Senator John McCain: To Torture or Not To Torture

Senator McCain spoke at a Columbia, S.C. campaign stop Saturday and said he wanted to create an Army Advisory Corps of 20,000 soldiers to act as military advisers and a new office of Strategic Services to fight terrorists.  He would put them in a crash program in civilian and military schools to have more experienced speakers in strategically important languages to create a new specialty in interrogation.

 

He says by having this new group we will never have to feel motivated to torture anyone ever again.  Then when asked if he knows our forces had engaged in torture, he said he did not know because he does not have that kind of information.  What is going on here?  He wants a special group so we don't have to torture but he does not know if we do torture under our present system.  Is this the real "straight talking express" candidate?

 

Our country has done well interrogating the enemy over the years without torture.  We are parties to the Geneva Convention, which prevents torture.  We don't need another layer of our military who is supposed to make sure we don't torture and then have a President who thinks he can do whatever he wants to do and approve torture.  We are in this water boarding and torture game now because of this President's reckless behavior. 

 

If McCain becomes our next President then all he has to do is set the example and policy so that it will be clear: The United States does not get involved in torture, period. Everyone in the world needs to knows it.

Climate Change - Rebuke In Indonesia

The Washington Post reports that at the Global Warming Conference over the weekend in Indonesia, delegates from over 190 nations, including the United States, came to an agreement that both the industrialize nations and those developing nations would commit themselves to measurable, verifiable steps for facing the global warming problem.  That was a first.

 

The U.S. was represented at the conference by Paula Dobriansky, U.S. undersecretary for democracy and global affairs.  She told the delegates that the U.S. was not willing to accept language calling on industrialized nations to deliver measurable, reportable, and verifiable assistance.  That comment brought about boos and hisses from the delegates and sharp rebukes.

 

The U.S. relented and changed its opposition after several other nations blasted the U.S. position.  Kevin Conrad, Papua New Guinea's ambassador, told the U.S. that if you can't lead, get out the way and leave it to the rest of us.  The South African minister of environmental affairs and tourism said Dobriansky's comments were unwelcome and wanted to know why Washington was not doing more.

 

Leaders of developing nations accused Washington in blunt terms of pressing them for commitments while refusing to make its own.  The U.S. tried all week to scuttle the conference with rigid demands and had to back down in the end.  Former V.P. Al Gore took the Bush administration to task for not supporting the conference and not doing its part.

 

Mr. Bush continues to think he is King of the World and can push other people around.  The leaders in Indonesia took their stand and let their voices be heard.  Our Congress should take note and bring Mr. Bush under control here at home before he makes any more reckless decisions that harm the U.S. and its people.  Seven years into his administration and Mr. Bush still can't lead the world on important issues as did past Presidents.

Enough Is Enough----Stop The Spin!!!

As I was watching my usual afternoon/evening lineup on MSNBC, I was outraged at the coverage that both Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson gave to the following Bob Kerrey statement:

"It's probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There's a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal." 

Chris Matthews and Tucker attempted to spin this into somethings it's completely not.  Bob Kerrey was COMPLIMENTING Barack Obama, saying that his background was a plus.  Somehow, the MSM, and even some Obama-bloggers, took this to mean that Kerrey, taking direction from the Clinton campaign, was attacking Obama because of his background.  How they got an attack out of the above statement is beyond me.  If anything, Kerrey was saying that Obama has experience, something that one would think Obama supporters and the Obama-loving-media would be pleased with.

But no, of course not.  It seems that everything and everyone connected with Hillary Clinton can't just make a comment without being pounced on.  Even the nicest, most positive statements somehow become twisted into racism or discrimination or just plain meanness.  Seriously, enough is enough.  You don't have to support or even like Clinton, but to go after Kerrey for this is absurd.  Kerrey was giving his sincere opinion on Barack Obama, one that happened to be positive.

