Confirmation Of The News Media Failure

In the past I have written several post concerning the Iraq war including a two part series titled, "The Rosetta Stone To The Iraq War."  My past post were about how Mr. Bush took our country to war in Iraq over WMD that did not exist and how he purposely mislead the American people.  I have not written any post lately concerning Iraq because I feel the people have finally understood just how reckless the Bush Presidency has been.

 

There is another part of the Iraq war that I touched upon concerning how the news media, especially T.V. journalists promoted the war on their own without seeking the truth or facts and aided and abetted the Bush administration in promoting the war.  Now we have some new revelations in a soon to be released book written by Scott McClellan, the Presidents former Press Secretary.  I will not rehash what he said about the President and Iraq because I covered that before but I do want to cover what he said about the news media because the same thing is going on today concerning the Democratic Primaries for that party's nomination.

 

Mr. McClellan called the news media "complicit enablers in the White House's carefully orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public approval in the march to the Iraq war."  That my friends is the exact thing they are doing with the promotion and crowing of Barack Obama as the nominee before the process is complete and clamoring for Senator Clinton to drop out of the race.  They have chosen sides instead of covering and reporting on the process for the nomination and how there are many more issues the DNC will have to solve before a nominee can be officially chosen. 

 

Chris Matthews on Hardball ran a caption across the T.V. screen asking Is Clinton hurting the Democrats by staying in the race?  He already knew the answer because the people have already stated they wanted her to stay in the race till the process was complete.  But there he was trying to plant the seed that she is hurting her party.  He really shows his ass and how insecure and dishonest he really is.  When the nominee's for the general election is finally known you can be sure that the news media will choose sides and then go after the other guy or gal.  Journalists have already planted the seed that if Obama is the nominee and looses in the general election it will be Senator Clinton's fault.  They try to cover for Obama every way they can think of.  They have no character.  That says it all.

 

By the way, I wrote several letters to Journalists long before the Iraq war started and told them what I thought about not having the character to look for the facts concerning Iraq instead of promoting Bush's talking points.

The Huffington Post: Trying To Mimic Cable Television

Arianna Huffington wrote for her post on May 22 that the Super delegates should step in and end the democratic primary now.  The beat goes on by journalists to end the Primary and declare Obama the nominee before the process is completed.  Writers for the Huff Post have been bias in their reporting against Clinton for a long time and follows the script of people in the news media trying to manipulate our elections.  They have sold their soul like they did during the run up to the war in Iraq.  The country has got to the  point where the news media has to be feared more that the politicians. 

 

The election coverage is so out of touch with reality that the system gets more corrupt year after year and the news media is right at the center.  The big three, Fox News, CNN and MSNBC are leading the corrupt parade with their corrupt reporting.

 

It is really cowardly when journalists try to manufacture news and stories.  It shows their lack of character and ability to talk to the public and offer a real debate on the issues facing the country.  The best thing that could happen for the country and the democratic process is for Senator Clinton to somehow emerge as the democratic nominee.  That would really give the news media a fact check.

How To Choose A Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee

Above all, the Vice Presidential nominee should be a person with leadership qualities of independent thought and military experience.  Independent thought is important because the President will need to hear unvarnished comments from his V.P. on critical issues, especially those that are not shared by the President and his advisers.  Rubber stamping a President's position on the issues does not speak well for the common good of the people or the nation.  The V.P. has to back the President after he makes a decision, but he has to be that counter balance.

 

The military experience does not have to be in uniform, although that would be preferred.  The experience could come from serving on the Armed Forces Service Committee, Foreign Policy Experience and other Military Experience that are active inside and outside of government.  That is important because if the V.P. has that experience and has independent thought he will be able to balance the thoughts given to the President by our military leaders and others.  We have a V.P. Dick Cheney who did the opposite in the run up to war with Iraq.  He manipulated the intelligence and the military facts and threat that Iraq posed for the United States. 

 

Senator Clinton would be more qualified to be President or Vice President than Senator Obama.  But neither will be the V.P. nominee in my opinion.  The Democratic Vice President Nominee will have to balance out Senator McCain's military experience because enough voters will view McCain's military experience as a problem for Democrats.  The decision to go to war in Iraq was George Bush's decision alone.  No one else made that decision but he, and he made that decision before congress ever voted for the resolution as Senator Chuck Hagel pointed out some time ago.  Both Democrats and Republicans have been responsible for funding the war since it started.  The Democratic party did try to restrict funds for the war after they took control of Congress but failed to have enough votes to do so.

