Energy Crisis: People Power For Change

The American people can not wait on elected officials or corporate America to bring about change in using fossil fuels.  The exorbitant increase in oil and gasoline has been going on too long while the President, government officials, and corporate America only give excuses.

 

We the people need to change and make the sacrifice ourselves in order to start the process of greening America by drastically reducing our dependence on oil and gasoline.  At the same time, we have to demand our government start to act now.

 

In a report out of the Times Picayune, the largest newspaper in Louisiana, dated July 29, 2008, an AAA survey of people in Louisiana show that 77% of drivers made significant changes in their driving habits.  Here is how they accomplished that:  (1)  Moved closer to work.  (2) Carpooling. (3)  Using Public Transportation.  (4) Biking or walking.  (5)  Buying a more fuel efficient vehicle.  (6) Taking fewer or shorter leisure trips.

 

Taking matters in our own hands will be a sacrifice worthwhile even though it will some times be hard and difficult.  The alternative is much worse, harder, more costly, and we should understand all that having lived with the problem.

 

Those who advocate more drilling are supporting the status quo and falsehoods.  The Big Oil companies have enough acreage in the U.S. that they have yet to drill on.  They are not working that acreage because there is really no shortage of oil or gasoline.  If there were, they would be drilling up a storm on this acreage at the record prices of the last 2 years.

 

We the people should impose on ourselves 60mph speed limit on the interstate system.  Let the saved gasoline sit in the refineries until the oil companies get the message.  The inconvenience of truth has already arrived.  Shame on us if we ourselves pass up the opportunity to do some thing about it and make a better world for our children and grandchildren. 

 

Remember when V.P. Dick Cheney met with representatives of the energy industry after Bush came into office?  The results of that meeting, what they discussed, and the decisions that were made are still secret today and the public is still in the dark.  If that is not enough to make the people face realty, what will?

 

President Carter took bold action and leadership during the Arab Oil Embargo that actually reduced consumption.  Reagan reversed all that after he took office.  Its time for the people to act on their own, because if one thing is for sure, we can no longer sit around and wait for the government to. 

What's My HUGE Headline From Today's Events?

Democrats are going to pick up at least 5 Senate seats come November, with Alaska now joining my list of Virginia, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Colorado?  In case you're living in a cave and don't know why, here's a look:

Let's just say that the odds of a 60 seat majority are ever increasing...

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.

Andrea Mitchell, You've Made Me Proud

Veepstakes: Prediction Time

First let's take a look at the Republican side:  Who's most likely to be John McCain's Veep.  Here's my predictions:

#3: Tom Ridge.  That's right, the former Pennsylvania governor is the third most likely man to be chosen as McCain's Vice-Presidential nominee.  Why?  For starters, McCain likes Ridge.  Ridge is probably who McCain would most like to pick.  The only problem, of course, is that Ridge is pro-choice, and McCain has previously said that it is unlikely he would choose a pro-choice running mate.  Still, Ridge could shift Pennsylvania to McCain and hence throw a huge curve ball into the Democrats' plan to regain the White House.  For that reason alone, Ridge has got to be in serious contention.

#2: Tim Pawlenty.  Pawlenty would be a very interesting choice.  Why is he #2?  Again, McCain likes Pawlenty.  Pawlenty was one of the first politicians to endorse McCain during the primaries and McCain has always been good friends with the Minnesota governor.  Add to the mix that Pawlenty could put Minnesota and its 10 electoral votes in to play and Pawlenty is the second most likely pol to be named McCain's number two.

#1: Mitt Romney.  Indeed if I had to place money on it, I'd say McCain has already decided on Romney.  I'm not sure why as Romney doesn't exactly do that much for McCain.  He might put Michigan in to play, but thats about it.  Also, Romney is conventional wisdom.  Everyone in the media expects it to be Romney.  If McCain truly wants announcing his VP to give him some much needed media attention, shouldn't he pick someone that would be a little less expected?  It's not a wise choice by McCain, but then again, McCain hasn't exactly been making wise choices as of late.