To twist the facts just to make Sen. Clinton look bad is ridiculous.  This has gone too far.  Not only does it falsely represent the Clinton campaign and their thoughts on Sen. Obama, it distorts Sen. Kerrey's opinions, who has proven to be one of the most honest, straight-shooters around.   This was not a negative attack meant to, in any way, criticize Barack Obama for where he grew up and what religion his relatives practiced.  Let the facts be the facts and then give analysis and opinion on those facts, but don't make something into something that it's not just for "good television" or "good reading".  Thats my message and plea to the MSM and bloggers who took this WAY out of context and made it into a story that it's simply not.

Kerrey Endorses Clinton

Hillary has received another major endorsement.  Former Nebraska Governor and Senator Bob Kerrey had this to say:

"At a time when our nation faces serious challenges, it will take a leader with Hillary Clinton’s strength and experience to bring the real change we need.  Hillary is tested and uniquely capable of restoring America’s standing in the world."

1 "Kerrey" Down, 1 "Kerry" to go!

Religion And Politics (Part II)

Religion, the separation of Church and State, "In God we trust", are all words that bring out the best and worse depending on one's persuasion.  America, the land of tolerance, has been hijacked by the "holier than thou group" who question other people's faith and religion.  It has become a litmus test cast down on those who seek public office to explain their faith.  And no matter how much explaining is done, it is never enough.

 

This "group" is the extreme right, the neocons, and some evangelicals who demand proof of one's faith and religious beliefs.  They use one's faith and religion, or a lack there of, to judge a person's fitness for office or life itself.  They can't articulate what they themselves stand for, so they attack others to divide and conquer.

 

President Kennedy answered their warped minds after he became the Democratic nominee in 1960.  They wanted to know if he would take orders from the Pope or follow the constitution.  Of course, they knew the answer because he had  served in Congress and they already knew his positions.  But the zealots would not let go.  On the day he arrived in Dallas and was assassinated, the right wingers greeted him with a newspaper ad and poster that read, "Wanted for Treason." 

 

Now it's Mitt Romney's turn to have to answer questions about his religion, despite being a governor where his positions have been well known.  I have said before that when some one questions another person's character, it is the person who is doing the questioning that has the character problem.  Same is true for questioning one's religion or faith.

 

God gave Moses the 10 commandments of life and living.  There was no religion involved in following those words of wisdom.  In fact, we are told on the day of judgement he would be the one to judge.  But the "holier that thou group" wants to be judge and jury of one's faith and religion.  The American people need to realize them for what they really are. 

Politics And Religion (Part I)

The American people are their own worst enemy when it comes to politics and religion. Americans elect the same politicians over and over most of the time.  All one has to do is look at the make up of the Congress and State Legislatures.  The great majority are incumbents with many years of service.

 

Elected officials create the laws, regulations, tax codes and etc., that the people have to live with.  They create some bad ones, but the people still reelect them.  Has any one noticed how many times Senator McCain has said the tax code is unfair and has to be changed?  Yet it is he and Congress who create the tax code.  The people of Arizona have not called McCain down for this, instead he is elected and reelected over and over. 

 

The people have allowed the right wing neocons to divide the country.  They govern by fear, innuendo, character assassination, bigotry, and lies.  They do that because they know a lot of people can't make a decision and believe any thing they hear.  They have teamed up with the religious right to play God.  Many of the religious right even have T.V. shows that bring in millions of dollars.  They, along with the neocons, preach God and family, but God would surely not condone their hypocritical behavior.

 

Why  do people let themselves fall for this con game?  Do they realize these con artists are laughing at them everytime the people support them?  Because the neocons are so sure of themselves and their ability to control the people, I call your attention to the recent resignation of Karl Rove, Bush's  chief operative.  He resigned to write a book and rewrite the history and lies of the Bush administration.  The right wing T.V. and radio networks will give him center stage to continue the con job.  And worst of all, many people will continue to be conned.

 

Elected officials rub their power and greed right in the people's faces. They have no shame when accepting money from special interest, even though it is influencing their vote.  Neither is concerned about doing what is right and necessary for the country and the people.  Greed and power is their make up.

 

They preach no taxes and then turn around and give the people massive deficits and a massive national debt, and every year they waste billions of dollars paying interest on the deficits and debt they created.  That money could instead be used to further the quality of life for the American people.