 

The public really does not give much thought to the V.P. because it has not been often that a V.P. had to take control of the Presidency but we have been reminded how V.P. Cheney has abused his office and wielded power that no other V.P. in memory has had. There is no balance in the administration of Bush-Cheney.  So the people should watch closely the choice of the Democratic nominee for his running mate.  It will way something about the character of the Democratic Presidential nominee and where he will take the country.  Experience does matter.

The Morning Dose---5/18

Today's Morning Dose comes from a post written by Jerome Armstrong at MyDD concerning a conference call with the Clinton campaign and his take on the 2008 election. 

________________________________________________________

I listened in on a CC with Hillary Clinton, and took a few notes. She's going to continue her campaign, undoubtedly, because she thinks she can win, or as she said: "I believe I will win; I believe my opponent could win."

The one thing that I was going to ask of Clinton, but didn't get my question in, was to ask that she push for reform of the primary process. I am fine with states choosing caucuses, but not if they are also having primaries. And if they do have caucuses, they should have less delegates, so the delegate to vote ratio is more closer.

Here was her message, and my extrapolation, in the call:

1) She's leading in the popular vote. Period. This isn't a procedural argument, but a moral one. Yes, they voted in FL and MI, that was their only chance at voted. It may not be what is used for distributing delegates, but no one can deny that there was a vote taken, those people count...

2) Count the delegates of MI & FL. This is a procedural argument. Whatever the committee decides, they decide. They better damn well not punt. I think it does signal a turn in the race, on June 1st, after they've been allocated in whatever fashion they determine. We will then have a clear marker on which both candidates agree, and the contest is decided.

3) Clinton makes the argument that she's won the states with the EV's that matter. The heart of this comes back to her claim that 'she will win, and Obama could win'. As she said: "Its the map not the math".

That was the gist of the argument, which I'm sure she's telling the SD's too.

I don't think either of them is a given against McCain, but that Clinton does have a better shot currently at winning the GE than does Obama. You can look at the EV maps here on MyDD, of the lastest poll in each state, to come to the same conclusion.

Paul Maslin has a good post that goes through Obama's chances.

To start, to grant Obama the states of Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin (only two of which Obama is leading in today) gets Obama to 255 EV's, according to Maslin.

For the last 15, Maslin includes Ohio & New Hampshire as toss-ups, which they don't seem to be at the moment. Ohio demographics make an uphill climb for Obama, and NH just marginally as McCain has some strong pull in the state historically; in my view, both are leaning McCain states.

So Obama is left with going out west, taking Colorado (9); Nevada (5); New Mexico (5); for a total of 274 EV's. Yes, Obama 'could' win, but lets not pretend that he's not a battleground candidate-- he's just changed the battleground states, given his weakness in Ohio/WV and in Florida.

I've said it many times, and it bears repeating. I'm not a Clinton fan by choice. I've come to support her through attrition, as the one left who I see could win. If or when she is out, I'll support Obama, and hope that the GOP's use his variety of gun stances and his proposal to raise the capital gains tax to 28 percent, doesn't work against Obama out west, and that somehow, Latino voters, whom didn't support Obama in the primaries, decide they will over McCain, whom is probably the most favorable Republican to Latinos at the moment, in the GE.

The odds of the Democratic nomination greatly favor Obama. Obama's odds in the GE are a toss-up.

A Good Reason Why It's Not Over Yet

Senator Clinton's solid victory over Senator Obama in the West Virginia primary was great news for the democratic party(the voters) and for Clinton's ability to connect with the voters even though she was written off by the news media and pundits.

 

The latest poll that came out prior to the vote showed that 64% of democrats wanted Senator Clinton to stay in the race.  The voters in West Virginia confirmed that.  Senator Clinton's support across the various sections of the american voter has been truly amazing.  Her base is much broader than Obama's and would have the better chance to unite the voters in the general election.  It is telling when the leading candidate looses by such a large margin (41%) this late in the game, especially when he and his campaign has already crowned him the democratic nominee.  And it has happened when Obama had just announced he would begin to campaign in those swing states he lost to Clinton.  Re: Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas.