As for as the Veepstakes on the Democratic side go, everything is much less clear.  Everyone in the political world has a different opinion.  I'm positive that McCain's VP will be from the above list, and 95% sure it's Romney, but I could be completely off with Obama's list.  But here goes nothing...

#3: Hillary Clinton.  Many people don't think the "dream ticket" has a chance of happening.  I'm very skeptical myself.  But there is a chance.  Obama wants the fundraising prowess of the "Hillraisers" and the only way he's going to get it 100% is to pick Hillary.  In addition to the money issue, Hillary also gives Obama great strength in the "rust-belt" states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and even Michigan.  

#2: Tim Kaine.  Obama wants to win Virginia.  If there's one state Obama is intent on flipping this cycle, it's Virginia and what better way to get a head start than by putting its very popular governor on the ticket?  

#1: Evan Bayh.  One doesn't hear much about Bayh, but I will guarantee Obama is looking at him seriously.  With recent polls showing the race in Indiana, a traditionally Republican state, so close, Bayh could help Obama grab this red state come November.  Add to that Bayh's executive experience as governor of Indiana as well as his foreign policy experience from being in the Senate and Bayh is as good of a pick as any for the Vice-Presidency.  

(In addition to the 3 previous names, I believe that Joe Biden and perhaps even Jack Reed are in contention for the #2 slot.  I don't think either would be particularly great or exciting choices, but I do believe they are on the elusive list.)

John McCain

I used to like John McCain.  I never liked the majority of his political positions, but I liked John McCain the person.  He had dignity.  He had respect.  He had independence from his party.  He, in many ways, had everything George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Republican leadership in Congress lacked.  This campaign, however, has changed John McCain; changed him or brought forth the true John McCain --- I'm not sure which.  Whatever the case, my opinion of John McCain has changed, and changed for the worst.

It was not too long ago when John McCain said he would run a respectful campaign.  He correctly claimed that "Americans want a respectful debate" and promised to give America just that.  He vowed not to question his opponents "character and integrity".  

But with the election just months away and McCain bracing for a significant loss, speaking with regard to the electoral college, McCain has changed his tactics.  Desperate to destroy the Democratic nominee, McCain and his camp, just this week, rolled out their latest despicable line of attack --- essentially calling Barack Obama out for treason:

"Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign."

The previous line was used by McCain over and over again.  This is turning in to 2004 all over again.  Why must one's patriotism be questioned in a political campaign?  Why can't Republicans show some decency and admit that just because they disagree with Democrats on policy, their love for this great country and its troops is equal and abundant.  

Attack lines like the one used by McCain are disgusting.  They are completely uncalled for.  How dare John McCain say that any one wants to lose a war?  How dare he?  

John McCain, sir, you have lost all my respect by going after Sen. Obama in that way, and by extension, all Americans who oppose this war.  No amount of recollections of your time as a POW in Vietnam can restore honor and dignity to you name in my eyes.  You were a hero to this country.  You were honorable.  You came into this campaign with that honor and respect.  But when you use that honor and respect bestowed upon you by the American public for your courageous service to this country, and you twist it in order to make the case that you and your party and only you and your party and it's positions show love for this country and our troops, you lose that honor and respect.  

It Was Reported Here First On POLITIDOSE

For the past week or so, the news media in general has been carrying stories concerning (1) Senator McCain's flubbing the facts as he has done so many times;  (2) The Huffington Post ran comments by Zbigniew Brezezinski and Brent Scowcroft alluding to the fact that Iran will have influence in Iraq regardless what happens in Iraq;  (3)  Also reporting was comments by administration officials and military officials that more troops will be going to Afghanistan because the war is going badly there. 

 

If all of the above sounds familiar it is because you read it here in Politidose first long before the news media picked it up.  The flip flops and inaccurate statements and the derailment of McCain's straight talking express were covered in articles on Politidose dated November 5, 2007, December 18, 2007 and February 23, 2008.

 

The Iran-Iraq alliance was covered on Politidose in an article dated April 8, 2008.  The Afghanistan problem was covered in Politidose in articles dated December 13, 2007, January 19, 2008, January 20, 2008 and January 29, 2008.

