Post #158
Subject: Where Have All the Leaders Gone?, Pt. II
The below is an excerpt from Where Have All the Leaders Gone? by Lee Iacocca with Catherine Whitney My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
The Test of a Leader
I've never been Commander in Chief, but I've been a CEO. I understand a few things about leadership at the top. I've figured out nine points -- not ten (I don't want people accusing me of thinking I'm Moses). I call them the "Nine Cs of Leadership." They're not fancy or complicated. Just clear, obvious qualities that every true leader should have. We should look at how the current administration stacks up. Like it or not, this crew is going to be around until January 2009. Maybe we can learn something before we go to the polls in 2008. Then let's be sure we use the leadership test to screen the candidates who say they want to run the country. It's up to us to choose wisely.
[[T]his crew is going to be around until January 2009.” – and that is the fault of Congress. Never before has a President so routinely ignored and violated the Constitution and built a case for his own Impeachment.]
So, here's my C list:
A leader has to show CURIOSITY. He has to listen to people outside of the "Yes, sir" crowd in his inner circle. He has to read voraciously, because the world is a big, complicated place. George W. Bush brags about never reading a newspaper. "I just scan the headlines," he says. Am I hearing this right? He's the President of the United States and he never reads a newspaper? Thomas Jefferson once said, "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter." Bush disagrees. As long as he gets his daily hour in the gym, with Fox News piped through the sound system, he's ready to go.
If a leader never steps outside his comfort zone to hear different ideas, he grows stale. If he doesn't put his beliefs to the test, how does he know he's right? The inability to listen is a form of arrogance. It means either you think you already know it all, or you just don't care. Before the 2006 election, George Bush made a big point of saying he didn't listen to the polls. Yeah, that's what they all say when the polls stink. But maybe he should have listened, because 70 percent of the people were saying he was on the wrong track. It took a "thumping" on election day to wake him up, but even then you got the feeling he wasn't listening so much as he was calculating how to do a better job of convincing everyone he was right.
[Um, Barack Obama thinks he knows it all – his ‘bitter’ comments show just how out-of-touch he really is – and doesn’t care to learn what he doesn’t know. Ask the Kentucky voters how often Obama campaigned there.]
A leader has to be CREATIVE, go out on a limb, be willing to try something different. You know, think outside the box. George Bush prides himself on never changing, even as the world around him is spinning out of control. God forbid someone should accuse him of flip-flopping. There's a disturbingly messianic fervor to his certainty. Senator Joe Biden recalled a conversation he had with Bush a few months after our troops marched into Baghdad. Joe was in the Oval Office outlining his concerns to the President – the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanded Iraqi army, the problems securing the oil fields. "The President was serene," Joe recalled. "He told me he was sure that we were on the right course and that all would be well. 'Mr. President,' I finally said, 'how can you be so sure when you don't yet know all the facts?'" Bush then reached over and put a steadying hand on Joe's shoulder. "My instincts," he said. "My instincts." Joe was flabbergasted. He told Bush, "Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough." Joe Biden sure didn't think the matter was settled. And, as we all know now, it wasn't.
Leadership is all about managing change – whether you're leading a company or leading a country. Things change, and you get creative. You adapt. Maybe Bush was absent the day they covered that at Harvard Business School.
[Ha Ha – ya mean “Stay the course” isn’t good enough!?! :p]
A leader has to COMMUNICATE. I'm not talking about running off at the mouth or spouting sound bites. I'm talking about facing reality and telling the truth. Nobody in the current administration seems to know how to talk straight anymore. Instead, they spend most of their time trying to convince us that things are not really as bad as they seem. I don't know if it's denial or dishonesty, but it can start to drive you crazy after a while.
[John W. McCain has promised to “straight-talk” the American people about the sacrifices needed to continue “his” war. Will that “talk” happen BEFORE or AFTER the November election?]
Communication has to start with telling the truth, even when it's painful. The war in Iraq has been, among other things, a grand failure of communication. Bush is like the boy who didn't cry wolf when the wolf was at the door. After years of being told that all is well, even as the casualties and chaos mount, we've stopped listening to him.
A leader has to be a person of CHARACTER. That means knowing the difference between right and wrong and having the guts to do the right thing. Abraham Lincoln once said, "If you want to test a man's character, give him power." George Bush has a lot of power. What does it say about his character? Bush has shown a willingness to take bold action on the world stage because he has the power, but he shows little regard for the grievous consequences. He has sent our troops (not to mention hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens) to their deaths… for what? To build our oil reserves? To avenge his daddy because Saddam Hussein once tried to have him killed? To show his daddy he's tougher? The motivations behind the war in Iraq are questionable, and the execution of the war has been a disaster. A man of character does not ask a single soldier to die for a failed policy.]