 

Senator Clinton's decision not give in to her detractors reflect her courage, resolve and willingness to fight for what she believes in.  Her message of talking about the real issues facing America are in contrast with Obama and McCain's campaign.  Obama still has not articulated what changes he is for and McCain touts a second hand version of Bush.

 

Kentucky and Oregon primaries are next week and all primaries will officially end soon after that.  The delegates who will cast the final votes and select the next nominee should think hard about who is best to represent the democratic party in the November elections.  The pundits and news media have chosen Obama long ago and have rejected any idea of fairness or what is best for the country.  This despite the fact that this primary season has brought out the best in the democratic party, the voters.  The democratic primaries have been a model for years to come had it not been for the media and the pundits who clamored to end it all long ago.

 

Regardless who ends up being the democratic nominee, the media and pundits will forever tell the people why it happened.  But the fact of the matter is we have an electorate who believes in both candidates ability and the final voting results will be so close, it will tell the story itself.  And when the democratic nominee is officially know it will be up to that candidate to carry the party to victory in November, there will no longer be a blame game on someone else.  The nominee will have to make his/her case to the american people. 

How To Enjoy The Democratic Primaries and Nominating Process

The News Media, especially T.V. journalists, pundits, political analyst, the Clinton haters and the Obama supporters who are always belly aching(The Cartel) should be enjoying the Democratic primaries and the race between Senators Clinton and Obama instead of being frustrated and talking silly.  They should follow the lead of the voters themselves who are happy to have the opportunity to express themselves with their vote.

 

The Cartel found themselves in the same fix last night after the results came in from Indiana and North Carolina.  They had nothing news worthy to say since the only outcome was Senators Clinton and Obama increased their delegate count and each won a primary state.  It took 5 hours to come to that conclusion by the Cartel.  In the meantime we heard all kinds of silly things from them.  Now its on to West Virginia and the remaining primaries.

 

The Cartel's nose is out of joint because Clinton says she will continue the race.  Their latest retort when Clinton says she is the best candidate to face McCain really blows what brains they have left.  So this is the story they are trying to push and develop.  "If Senator Obama is the democratic nominee and he looses to McCain in the general election it will be Senator Clinton's fault."  That is not a very bright thing to say about Obama but it shows the Cartel's mentality and how little faith they have in Obama.  The problem is not really Clinton but the Cartel's hatred of her.

 

The voters common sense approach of letting the vote play out which will control the delegates actions in the end is the democratic thing to do.  Voter turn out has been great for the democrats and they are in tune to what is taking place.

 

The primary results so far indicate the voters are having a hard time choosing between Clinton and Obama and there is nothing wrong with that.  In the end that will shake out.  In the meantime the democrats are getting more news coverage that McCain.  If you are a democrat you gotta love that.  So the Cartel should sit back, join the human race, follow the voters lead and try to act mature. 

Has America Entered The Twilight Zone?

The political climate in our country seems eerie at the present time.  It reminds me of a time warp where time is actually standing still.  Our people are not doing well with the economy, oil and gas prices are still out of control, inflation is back, the war in Iraq is still raging and President Bush is off again to Israel and the middle east trying to put some teeth in the seven year old road map to peace that has existed in name only.

 

The news media is in a state of reruns concerning the democratic primaries repeating the same worn out stories over and over.  Obama is trying to act like he has already won the democratic nomination and his speeches do not convey a knowledge of what the President's job is all about.  McCain locked up  theRepublican nomination a long time ago and is trying to find himself but like Obama has a hard time expressing himself.  Senator Clinton is the only game in town campaigning just as hard as ever in W. Virginia which votes May 13 and talking about the real issues.  The news media has already wrote her off and are covering little of her campaign in W.Virginia.  If she is victorious there the media will make little of it.

 

It seems like the events have passed us up without really playing out.  The Presidents lack of involvement in the affairs of the people are truly astounding.  The media's rush to judgement in favor of Obama has placed them in the seat of judge and jury.  As a country we are really lacking of direction at a time of need.

 

Senator Clinton seems to be the only elected official who is involved in the real world and who would like to give some direction to the country.  She understands that the real democratic party, the American voters are not the ones calling for her to drop out the race.  We should be thankful to our democratic voters for their involvement and Senator Clinton's willingness to fight for what she believes in. 