 

Politidose was able to bring those stories to the American people long before our government and news media made the connection.  All this adds to the belief that it is the independent ideas and opinions found on blogs such as Politidose, instead of news companies backed by special interests and corporations, that serve to truly inform and enlighten the American people.  

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.

Road to Victory: Tom Udall (New Mexico)

Another Financial Meltdown On The Republican Watch

The Bush administration's policy and lack of a true economic plan has once again plunged the financial and mortgage industry into collapse.  The Federal Government has already bailed out Bear Stearns.  Now they are bailing out Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae and the FDIC has just announced the take over of Indymac Bank which has $32 Billion of assets.  As of this writing there are 90 Banks on the FDIC's list of problem banks, up 50% since the end of 2006.  No one yet knows where it will end and how much it will cost the taxpayers. 

 

In case one forgets, we had the Savings and Loan meltdown in the 1980's during Reagan's term in office.  50% of the Savings and Loan Industry went belly up.  The Federal Government had to bail the industry out.  The reports say that bail out cost the taxpayers $150 billion.  Some suggest it was 5 times that much but the Federal Government has never given the American people an accurate count of what it actually did cost the taxpayer.

 

Both Bush and Reagan pushed through tax cuts which benefited the wealthy that fit their ideology of trickle down economics.  Both of them also believed in deregulation and letting corporate America do what they want to do at the expense of the middle class. 

 

The Bush administration also presided over the stock market scandal where the regulators did not regulate.  The American people get themselves in trouble by voting Republican especially when Republicans have a sorry record on the economy and protecting the middle class.  Mr. Bush's sorry approval rating of 28% comes after the people elected him twice.  Now as he nears the end of the line the country is in terrible economic shape and no end in sight. 

 

These so called conservative Republican Presidents promise the people tax cuts and then get into the people's pocket a hundred different ways.  When the cost of the current financial meltdown is calculated and the debt created by this President is tallied, God help us all if people still think Republicans are conservatives.

Road to Victory: Rick Noriega (Texas)

As of today, I'm beginning a new series of video posts highlighting the Democrats running, both incumbent and challengers, for the United States Senate this election cycle.  These videos were created by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and highlight each candidate's ability to deliver for their state and for America as a whole.  

The following video is on Lt. Colonel Rick Noriega, who is challenging Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas:

2001-2008 --- A Return To A Time Of Darkness

We were taught in school that there was a time in our history's past when learning seemed to stop.  It was called "The Dark Ages."  Who ever thought history would repeat itself in the 21st century?  The past seven and half years has been a repeat for our leaders who have failed to learn and then stopped learning from their mistakes altogether.

 

The present Dark Age covers a broad spectrum and I will discuss two of them in this post that came to light just in the last few days.  Nothing needs to be said about Iraq because the problem is so obvious.  Now it is Afghanistan and Iran.

 

Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, visited Afghanistan and said more foreign fighters including al Qaeda militants are operating in Pakistan's tribal areas then in the past and they are flowing into Afghanistan more freely this year compared to last.  Attacks in Eastern Afghanistan where American forces operate along the border with Pakistan are up 40% this year.  June was the deadliest month for U.S. and NATO soldiers since 2001.

 

This Dark Age of leadership goes back to our invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 when we failed to seal the borders.  It was known before our invasion that the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan was a haven for training al Qaeda and the Taliban.  After the tragic events of 9-11, Mr. Bush said his administration would make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them.  Not only did our leadership fail to carry out that policy with Pakistan, but seven years into the war in Afghanistan, our Chairman says the problem is still there and worse.

 

Now we have Secretary of State Condi Rice who just warned Iran that its latest launching of rockets was a provocative act and that the U.S. has the ability to counter them --- another example of this Dark Age of leadership failure where our leaders have learned nothing.  Our leadership has a policy of provocations and going along with the threats of Israel's leaders to other countries.  When leaders fail to learn, innocent people pay the price for their mistakes. 

 

Mr. Bush failed to learn that two can play the same game he tries to play.  That failure is darker than dark.  He played the game in Iraq over WMD that did not exist and went on to destabilize Iraq and the middle east.  Iran does not have a history of  invading other countries nor of launching a war against other countries.  Our own intelligence people said they stopped working to produce a nuclear weapon several years ago.  If they are in fact working to acquire such weapons, the U.S. can contain them like we did the Soviet Union for over 40 years.  We don't need a failure in leadership that will push the U.S. into yet another unnecessary war. 

