirement, pensions, health insurance and benefits at alarming rates.  Innovation?  You won't find it in corporate America.  Greed, yea you got that right.

 

Former V.P. Al Gore has started a campaign to have the next President and Congress act to have our country produce electric power from renewable fuels and to discontinue using fossil fuels for that purpose and do so in the next 10 years and of course corporate American and those who want to continue the status quo say the goal can not be reached in 10 years.  These are the same voices who said America could not reach President Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the moon.

 

Innovative corporate America --- it has not existed for many years.  Their ideology now is corporate welfare, greed, and tax breaks to add to their profits and transfer of wealth.  If the average worker were allowed to share in the wealth they help create our economy would be strong and sustainable.  The next President  and Congress needs to address the problem.

The General Election --- People No Longer Excited

All of a sudden the excitement has vanished from the General Election since the two major party candidates have won their party's nomination.  Senator McCain, a veteran with lots of experience in Congress but really not any great accomplishments to show for his service is all over the issues and has very little conviction about the state of the union.  Senator Obama, a person with little experience in Congress, also has little to show for his few years as a U.S. Senator.

 

Both of these candidates have offered little so far to show that they grasp the problems facing the country and people.  They seem to have a Bush attitude about a lack of action concerning those problems.  How did the people come to choose these two men to meet the challenges that lay ahead?  If this is the best we can do as a people the status quo will not change.

 

Every American and every candidate for President should read the book, "A Time To Fight" by Senator Jim Webb.  He goes into detail concerning the state of the union and how elected officials are not meeting their obligations and responsibilities of facing and acting on our problems.  The middle class, the heart of any Democracy is taking a hit because of Corporate and Political greed.  This Corporate greed is running our government and the country.  They control almost every facet of American life including the News Media which feeds America their ideology. 

 

With the General Election only 4 months away the people still do not know how McCain or Obama will reverse the transfer of wealth that flows to the very wealthiest people that control our economy and every thing we do.  Both candidates can't even bring themselves to embrace our country's long history of privacy provided in our constitution.  They are on record as saying they will vote for the House passed version of a so called security bill (FISA) that will grant telecoms immunity for past cooperation with Bush's warrantless wiretapping of the people's phone messages, emails and other private communications.  It would also give Bush and his cohorts immunity, all to be retroactive.

 

Elected officials, especially Presidents need to get out of bed with Corporate America and take our country back for the people.  If McCain and Obama are the brightest at this time in our country's need, we are in serious trouble.  In the next few months people who supported McCain and Obama in the primaries will be backing off those two candidates and their reasons will go something like this.  This is not the same person I supported during the primaries; or He changed his position on this or that, and so on.

 

Both had records to run on and both offered little in the way of change and how they would deal with the problems the country faces.  And now during the General Election they are running true to form.  The majority of people who cast their votes during the primaries bought their sales pitch and the country will have to live with the results. 

 

True American leadership, one that recognizes America is only strong politically, economically and militarily when the people's need are met, is truly lacking from these two candidates.  Worse of all, they are silent as to how they will address the great disparity between the wealthy and every one else.  There is no democracy without a middle class.

My Choices for Vice-President if Hillary is the Nominee

I know that I might be thinking just a little to far ahead, but the question still plagues me: If Sen. Clinton is the nominee, who will she choose to run as her Vice President. Here are a few of my thoughts:

My number one choice would be Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell. Rendell first caught the nation's eye when he was elected mayor of Philadelphia in the early 90s. His record as mayor rivals that of any mayor I've ever seen: he cut a $250 million deficit; balanced Philadelphia's budget and oversaw five consecutive years of budget surpluses; he reduced business and wage taxes for four consecutive years; he implemented new revenue-generating initiatives, and dramatically improved services to Philadelphia neighborhoods. The New York Times called Rendell's record as mayor "the most stunning turnaround in recent urban history." Rendell was in fact nicknamed "America's mayor" until Rudy stole (and I emphasize stole) that title. Rendell's record as governor is just as impressive. I could see Rendell adding a lot to a Hillary ticket. For one thing, he is the kind of husky, all-American type guy that could balance out Hillary's huge appeal to women. In short, Rendell is "a man's man". He would also definitely make sure that Pennsylvania, a very important swing-state, would go to the Democrats. The only thing about Rendell is that he said that he is "not really" interested in being a VP. Still, "not really" is far from a rule-out in politics, so I'll keep up my hope that Hillary picks Rendell as VP and hope that he accepts.