The Republican Trademark: High Oil and Gas Prices

I wrote a three part series not long ago titled, "The economy, which party performs best" going back to the Reagan Administration.  It detailed why the country, its people and the economy did so much better under Bill Clinton, a democrat who not only had a sound fiscal policy but returned the government to balanced budgets and surpluses.

 

Now we have a chance to compare those four administrations and how their actions and policies affected the price of a barrel of Oil.  Reminder to the reader.  The reason I start with the Reagan administration is that is when the neocon republican presidents started to tell the American people they were the ones who can best deal with the economy, balance the federal budget, cut spending and so on.  But the record is clear, it was Bill Clinton who had the best economic plans, fiscal policies and a commitment to balance the federal budget and it worked.

 

The following is the average yearly price of a barrel of Oil during their administrations.  It does not show the higher or low price but the average yearly price adjusted for inflation thru December 2007.

 

Reagan Administration  1981-1988   8 years                    Yearly average  $51.37/barrel

 

Bush 41 Administration 1989-1992   4 years                     Yearly average  $32.04/barrel

 

Clinton Administration   1993-2000   8 years                     Yearly average   $23.88/barrel

 

Bush 43                       2001-2007   7 years **                  Yearly average   $43.83/barrel

 

**  Note the final number is not in yet for the year 2008 but so far oil has hit an all time high.  So when Bush 43 leaves office the yearly average will be over $43.83/barrel.

 

We know a sound, broad based economic policy with fiscal discipline addresses most all of the parameters that is necessary for a sustained economy with low inflation.  The Clinton administration produced just that.  The Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 administrations lacked the fundamentals necessary for a broad based economic policy.  That the yearly average in the price of a barrel of Oil under the Clinton administration was the lowest by far during the past 27 years, 19 under Republican control, shows just how well the country and its people did under Clinton in all  area's of the economy.

 

The so called conservative Republican Presidents have a tax cutting policy to seduce the people and then stick it to the country and the people in a hundred different ways including high Oil and Gas prices.  It is time for America to wake up.

 

Information shown herein for the Oil averages computed from information taken from InflationData.Com, Historic Oil Prices.

The United States And Its Future Foreign Policy

Over the past seven plus years, the American people found out the hard way how George Bush's foreign policy has been a disaster for our country.  Not only have we snubbed our long term allies, but the President has used our military power with impunity to try and force democracy on another nation.  Mr. Bush violated our past commitments of working with our allies on so many fronts and therefore the next President will have to work extra hard to turn things around.

 

The next President will have to restore America's moral mantle of world leadership.  That does not mean America needs to be the world's policeman.  It means we have to lead and show the way for our allies and foes alike.  America needs to be strong economically and militarily and reverse those policies that have not only been non-productive but that have simply failed.  Remember Bush's so called "tough talk" did not prevent the worst foreign terror attack on U.S. soil on 9-11.  We can not keep arming other nations and expect other nations not to send arms to other countries.  There is no creditability in our actions when we do that. 

 

The next President should openly work to bring Israel, India, and Pakistan to be a party to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty as the U.S. and other nuclear powers are.  America loses its leverage when it tries to pick and choose what countries can or can not have WMD without checks and balances. 

 

Our next President should speak softly and carry a big stick.  Not to push our weight around, but to show our determination to make a difference in the would for peace.  No other nation will attack America if our foreign policy carries the message that it would never be of benefit to those who harbor such thoughts.  We have no adversaries that carry the destructive power that Russia possessed during the cold war, yet they knew it would not be to their advantage to launch a Nuclear War.

 

The main threat from  WMD comes from Israel, Pakistan, and India because those countries have unstable leaders and because the U.S. has a present foreign policy that is silent on those countries' responsibilities and the threat they pose.  It is almost as if our President does not want to talk about it.  We make matters worse by threats to other countries who belong to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

 

The next President will have an opportunity to work to reverse the madness of a foreign policy run by the President and individuals who think they have the power to bully people around while not having a sound foreign policy based on American principals, values, and respect.  I'm not sure how much time the new President will have, but I know our country will have to pull together and do what ever it takes.  In the mean time, let's hope Mr. Bush does not try anything cute to make matters worse for the new administration.  