 

This Dark Age of leadership and learning has put our country and its people in peril.  We see the economic repercussions for this failed leadership that touches the people's lives in almost every situation.  Russia was bogged down in Afghanistan for 10 years and then withdrew.  Our leadership furnished the Taliban weapons to fight Russia and they are now using those weapons we supplied them against our own troops.  We also supported Saddam during his invasion of Iran and ten year war.  We even gave Saddam U.S. intelligence gathered on Iran's military movements.  What has our country learned from those Dark Ages? ---Apparently, nothing.  

 

Can our nation escape this present Dark Age where our leaders have stopped learning.  Have we run out of leaders who understand what America is all about and how to use our military power wisely?  Hopefully the next President will answer those questions, in the way that they need to be answered.  

2008 Senate Elections: The Ad Wars

In a follow-up to a post I wrote a few nights ago concerning the top 10 Senate races most likely to flip from Republican to Democratic control this November, I want to share with you some of the great ads our Democratic challengers are going up on the air with:

First, as I've said before, the one candidate who I really would like to see make it to the Senate: Kay Hagan.  In this ad, Hagan focuses on the energy crisis:

Tom Allen is up on the air in Maine promising to, unlike Incumbent Susan Collins, to fight for the middle class:

Colorado's Mark Udall has an ad, similarly to Hagan in North Carolina, tackling the energy crisis:

Here's another ad from Mark Udall, this one focusing on foreign policy and national security: 

This is Kentucky's Bruce Lunsford first ad of the campaign in his bid to oust Mitch McConnel:

Former New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen tackles Big Oil in this ad:

Here's a second ad from Shaheen talking about putting people first:

In this ad, Al Franken talks about the toll the Iraq War is taking on America domestically:

Mark Begich, in this ad, talks about his biography in Alaska and all he has accomplished for Alaskans as mayor of Anchorage:

Another great biographical ad is this one from New Mexico's Tom Udall:

This ad from Virginia's Mark Warner deals with all Warner did as Governor of Virginia and why his bi-partisan approach is the right one to clean up Washington:

Oregon's Jeff Merkley is up with this ad challenging Gordon Smith:

The Height of Hypocrisy: T. Boone Pickens

T. Boone Pickens, Texas oil man, conservative, founder of Mesa Petroleum, and who now heads the Dallas-based hedge fund, BP Capital Management LP, now says that U.S. dependency on foreign oil has reached an economic crisis point as the U.S. is dependent on foreign nations for 70% of its oil.

 

What Mr. Pickens failed to say is that American oil companies have been drilling and producing oil outside the U.S. for over 30 years at the same time they hold millions of acres they own or lease the drilling rights to in the U.S. and have left those acres idle.  Many could have been drilling for years but choose to go overseas instead.

 

It is a fact that many oil companies are in bed with foreign oil producers and now the Bush administration wants to put them in bed with Iraq and Iraqi oil.  Less any one forget Iraq is the same country that over 4000 Americans have lost their lives in an unnecessary war over WMD that did not exist.

 

The Associated Press recently reported Mr. Pickens plans to build the largest wind farm in Texas that would generate enough power to supply 20% of the nations electricity needs and wants the new President and Congress to act on this within the first 100 days.  One can wonder if Mr. Pickens will be in Washington to seek corporate welfare for this project.

 

What the next President and Congress should do is make sure the energy industry does not, in any way, hold a monopoly over the public in the Greening of America.  The U.S. can not afford to go green and then have the same problem we have today with Big Oil because of greed and control.  All of a sudden, Mr. Pickens has come to realize our country has an oil and gas problem and wants the country to reduce its dangerous dependency on foreign oil.  At about the same time, he wants to build a Wind Farm.  It seems strange that Mr. Pickens, an astute business man for over 30 years, just got educated on our energy problems.  I wonder what caused the turn around on his thinking all of a sudden?

