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.  

Clinton's Pennsylvania Victory Speech