The Next President's Greatest Domestic Challenge

The challenges facing the next President are many and severe.  The most important domestic issue for the President should be "The Greening of America."  That includes the environment, much less dependence on oil and gas, alternate fuels, conservation and technology to reduce the cost of living, and establishing a better quality of life for the people.  Those goals are reasonable and reachable if a determined start is made by the next President and made a priority. 

 

New industries and services will be created and needed to make America Green.  Those jobs that are created will replace jobs lost do to attrition and other causes.  There will be jobs that are sustainable because the Greening of America is no easy or short term undertaking.  Indeed, our lack of attention to the problem for so many years will not let this be a short lived industry.

 

A Greening economy will mean so much more to the average person then our standard economy.  In essence we will all be working to not only save our environment, but contribute to a way of life that we and our children have not seen before.  Can one image what eliminating the trash dumps across America by planned recycling will do?  And that is only one part of the Greening of America.

 

A Greener America is a cleaner environment for ourselves and our children and the future.  Less sickness, a cleaner work place with less injury, and a enjoyable atmosphere to live and play.  It will never be utopia, but it will be far better than we can ever imagine. 

 

Is this just a dream or wishful thinking?  The technology is there and at our fingertips, so it is not just a dream, but a reality.  No one ever thought we could put a man on the moon, but President Kennedy had the dream and showed the courage for our nation to venture into space.  He made it happen.  The next President can make the Greening of America happen also.  Dreams are what our country and its people are made of.  Lets go Green, America! 

How Did We Come To $120/Barrel Oil and $3.50/Gallon Gasoline

Early in the Bush administration, V.P. Cheney met with the Energy Corporations Executives.  Their meeting, deliberations, and decisions were secret and private and until this very day the public has not been given any information about their clandestine agenda.  Since Bush and Cheney were both involved in the Oil and Gas Industry before taking office, it is safe to conclude the secret discussions were about the price of Oil and Gas.

 

Then you start a war with an Oil producing country over WMD that did not exist, feed speculation about Oil supplies being cut because of the war, let it spill over to the OPEC countries, and then have the domestic Oil companies openly talk about prices being too low and inventory shortages and the speculation runs like wild fire which artificially increase prices.

 

Then, don't stop there: start talking about a possible war with Iran and production cut backs and the speculation drives prices up even higher.  Then American Oil says the price of gas should be $4.00/gallon and pretty soon the price of Oil and Gas doubles and then triples.  The only ones who benefit by these high prices are the Oil Producers.  They love the speculation they themselves participate in.  They also love the Corporate Welfare they receive from the Bush administration.

 

The American people need to understand what is going on here and do those things they can do to reduce their dependence on Oil and Gas.  We need a President who will take the Oil and Gas industry to task and implement more conservation measures and reduce our reliance on Oil and Gas. It is time to go back to some of the measures taken by President Carter, especially reducing the speed limit on the Interstate system.

 

It is time for us to remember there is no shortage of Oil and Gas, only speculation fed by greed.  Most of all, it is time to remember the Oil and Gas industry is no friend of the American people.  If you listen to their leaders, they never make enough profit, even when at record levels.

The Morning Dose---5/4

Today's Morning Dose comes from The Oregonian, urging the Democratic candidates to take on the issues facing Oregon ahead of its primary later this month.

__________________________________________________________

(...) Leading candidates generally like to avoid debates, for the reasons listed above and because debates cannot be completely controlled as to content or performance. There is always the chance, in other words, of committing a fatal blunder.

Gerald R. Ford did it in 1976, when he asserted bizarrely, in a debate with Jimmy Carter, that Poland had not fallen under Soviet domination in the Cold War. You could almost hear the "sproing" as his campaign began falling apart.

You may remember, too, that Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis lost big to George H.W. Bush in 1988. Dukakis kicked out the pebble that started the landslide in his answer to this debate question: "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis [the governor's wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" Dukakis replied flatly, without emotion: "No, I don't, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life."

His polling numbers dropped seven points that night and his campaign never recovered.