 

Here's the facts: Mr. Pickens is a billionaire and contributed $250,000.00 to Bush 43's second inauguration.  Financial World named him CEO of the Decade in 1989.  Mr. Pickens tried to acquire several companies via the takeover route in the 1980s and made millions by buying and then selling those stocks.  They also reported he contributed $3 million to Swift Vets and POW's for Truth, the organization that Swift Boated Senator Kerry during the 2004 Presidential election concerning his military service.  Mr. Pickens was of prime age during the Korean War, but there is no mention in his Bio of serving in the military.  I have mentioned on more that one occasion I have no problem with people that have not served in the military, but there are those who have not served yet who attack those veterans that have served their country.  

 

Oil companies and their CEO's will do their best to power grab the Greening of America and retain control over energy supplies to continue their monopoly.  The next President and Congress need to make it a top priority to see that does not happen.

Obama Caves; Clinton Stays Strong

As I've said previously, this FISA Bill did nothing but violate the basic rights of privacy guaranteed to every American in the Constitution.   There was and is no reason to grant the telecom companies immunity for breaking the law.  What's even more disappointing then the fact that so many Senators voted for it, was the fact that Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee for President, caved in to Bush's and the Republican's tactics and voted for the bill.  

Now I've read Obama supporters on the blogs claim that he had to do this.  That if he didn't, Republicans would tear him apart.  Guess what Obama-bots?  You don't beat the Republicans by giving in to their demands.  The "change" that Obama so often talks about will not happen if Democrats allow themselves to be bullied around by Republicans.  

What does make me proud, however, is the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton voted no on this bill.  Sure, Republicans will criticize her for it.  Sure, Republicans will call her weak on national security.  But today, Sen. Clinton actually acted on the words she spoke of during the primary --- standing your ground and taking the fight to the Republicans.  

In this hour, the contrast between the Democratic nominee and the runner-up is clear.  Our nominee, unfortunately, doesn't believe in standing up for and defending Democratic values.  He'd rather appease Republicans and stay as far away from controversy as possible.  The runner-up, however, doesn't worry about what Republicans think or say about her.  She does what she feels is right.  

Even more interesting is the feed-back I'm seeing on the blogs from some people who were highly critical of Sen. Clinton in the primary --- in other words, they bashed her non-stop.  Some, like Sean Casey at the Daily Kos, see Obama and Clinton in a new light.  Here's what Casey wrote:

"Thank you Hillary - I appreciate you standing up for my right of proivacy and the Constitution. I definitely misjudged you. Two months ago I would have bet anything that you would have voted "Yea" and he would have voted "Nea". Sincerely - Thank You - and those who voted NEA with you.

Change we can believe in? It's a change, but not the one I expected. WOW!"

Now, with all this said, let me be clear: I still unequivocally support Sen. Obama for President.  Even though I believe he was totally unjustified in his lack of courage to stand up to Republicans today, he would still be a much, much better President than Senator McCain, who apparently feels free from even showing up to vote --- for anything.  

In conclusion, I leave you with the video of Senator Russ Feingold talking with Rachel Maddow tonight on MSNBC concerning the FISA Bill, why he opposed it, and how he feels about Democrats, including Sen. Obama, not standing up to the Republicans:

The Roadblock To Job Creation And A Sustained Economy --- Conservatives

The economy lost 62,000 jobs in June, the sixth straight month of job losses that total 438,000 since the first of the year.  As of this writing, we are in the midst of a second recession on Mr. Bush's watch and he has no clue what to do about it.  Worse yet, the labor department says the country can expect the job losses to continue. 

 

Conservative Republicans are masters of deceit when it comes to the economy and job creation.  Now we are in the final months of the general election and John McCain has no plans to change the status quo.  In fact, he has no credibility on economic matters.  His voting record in Congress rubber stamped Bush's economic decisions even the massive debt this President will leave our children and grand children. 

 

The economy lost jobs in the first four years of Bush's term.  The last time that happened was under the administration of Herbert Hoover, another Republican.  The Clinton Administration created approximately 4.1 million more jobs in eight years than Reagan-Bush 41 created in 12 years.  When Bush 43 leaves office his economic and job creation performance will be, to say the least, sorry.  And when his record budget deficits and debt is added to that he will have earned the title of the worst President in our lifetime.