 

Many members of Congress go to work for these special interest groups when they retire from Congress.  They are welcomed with open arms.  Is there any wonder why?

 

The people will elect a new president next year and also those in Congress who are up for reelection.  Time will tell  if the people can make a choice that truly changes the course of the con game.  One can only hope so.  

Des Moines Register Endorses Clinton

When I heard earlier this week that the Des Moines Register would be announcing their endorsement for President today, I, as many others, thought that the endorsement would surely go to either Obama or Edwards.   Surprisingly it went to Sen. Hillary Clinton and rightfully so.  Here is what the Register has to say:

"The choice, then, comes down to preparedness: Who is best prepared to confront the enormous challenges the nation faces - from ending the Iraq war to shoring up America's middle class to confronting global climate change?

The job requires a president who not only understands the changes needed to move the country forward but also possesses the discipline and skill to navigate the reality of the resistant Washington power structure to get things done.

That candidate is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

From working for children's rights as a young lawyer, to meeting with leaders around the world as first lady, to emerging as an effective legislator in her service as a senator, every stage of her life has prepared her for the presidency.

That readiness to lead sets her apart from a constellation of possible stars in her party, particularly Barack Obama, who also demonstrates the potential to be a fine president. When Obama speaks before a crowd, he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, it's hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead.

...Determination to succeed and learning from her mistakes have been hallmarks of Clinton's life. She grew up in Park Ridge, Ill., graduated from Wellesley College and earned a law degree from Yale. As first lady in Arkansas, she was both strategist and idealist, borne out by her commitment to children and families. As the nation's first lady, she in essence spent eight years as a diplomat, traveling to more than 80 countries and advocating for human rights.

In the Senate, she has earned a reputation as a workhorse who does not seek the limelight. She honed knowledge of defense on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has proactively served rural and urban New York and worked in the national interest, strengthening the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Clinton is tough. Tested by rough politics and personal trials, she's demonstrated strength, resolve and resilience.

...The times demand results. We believe as president she'll do what she's always done in her life: Throw herself into the job and work hard. We believe Hillary Rodham Clinton can do great things for our country."

And for those who say that this endorsement means nothing, all you have to do is look back in recent history to realize that it does.  In 2004, the Register endorsed John Edwards.  Many credit the Register's endorsement for Edwards quick ascent to a 2nd place showing.  With the race this close in Iowa, this can only benefit Sen. Clinton.

On a side note, the Register endorsed Sen. John McCain on the Republican side.  

Boswell Endorses Hillary---Caucus For Her

Here is a wonderful video I found of Iowa Rep. Leonard Boswell on why he supports Hillary and why America needs her.  As he says in the video, Hillary has over 15 years of experience standing up against the Republican attack machine and against the special interests.  She has and continues to stand for meaningful change---not because she "hopes" for it, but because she has the actual experience and leadership to make it happen.  

Obama's Electability

Quite a stir has been caused by Billy Shaheen's remarks about Sen. Barack Obama's past cocaine use.  In all honestly, I think the media has spun the story into somethings it's simply not.  Bill Shaheen was not saying that people should vote against Barack Obama for his drug use, but rather that the Republicans would use it heavily against him in a general election, which is undoubtably true.  So while I do not feel that Shaheen's comments were as terrible as they have been made out to be, I will admit that it was not necessary for a Democrat to bring up Obama's cocaine use.  But since he did bring into question Obama's electability, I think all Democratic caucus goers and primary voters should take Obama's electability into serious question before supporting him.

Facts are facts.  Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have been under national scrutiny from the Republicans for years.  Both are experienced with how to deal with those problems.  Their pasts have been vetted; everything that could be used against them is already out.  

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has not had his past vetted.  He has yet to run a serious campaign against a Republican or take hard hits from the right-wing machine.  This makes Obama a vulnerable candidate and calls into question his electability next November.  