In recent days, Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign has made a point of challenging Sen. Barack Obama to a debate at every opportunity. Her Oregon campaign also has pushed the idea in connection to the May 20 primary here. Clinton's people argue that a debate in Oregon would give citizens of this state their only opportunity to see the candidates jointly address issues of regional importance. They also argue that the viewership numbers suggest few Oregonians have watched the earlier televised debates in the other primaries.

The Obama campaign argues that Americans have had plenty of chances to see the candidates face to face and that enough is enough.

We agree with the Clinton arguments.(...)

(...) An Oregon debate between Obama and Clinton would be good for democracy here and the country generally. As a general principle, voters should be given the chance to compare the candidates, face to face, in at least one televised event.

If there is a race to be run in Oregon, let it be a strong one, but let it be punctuated by a real face-off between the candidates.

How Will Americans Spend Their Rebate Checks?

President Bush announced the first of the rebate checks will be mailed out this week.  This is part of the "stimulus package" asked for by Bush and enlarged a certain extent by Congress.

 

The idea is for people to spend the rebate checks to purchase goods in order to stimulate the economy.  Is that what the people actually plan to do?  I think the average American who receives these checks should give thought as what is best for them.  Maybe it would be best to pay off debt or just add to their savings.  Some of the things I think need to be taking into consideration are:

 

A.)  Is the stimulus package the right answer to the economic problems?

B.)  Will your job be the next one lost?  The economy has lost jobs the first three months this year.

C.)  Does the Bush administration have a good track record in dealing with the economy and creating new

        jobs?

D.)  Will you be better off by using the rebate to purchase goods?.

E.)  Do you anticipate any raises in the near future or any additional expenses?

 

The list can go on and on, but one can understand what is going on here.  The Wall Street Journal reported in 2000, (Clinton's administration) median yearly household income adjusted for inflation was $49,447.00  By 2006 (Bush's administration) that same income fell to $48,223.00.

 

From 2002 to 2006 (Bush's administration), the income of the top 1% grew at an annual rate of 11% while the incomes of the remaining 99% grew at less than 1% annually during those years.  Those numbers should give people who receive rebate checks reason to pause and make sure they make the right decision.  The average American should understand the Republicans are no friend to the middle class when it comes to the economy, creating jobs, raising wages, and having a real economic policy to sustain the economy. 

 

The facts prove that Republicans are masters of creating debt, deficit spending, trickle down economics that favor the wealthy, and reckless behavior in using our country's resources and finances.  The are a pitiful lot who still use the worn out phrase, "democrats will raise your taxes."  Who ever falls for that line without checking the facts on how Republicans are getting into their pockets deserve what they get.

McCain's Latest Economic Package

Senator McCain announced his Economic Package at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh a few weeks ago.  It follows the same failed economic packages of Reagan-Bush and Bush 43 ---trickle down economics that favor the wealthy and corporate America and that do nothing to grow and sustain the economy and the middle class that is once again forgotten.  Here is his package:

 

Reduce corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% and offer other corporate write-offs --- a double whammy, in other words, for corporate America and the wealthy.  The Reagan-Bush and Bush 43 administration have already given corporate America and the most wealthy the largest tax breaks in the past 28 years, and now McCain is following their reckless agenda.  Will the American people let themselves be fooled for a fourth time?  This tax cut and other write-offs will cost the treasury $100 Billion a year.  And to think McCain said there will be no more corporate welfare during his administration.

 

He said he would also repeal the alternate minimum tax which affects 93% of those making between $200,000.00 and $1 million per year.  This will cost the treasury $1.6 Trillion over 10 years.  McCain would like to suspend the gasoline tax for the summer months that would cost the treasury $9 Billion, without any real way to make up the lost revenue.  In other words, don't address the problem of high gasoline prices and Big Oil, just suspend the gasoline tax for 3 months, deprive the government of that revenue and then go back to $111/barrel oil and $3.40/gallon gasoline.  In short: Ignore the real problem.

 

As one can see, the middle class is once again on the short end of any tax relief.  More over, the money lost by the treasury because of McCain's lack of a true economic policy will just keep adding more to the deficit and debt the Republicans are experts at creating.  At the same time, it does absolutely nothing to grow and sustain the economy and the loss of revenue reduces the governments ability to provide the needed services to the people and the country.  If the American people think the economy is bad now and McCain is the next President, the Republicans will accomplish what Russia tried to do years ago, but failed, --- bury us.