My second choice for a potential running mate for Hillary would be Virginia Senator Jim Webb. Just like Rendell, Webb is one of those "man's man". Again, I think he could bring in white male voters that Hillary, by herself, could not. Webb is also a highly decorated Vietnam War veteran and I can't help but think having some military experience on the Democrat ticket would be a huge plus. Webb also brings with him a tough stance on foreign policy that would help Hillary appear strong, especially knowing that the Republican nominee will be using their (false) fear tactics as much as possible. And finally, possibly most importantly, Webb would almost guarantee that Virginia would go to the Democrats. It is also to be noted that Webb and Clinton seem to have some type of friendship within the Senate; most recently Sen. Clinton co-sponsored Webb's bill that states that Bush has no authority to go to war with Iran.

My third choice would be Indiana Senator and former Governor, Evan Bayh. He would be a huge asset to Clinton in the midwest, where Republicans mostly dominate. He could potentially put Indiana, and its 11 electoral votes, into play for the Democrats as well as a few other moderate mid-Western states. A very important thing he would also bring to the ticket is executive experience. It appears that the two leading Republicans, Giuliani and Romney, will be looking to make an issue out of Clinton's supposed lack of executive experience. Although I think that Rudy and Romney are completely off in their argument, as Hillary was actually in the White House for 8 years (how much more experience than that do you need?), it would not hurt to be able to point to Bayh's executive experience.

So those are my top three choices for potential VPs if Hillary is nominated. What are your thoughts?---is there anyone I didn't mention that you think would add a lot to the ticket?

The Truth about Sen. Clinton and Her Iran Vote

Barack Obama and John Edwards have jumped on Hillary Clinton for voting for the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution. That resolution declares the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. What is important to understand is the fact that no where in this resolution was there talk of military action. This was a purely diplomatic bill that put economic sanctions on Iran in an attempt to slow their development of nuclear weapons and the development of weapons that are used against our troops in Iraq. As Sen. Durbin, a prominent Democrat, said:

"Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the president the authority to use military force against Iran...(The resolution was) To say we need to pressure the Iranians to change their course in the Middle East and I want to do it by nonmilitary means, that's what my vote was all about.''

And now all of sudden we have Barack Obama attacking Hillary for "giving the President the authority for war". I have no problem with Sen. Obama pointing out differences between him and Clinton, but there is no need to present the public with misleading information. If Obama felt so passionately that the resolution was wrong, he should have voted against it. Insead of being in the Senate to vote, however, Obama was "too busy" campaigning. Senators were informed well before that day when the vote on the resolution would take place. Obama has no excuse for not being there. It is a fact that Obama, although he has been in the Senate just a little over 3 years (far less than any other candidate), has missed far more time from the Senate than any other Presidential candidate. The candidate who has missed the least is indeed Sen. Clinton. While I completely understand the importance of campaigning, it is not a valid argument to say that campaigning is more important than voting on issues that are deeply important for the American people. If anyone has shown leadership by standing up for the American people, it has been Sen. Clinton; certainly not Obama.

Another thing that is important to note is that although Obama has been outspoken on not giving Bush the authority to go to war, he did not bother to sign a letter to the President that 30 other Democrats signed. This letter clearly states that the President does not have authority to go to war. So, if Obama is against going to war, why didn't he sign the letter? Also, why didn't he co-sponsor Jim Webb's bill that would require Congressional approval for war with another country? In case you're wondering who did co-sponsor it----it was Hillary Clinton.

It also might help if Obama and Edwards went and looked at Clinton's past speeches on the Senate floor. Back in February, Sen. Clinton was the 1st Senator to say that the Bush administration had no authority to go to war with Iran. You read right guys, she was the first Senator. So all this talk is baseless about it being Sen. Clinton who is "saber-rattling" war. Sen. Clinton, perhaps more than anyone, has been an outspoken advocate for not going to war with Iran. Sen. Clinton does, however, realize that it is important to put sanctions on Iran as part of diplomacy. It was sanctions that gave diplomacy the backbone to work with North Korea; Sen. Clinton is right in wanting to try to get sanctions to work with Iran as well.

My point is this: enough is enough. Obama and Edwards are trying to distort that facts and, may I suggest, trying to make up for their own lack of leadership on this very important issue. Hillary Clinton is ahead in the polls; she will likely be the nominee. And because of that, Obama and Edwards feel a need to go on the attack. I know and respect the fact that Obama and Edwards want to be President and need to take Clinton down to do so, but what I do not respect is lying to the American public on such a critical matter as Iran.