 

The other legacy that Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 has scarred our country and people with is the largest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the most wealthiest Americans.  Our people and country will continue to suffer because of that and it will take many years to reverse the trend.  Our economy will not sustain itself until this transfer of wealth flows back to the middle class.

 

Corporate America controls every major consumer need because of their buying power in Washington.  They enjoy corporate welfare, tax breaks, tax loopholes and other goodies our elected officials are willing to lavish them with.  Try this on for size: one percent of the people own half of the stocks in America. 

 

Conservative Republican Presidents have pursued over the years policies that favor the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class (The heart of any Democracy) and put our people in debt because of their ideology with this transfer of wealth.  Over 7 trillion dollars of debt created by Reagan-Bush and Bush 43, along with a few more trillion dollars of interest payments on their debt could have gone a long way to pay and provide for those needs that really matter and make a difference for our people and the country.  But they choose to destroy the middle class in favor of an ideology of wealth for those who need it the least.

 

If any one thinks a Conservative Republican will balance the budget, create a sustained economy and job creation, have the middle class share in that part of the wealth they deserve because of their working sacrifice and move our country forward, they are sadly mistaken.  Conservative Republican Presidents do not have any record of doing that in the last 30 years.

 

The November election is very critical for America, its economy, and the middle class.  The United States and its people can not afford another Republican President. 

A Common Sense Approach

I have written on several occasions that now is the time for the President and Congress to act and reduce the speed limit on the Interstate System in an effort to reduce the use and consumption of oil and gasoline.  Recently, according to the Associated Press, Senator John Warner suggested that Congress might want to reimpose a national speed limit to save gasoline.  Senator Warner asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodmon to look into what speed limit would provide optimum gasoline efficiency given current technology.

 

The Arab Oil Embargo during the 1970s prompted Congress to lower the speed limit on the Interstate Highway System to 55 MPH.  Studies showed that action saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day and reduced deaths on the System by 4000 per year.  Today the number of auto's on the highway has probably doubled what it was during the 70s so just think how much oil and gas would be saved and how many more deaths would be averted from speeding accidents.

 

It is a fact that the action taken by Congress and other conservation measures taken by the federal government reduced our dependence on oil and gasoline and brought down the cost of both to acceptable levels.  But with oil and gasoline now at record levels, the President, Congress and the two Presidential candidates have offered nothing in the way of legislation to discourage consumption.  They are AWOL on the subject.

 

Senator Warner should be complemented on his actions but there is no need to restudy the matter.  We already know reducing the speed limit will work and what it will save.  Action is needed now.  Bush, McCain, and other neocons' answer is more drilling and production of oil.  In other words, keep our country addicted to oil and gasoline and its price surges and have the people and our economy dependent on the Oil and Gas Industry, the very people who are responsible for this problem do not want to see the problem solved.  Our direction should be at conservation and consuming less and less of oil and gasoline.

 

The problem is not a shortage of oil or gasoline as the country has been brainwashed to believe.  $140 barrel oil and $4.00 gallon gasoline is a result of Bush's approval of Cheney's secret meeting with the Energy Industry, the unnecessary war in Iraq, speculation by the Oil and Gas Industry, the massive debt created by Mr. Bush's policies and a weak dollar because this President has never had a true economic plan to deal with the economy.  No one should ever forget that T. Boone Pickens, an oil executive, publicly was quoted as saying gasoline should be about $4.00 per gallon.  Well, we have not only attained, but passed that price.

 

It is a known fact that the American Oil Companies are sitting on millions of acres of land they either own or lease for drilling and exploration but have yet to drill.  This land is in the United States.  Does any one think this land would be idle if there was a shortage?  But guess what?  They want the Congress to open up ANWAR and other areas to drill. They do not know how to tell the people the truth.

 

The time is past for Bush and Congress to act.  If the leadership of this country and the future President continue to ignore thenecessary  "Greening of America" and fail to start that program now, $200 barrel oil is just around the corner.  President Kennedy once said our problems are man made, and therefore they can be solved by man. Too bad we no longer have leaders like Kennedy.  