 

So called Republican conservatives have no shame being in the pocket of corporate America and creating debt for the country and its people.  We are in an economy now that is out of control and have a President who has failed to act.  If McCain is the next President, the middle class will be no more, mark my words.  That should scare the hell out of everyone. 

The Morning Dose---5/3

Today's Morning Dose comes from the Indianapolis Star and its endorsement of Sen. Hillary for President:

_______________________________________________________ 

Obama offers an attractive vision for the way things could be. He speaks eloquently of hope and change. He connects with voters, many who formerly felt disenfranchised, on a level few political leaders have attained.

Clinton offers a clear-eyed view of the way things are. She offers nuanced positions on how to address the war in Iraq, trade with China and economic expansion. Her depth of knowledge is remarkable.

As impressive as Obama appears, he is still in his first term in the U.S. Senate, and only four years ago was serving as an Illinois state senator. His inexperience in high office is a liability.

Clinton, in contrast, is well prepared for the rigors of the White House. She is tough, experienced and realistic about what can and cannot be accomplished on the world stage.(...)

(...)Yet, one thing is clear: The next commander in chief will take office at a time of extraordinary risk for this nation, both at home and abroad. The challenges -- including those posed by a sagging economy, rising energy and food costs, the gap in health care, wars in two countries and threats from Iran -- are complex.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is the better choice, based on her experience and grasp of major issues, to confront those challenges. She earns The Star's endorsement in Tuesday's primary.

A Step Back From Our Preoccupation With The Election: A Look Back At The Kennedy Assassination

President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963, almost 45 years ago.  Lee Harvey Oswald was the killer according to the Warren Report and was assassinated himself just two days later.  The Warren Report concluded Oswald shot Kennedy with his rifle from the sixth floor window in the Texas School Book Depository Building as Kennedy's motorcade passed by.  However, Oswald did not fire any rifle that day in Dallas, much less his own.  Unfortunately, he could not stand trial and defend himself. 

 

The public has been lied to all these years by our own government and the crime has been covered up.  The key to Oswald's innocence is easily determined by common sense.  Only one witness identified Oswald as being in the sixth floor window of the TSBDB, Howard Brennan.  His story to the FBI varied from month to month and then positively identified Oswald as the man he saw in the window.  But Howard Brennan failed to pick Oswald out and positively identify him in a police lineup. 

 

Lee Oswald, while in jail, said he was just a patsy.  That was a true statement and our government knew it.  Here is the common sense part about Oswald's innocence:  The murder of a President is no common ordinary killing, yet we are supposed to believe that Oswald left the rifle he was supposed to use in the killing on the sixth floor, not very far from where the shooting was supposed to have taken place --- A rifle that could be easily identified and traced back to Oswald, and the government is going to tell us that he left it there on the scene to be found.  Give me a break.  Your ordinary killer does not even do such a stupid thing.  The rifle was planted.

 

Those who support the Warren Report always try to come up with explanations that have no bearing on the matter, but it wont wash.  A paraffin test was taken of Oswald's right side of his face to check for nitrates that are deposited after a rifle is fired.  The test were conducted by the Dallas City County Criminal Investigation Laboratory on November 23 and did not reveal any nitrates from having fired a rifle recently.

 

Lee Oswald was murdered because he never would have been convicted in a court of law for the murder of JFK --- That would have spelled conspiracy.  Our political system has never been the same since that tragic day in Dallas.

 

NOTE:  Information shown herein concerning  Oswalds identification and the paraffin test taken from Retired Police Chief Jesse Cury limited collectors edition of JFK Assassination File, published in 1969.

Clinton: A Sure Democratic Win; Obama: Not So Sure

Latest polling released from Quinnipiac from critical November swing states shows who is the clear favorite: Sen. Hillary Clinton.  Here are the results:

Florida

Clinton defeats McCain by 8%

Obama loses to McCain by 1%

Ohio

Clinton defeats McCain by 10%

Obama loses to McCain by 1%

Pennsylvania

Clinton wins by 14%

Obama wins by 9%

Overall, it appears Obama can carry Pennsylvania, but that still just puts Democrats where we were 4 and 8 years ago. Democrats must win either Ohio or Florida (I'd like to see us win both) to win the White House.  Sen. Clinton can do that. Obama seems to be having problems.  