[How is that cheap oil working out for ya? :p “[L]ttle regard for the grievous consequences” – has George W. Bush thought out bombing Iran? Or McCain?]
A leader must have COURAGE. I'm talking about balls. (That even goes for female leaders.) Swagger isn't courage. Tough talk isn't courage. George Bush comes from a blue-blooded Connecticut family, but he likes to talk like a cowboy. You know, My gun is bigger than your gun. Courage in the twenty-first century doesn't mean posturing and bravado. Courage is a commitment to sit down at the negotiating table and talk.
If you're a politician, courage means taking a position even when you know it will cost you votes. Bush can't even make a public appearance unless the audience has been handpicked and sanitized. He did a series of so-called town hall meetings last year, in auditoriums packed with his most devoted fans. The questions were all softballs.
[Does Obama have the ‘testicular fortitude’ to do the right thing and ask – beg – Hillary Clinton to be his Vice-President?]
To be a leader you've got to have CONVICTION – a fire in your belly. You've got to have passion. You've got to really want to get something done. How do you measure fire in the belly? Bush has set the all-time record for number of vacation days taken by a U.S. President – four hundred and counting. He'd rather clear brush on his ranch than immerse himself in the business of governing. He even told an interviewer that the high point of his presidency so far was catching a seven-and-a-half-pound perch in his hand-stocked lake.
[Bush has a fire the belly to get elected – it is governing that he hates.]
It's no better on Capitol Hill. Congress was in session only ninety-seven days in 2006. That's eleven days less than the record set in 1948, when President Harry Truman coined the term “do-nothing Congress.” Most people would expect to be fired if they worked so little and had nothing to show for it. But Congress managed to find the time to vote itself a raise. Now, that's not leadership.
A leader should have CHARISMA. I'm not talking about being flashy. Charisma is the quality that makes people want to follow you. It's the ability to inspire. People follow a leader because they trust him. That's my definition of charisma. Maybe George Bush is a great guy to hang out with at a barbecue or a ball game. But put him at a global summit where the future of our planet is at stake, and he doesn't look very presidential. Those frat-boy pranks and the kidding around he enjoys so much don't go over that well with world leaders. Just ask German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who received an unwelcome shoulder massage from our President at a G-8 Summit. When he came up behind her and started squeezing, I thought she was going to go right through the roof.
[Insert your favorite drunken-frat-boy-as-President joke here! :p]
A leader has to be COMPETENT. That seems obvious, doesn't it? You've got to know what you're doing. More important than that, you've got to surround yourself with people who know what they're doing. Bush brags about being our first MBA President. Does that make him competent? Well, let's see. Thanks to our first MBA President, we've got the largest deficit in history, Social Security is on life support, and we've run up a half-a-trillion-dollar price tag (so far) in Iraq. And that's just for starters. A leader has to be a problem solver, and the biggest problems we face as a nation seem to be on the back burner.
[That is why Bush and his pals are so secretive – they want to hide their IMCOMPETENCE.]
You can't be a leader if you don't have COMMON SENSE. I call this Charlie Beacham's rule. When I was a young guy just starting out in the car business, one of my first jobs was as Ford's zone manager in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. My boss was a guy named Charlie Beacham, who was the East Coast regional manager. Charlie was a big Southerner, with a warm drawl, a huge smile, and a core of steel. Charlie used to tell me, "Remember, Lee, the only thing you've got going for you as a human being is your ability to reason and your common sense. If you don't know a dip of horseshit from a dip of vanilla ice cream, you'll never make it." George Bush doesn't have common sense. He just has a lot of sound bites. You know – Mr. “they'll-welcome-us-as-liberators-no-child-left-behind-heck-of-a-job-Brownie-mission-accomplished” Bush.
Former President Bill Clinton once said, "I grew up in an alcoholic home. I spent half my childhood trying to get into the reality-based world – and I like it here."
I think our current President should visit the real world once in a while.
The Biggest C is Crisis
Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.
On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. Where was George Bush? He was reading a story about a pet goat to kids in Florida when he heard about the attacks. He kept sitting there for twenty minutes with a baffled look on his face. It's all on tape. You can see it for yourself. Then, instead of taking the quickest route back to Washington and immediately going on the air to reassure the panicked people of this country, he decided it wasn't safe to return to the White House. He basically went into hiding for the day – and he told Vice President Dick Cheney to stay put in his bunker. We were all frozen in front of our TVs, scared out of our wits, waiting for our leaders to tell us that we were going to be okay, and there was nobody home. It took Bush a couple of days to get his bearings and devise the right photo op at Ground Zero.