Choosing a Vice-President (Democrats)

Well, two of my favorite candidates for Vice-President have already taken their name out of running: Gov. Strickland of Ohio and Sen. Webb of Virginia.  With those two once potential veeps no longer potentials, I'm going to run down those who are considered to be in the top tier of choices as well as those who I think would bring the most to the ticket.

1) Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.  No, no, no...and again...no.  I don't know how to be any more clear than that.  Don't get me wrong, I like her.  She's been a great, bi-partisan governor who has helped raise the profile of Democrats in one of the reddest states in America.  With that being said, however, she is boring.  She's not exactly someone who could hold her own in a town-hall meeting or a rally.  She doesn't even come across that great when being interviewed on television.  And the truth is, what more does she bring to the ticket?  Even with Sebelius, Obama is not going to win Kansas.  And it's not exactly like she has appeal in any other states.

2) Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia.  I just don't see Tim as ready for the national spot light yet.  He appears messy on camera and I don't think we've seen enough of him to know if he could be a good campaigner.  Again, a good governor, but not right for Vice-President.

3) Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.  I used to be very high on Judas...I mean...Bill Richardson.  He has everything Obama lacks: executive experience, foreign policy credentials, popularity among Hispanics (although Obama has made great in roads), from a state in a swing region, the Southwest, etc.  But after the betrayal of Sen. Clinton and the bitter taste he left in the mouthes of all her supporters, Sen. Obama would not (or at least, should not) dare put Richardson on the ticket.  If you think Obama has a problem consolidating the support of Hillary's supporters and fundraisers now, just think what it would be like if Richardson was on the ticket.  

4) Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.  The Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Sam Nunn route is the wrong way to go for Obama.  Don't get me wrong, I like Joe Biden, but he adds nothing to the ticket.  Obama is going to win every state in the Northeast and Biden wouldn't help in any other region.  The main consideration for Biden, of course, is his foreign policy experience.  But Biden, along with Dodd and Nunn and all their foreign policy credentials, would be a boring choice.  Barack Obama is a rockstar.  He needs someone who doesn't drag down the ticket. In other words, I just can't picture Obama and Biden standing next to each other.  I can't picture Biden rallying up supporters.  I just don't see it.    

5) Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana.  Now here's one of my favorite choices.  Bayh fits the Vice-Presidential checklist to a "T". He has executive experience, he's from a critical swing state, he's a centrist who has proven to have huge appeal to Republicans and independent voters, he's a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Select Intelligence Committee and therefore has national security credentials, and plus, he has the look of a President, or in the case, Vice-President.  He's still very young (52) yet has extensive experience.  I like this guy a lot and if Obama doesn't pick my #6, he should take Bayh.  

6) Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.  Plain and simple: Hillary should be Vice-President.  She's earned it.  Hell, she received more votes in the primaries than Barack Obama.  Plus, she ensures party unity, which seems to be on a rocky roadat the moment (with polls still showing as much as 35% of Hillary supporters backing McCain or not voting at all).  More importantly however, Hillary has strong pull in swing states.  As Chris Matthews wisely pointed out a week ago, Barack Obama might want to expand the map, which is all well and good, but all he has to do to win the White House is hold Kerry's states and win Ohio. And, to continue what Matthews said, Obama can win Ohio today by picking Hillary as VP.  In addition to Ohio, Clinton also helps Obama expand his map by making states such as Arkansas and even Kentucky and Tennessee more competitive.  And if basically guaranteeing Obama the White House wasn't enough of a reason to pick Hillary as VP, she also brings her foreign policy experience and her ability to connect with working class "Reagan Democrats" in a way few politicians ever have.  

Election '08: My Senate Rankings

As the mundane and rather boring Presidential election rolls on, I find myself more and more intrigued with the Senate races coming up this fall.  Indeed, the Democrats will, at the very least, pick up 4 seats, bringing the number of Democrats in the Senate to 55 (54 if you don't count Lieberman).  The fact is, however, that 4 is again, the LEAST number of seats the Democrats will pick up.  Indeed, to tell you just how bad Republicans might have it this cycle, John Ensign, chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (RSCC), said he would consider it a "win" for Republicans if they can keep Democrats from reaching the magic number of 60.  And while, at the moment, the prospect of Democrats picking up 9-10 Senate seats from Republicans seems unlikely, it is not out of the question.  Here is my breakdown of the 10 seats, in competitive order, that Democrats have the best shot at winning:

1) Virginia.  This once red state is going blue in 2008.  Former Popular Democratic Governor Mark Warner is ahead of Republican Jim Gilmore by 25-30 points.  