The point is this: Do Democrats want to nominate a candidate who can't win?  Or would they rather nominate a candidate who has clear strength in the crucial swing states?  If I were a superdelegate, the choice would be clear --- nominate the winner. 

The Democratic Race: It's Closer Than One Thinks

There are those journalists and pundits who are continuing to urge Senator Clinton to withdraw on the basis that she is too far behind Senator Obama to catch up.  That is still their thought after what happened in Pennsylvania this past week.

 

USA Today published some facts in their newspaper dated April 25 as follows:  Popular Vote:  Obama 14,417,619 million, Clinton 13,917,009;   Popular Vote with Florida:  Obama 14,993,833 million, Clinton 14,787,995;   Popular vote with Florida and Michigan:  Obama 14,993,833 million, Clinton 15,116,304 million.

 

Electoral votes based on States won.   Clinton 284,   Obama 202.  Obama has won 17 primaries and Clinton has won 16.  Obama has won 13 Caucuses,  Clinton has won 2.  There are still several primaries and caucuses left in the Democratic process, so a rush to judgement is uncalled for.  The people's vote should be taken before any candidate drops out.  It should be noted just this week, Nancy Pelosi and Senator Reid said they would like to see the super delegates make up their minds by the end of June.  A far cry from their statements made a few weeks ago when both clearly implied that they wanted Clinton to withdraw.  Reality finally caught up to them.

 

Over the last month or so, journalists and pundits have also tried to brain wash the voters into believing that the Democratic campaign has been so negative that whom ever wins the nomination will lose the support of the other candidate and his or her voters.  That's a croc, because those voters will only be hurting themselves and what they say they stand for if they vote Republican.  

 

The upcoming primaries are going to be pivotal as to what is really on the voters mind.  The American people should be enjoying this race while they can because the general election will really show what negative campaigning is all about and it will be coming from the Republican Party and Senator McCain you can bet on that. 

The United States: A Nation Without A Leader

I wrote a post some time ago pointing out that President Bush still had the power of veto because the Republicans in Congress still have enough votes to rubber stamp his wishes, but that his Presidency has become irrelevant.  That is true more so today than ever before and the United States is still a nation without a leader.

 

Oil and gas prices have been out of control for over a year and have reached levels never before seen in America.  Bush is AWOL on the subject and has no leadership role taking any action.  President Carter faced a similar situation and problem when he was President, although not as serious as it is now.  He faced the problem and took serious action by reducing the speed limit to 55 mph on the Interstate system, by regulating the thermostat in all federal buildings, tax breaks for energy saving devises, and creating the "Strategic Petroleum Reserves."  Prices not only came down, but energy usage was reduced and the oil and gas industries' supplies in their inventory were increased.  When Reagan took office, he changed all of Carter's policies.  If President Carters policies were continued today, we would be in much better shape with more reasonable prices at the pump. 

 

The economy shows Bush's irrelevance more and more every day.  He is so out of touch and ignorant on questions asked of him concerning the economy that it would be comical were it not so sad.  Our nation and its people are at a stage now with so many serious problems and are facing them without a leader.  And this is the guy who thinks he does everything better than past Presidents.  I hope the people keep that in mind for the November election when the opportunity is presented to elect a President who will lead.  The Democrats and the people have to bring back the saying, "Where was George?" 

The Economy: How CNN Has Failed The People

CNN has been running a daily report titled, "#1 Issue-The Economy" and how it affects the people.  Their journalists and guests who speak on the subject offer hype, cliches, and the usual economic talk that never tells the true story of what is really taking place with the economy.

 

Republican administrations don't preside over an economy that is broad based, sustainable, and with even job creation.  CNN has failed to point that out and the reasons why.  They can not bring themselves to face the facts that Reagan-Bush and Bush-Cheney had/have no economic policy.  They had/have a policy of deficit spending and creating debt for the country and its people.  And until the people understand this and our fiscal house is put back in order as President Clinton did, the economy and the people will suffer.  CNN, its journalists, and its guests have failed the American people by not exploring what has happened to the economy on Reagan and Bush 41 and Bush 43's watches with the massive debt they have placed on this country and the economy. 

 

CNN is incapable of telling the people the facts concerning the economy and are also incapable of giving out accurate information during this primary season.