Past drug use, although it matters nothing at all to me, is something that could prove to be a turn off to many swing voters.  The Obama campaign likes to put forth the fact that he has been open about it in his book and in public.  But that, in a general election campaign against the Republicans, won't matter.  Do you really think that ordinary Americans have read Obama's book?  Of course not.  The Republicans will use this against Obama and it will hurt him.  I wish it wasn't true, but it is.

And it's not just his past drug use either.  We, much less the majority of Americans, know very little about Barack Obama's past.  He has not been vetted.  There are surely things in his past that could hurt his electability.  Every candidate has problems no doubt, but candidates like Clinton and Edwards have had their "dirty laundry" aired a long time ago.  Their "dirty laundry" is old news to voters.  Obama's would be new news.  

Clinton and Edwards have both proven successful in winning over Republican voters and winning in strong Republican areas.  Obama does not have that experience.  His one major election, his 2004 Senate campaign, was against a very weak opponent, Alan Keyes.  I mean, seriously, let's face it, Alan Keyes is just about the weakest Republican in the country.  The '08 election, in much contrast to Obama's Senate campaign, will be far from a cake walk.  As a Democrat committed to getting a Democrat elected in '08,  I want to put my trust in someone like Edwards or Clinton, who know how to deal with the Republican dirt machine and who have proven to be winners in tough battles. 

The Only Way Barack Can Lose Iowa

Sen. Barack Obama, much to my dismay, looks poised to win the Iowa caucuses on January 3.  The big "Mo" (momentum) is on his side and he is leading in many recent Iowa polls.  Clinton and Edwards appear to be stuck in second and third place respectively, but with such a tight race and the volatile nature of the Iowa caucus, there is something that works to the advantage of Clinton and Edwards.  This same thing is the one and only way I could see Barack Obama losing Iowa.  So what is that "thing" of which I refer?  It's the youth vote, of course.

Sen. Clinton and Edwards have the top two traditional caucusing groups on their side.  Sen. Clinton has the 40+ women vote, which traditionally shows up in strong numbers on caucus night.  Edwards also has an important and consistent caucusing group---the labor, or union, vote.  And Barack's support.....the youth vote.  

Polls show Obama to have a tremendous amount of support among college students and other voters in the 18-34 demographic.  If Sen. Obama can get his many young supporters to show up, he will surely win.  The problem is that history is not on his side.  Only 10% of all caucus goers in 2004 were under the age 35; Obama draws much of his support from those same people.

We all remember what happened to Howard Dean in 2004.  At this point in 2003, with just 3 weeks until the caucus, Howard Dean was still the clear frontrunner.  The problem for Dean on the night of the caucus was that his core support consisted of voters under the age of 35 and they simply did not show up to caucus as the polls had suggested.  

As can be seen, the youth vote if far from reliable.  Many young voters show up at rallies for a candidate and even tell pollsters that they are "likely caucus attenders".  Yet, when the night of the caucus comes, the youth simply don't show up in big numbers.  Sadly, they often get distracted.  It should be noted that a big distraction for many young voters, particularly male, this year could potentially be the Orange Bowl, which will begin at about the same time as the caucus.  

Obama and his supporters have promised that this year will be different.  They say that the youth will show up and caucus.  Talk, however, is cheap.  Howard Dean and his campaign claimed the same thing in 2004 as did candidates in previous years.                                                                                                                               

My point: Obama is in the prime position to win the Iowa caucus, but he's not inevitable.  With a large chunk of his support being from younger voters, Obama leaves himself vulnerable.  If he can truly, as he says, bring in youth voters as has never been done before, Obama has this caucus in the bag.  But if only 10%, or even 15%, show up, Obama could be in deep trouble.  With the race so tight in Iowa, Obama, or any candidate for that matter, can not afford to not have their core supporters show up.  As Dean learned in '04, it's one thing to have supporters, it's a completely different thing to have them actually show up on a cold winter night to stand in a room for hours and caucus for you.  

Clinton and Edwards have reliable supporters who are traditional caucus goers; they should have no problem getting their people out.  The race in Iowa, and possibly the nationally, depends on how many of Obama's youth supporters actually show up.  If he gets them out there, he'll win.  If he doesn't, he could be the Dean of '08.  Only time will tell.