2) New Mexico.  Tom Udall, in the latest batch of polling released, is ahead of Republican Steve Pearce by a whopping 28 points.  

3) New Hampshire.  Current Republican Senator John Sununu won't get re-elected.  I'd put money on that one.  Currently, former Governor Jeanne Shaheen holds a 14 point lead, up from 10 points last month, 7 the month before, and 4 the month before that.  As can be seen, Shaheen's momentum is still growing.  

4) Colorado.  This is another once red state that is going blue.  Mark Udall's lead over Republican Bob Schaffer has grown from a tie, to 3 points, to 7 points, and now to 10 points.  Again, just like in New Hampshire, momentum is on the Democratic side.

5) Alaska.  The longest serving Republican in the Senate, Ted Stevens, is locked in a tight contest with former Anchorage mayor, Mark Begich.  The two most recent polls show mixed results.  One has Begich up by 2 points, the other has Stevens up by 2.  But again, the momentum is on Begich's side.

6) Mississippi.  Just like in Alaska, one poll puts incumbent Republican Roger Wicker ahead by 1% while another poll puts former Democratic Governor Ronnie Musgrove ahead by 1.  

7) Kentucky.  Yup, thats right, Mitch McConnel is in trouble.  Survey USA puts McConnel up over Bruce Lunsford by only 4%, while a month old Rasmussen poll puts Lunsford up by 5.  No doubt, this is going to be a close one.  

8) Maine.  Moderate Republican Susan Collins might meet the same fate that the politically similar Lincoln Chaffee did last cycle.  She's popular within her state, but the "R" that is attached to her name will be her downfall.  Right now, Collins does have a significant 7 point lead, but it's important to note that that number is down from about 16 just over two months ago.  The momentum is definitely with Democratic Congressman Tom Allen.  

9) Oregon.  Another moderate Republican in Gordon Smith is in trouble in a heated battle against Jeff Merkley.  While Smith is ahead in the race, by about 9%, Merkley has just recently captured the Democratic nomination and has already cut Smith's lead in half from earlier this year.  

10) Tie: 

a. Minnesota: while earlier this year, Republican Norm Coleman's seat did appear more competitive, I am convinced that Democrat Al Franken can still win this thing.  Depending on which poll you look at, Coleman is ahead by only 3 (Rasmussen) or by 10 (Quinnipiac).  Either way, it's a long way until election day.

b. North Carolina: Liddy Dole faces a tough challenge in Democrat Kay Hagan (who happens to be my favorite Senate candidate this cycle).  Although Dole appears to have a double digit lead, Hagan proved to be very resourceful in a fairly competitive Democratic primary.  Dole has spend huge amounts of cash on TV ads trying to quell the momentum Hagan had after her primary win bump, which had her within 4 points of Dole.  And although that ad blitz has worked for the meanwhile, Hagan has yet to put up her own general election ads.  Once she has, I am convinced this will once again become a single digit race and with Dole's unimpressive approval numbers, it's not hard to see that this North Carolina seat could once again go blue.   

A few things of note: 

-Increased African American turnout due to Obama's candidacy in Mississippi and North Carolina could propel Musgrove and Hagan to the Senate.

-With Barack Obama planning to campaign in Alaska and John McCain not, the feeling is that Democrats could get a huge boost in Alaska just from the fact that a Presidential candidate decided to actually show up.  

-The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has a huge cash advantage over the RSCC.  The DSCC is having to play defense in only one state, Louisiana.  The RSCC is having to play defense in just about every state that it currently holds a seat.  It's not hard to see that Democratic Senate candidates are going to be able to easily compete with Republicans even if the candidates themselves aren't able to compete with their Republican opponent.