That was George Bush's moment of truth, and he was paralyzed. And what did he do when he'd regained his composure? He led us down the road to Iraq – a road his own father had considered disastrous when he was President. But Bush didn't listen to Daddy. He listened to a higher father. He prides himself on being faith based, not reality based. If that doesn't scare the crap out of you, I don't know what will.
A Hell of a Mess
So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country. We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves. The middle class is being squeezed every which way. These are times that cry out for leadership.
But when you look around, you've got to ask: "Where have all the leaders gone?" Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, competence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.
Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo? We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.
Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane, or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time.
[I had an e-pal say that Bush was the worst President in history – he then listed Bush’s shortcomings, from the foolishness of borrow-and-spend to a blind rush to war. “Yes,” I replied. “But no President before has let American citizens starve to death in a major American city while he strummed the guitar at a political fundraiser.” Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina – or the lack thereof – says it all.]
Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when "the Big Three" referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen –and more important, what are we going to do about it?
Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.
I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bobblehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?
Had Enough?
Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope. I believe in America. In my lifetime I've had the privilege of living through some of America's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises -- the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, the Kennedy assassination, the Vietnam War, the 1970s oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11. If I've learned one thing, it's this: You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a call to action for people who, like me, believe in America. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the horseshit and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had enough.
[I hear ya! But there are no leaders running in 2008. I’ll just join the majority of American and not vote. * sigh *]
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Post #157
Subject: Why Hillary should stay in the race.
This is Bill O’Reilly’s “Talking Points” Memo that he reads at the beginning of each show – this is from this past Wednesday, and was actually read by Laura Ingraham.
"The Democratic Party should be worried because with each successive primary we can see the growing divide in their electorate. Obama wins liberal Oregon by 18 points but gets creamed by Hillary in conservative Kentucky. Obama lost big in states like Kentucky, West Virginia and Pennsylvania because to the working class he came off as aloof and out of touch. More middle American voters see him as just another bicoastal liberal like those who lost five of the last seven elections. But even if Hillary is the stronger candidate to go up against McCain, the MoveOn.Org types with the most influence in the Democratic Party don't care. They'd rather take their chances on the more left wing of the two candidates. Democrats really seem to be incapable of learning from history. In 1972 the Democrats nominated George McGovern, the most liberal candidate, only to have him go on to lose in the second biggest landslide ever. Party officials installed superdelegates to avoid similar disasters in the future. So if superdelegates were actually living up to their stated duties, this race might already be over and Hillary would be the nominee. That would be change we could believe in."
Thank Goodness Hillary Clinton has exposed Obama’s fatal flaw, giving him months to shake that “aloof” image – actually, she didn’t do anything, he exposed himself. This contest is for the heart-and-soul of the Democratic Party – the far-left of Obama and the center-left of Clinton. And the country is center-left.
‘The math’ shows that Obama cannot secure the nomination with pledged delegates. The popular vote is still very much in doubt. Who is prepared for the Democratic Party to make Clinton “the Al Gore of ’08” and steal this election? The answers go on and on – including those far-left commentators who want to oppress the vote by declaring that the results of Oregan were a “wake-up call” to all Democrats that this race is over. * sigh *
Subject: Why Hillary should stay in the race.
This is Bill O’Reilly’s “Talking Points” Memo that he reads at the beginning of each show – this is from this past Wednesday, and was actually read by Laura Ingraham.
"The Democratic Party should be worried because with each successive primary we can see the growing divide in their electorate. Obama wins liberal Oregon by 18 points but gets creamed by Hillary in conservative Kentucky. Obama lost big in states like Kentucky, West Virginia and Pennsylvania because to the working class he came off as aloof and out of touch. More middle American voters see him as just another bicoastal liberal like those who lost five of the last seven elections. But even if Hillary is the stronger candidate to go up against McCain, the MoveOn.Org types with the most influence in the Democratic Party don't care. They'd rather take their chances on the more left wing of the two candidates. Democrats really seem to be incapable of learning from history. In 1972 the Democrats nominated George McGovern, the most liberal candidate, only to have him go on to lose in the second biggest landslide ever. Party officials installed superdelegates to avoid similar disasters in the future. So if superdelegates were actually living up to their stated duties, this race might already be over and Hillary would be the nominee. That would be change we could believe in."
Thank Goodness Hillary Clinton has exposed Obama’s fatal flaw, giving him months to shake that “aloof” image – actually, she didn’t do anything, he exposed himself. This contest is for the heart-and-soul of the Democratic Party – the far-left of Obama and the center-left of Clinton. And the country is center-left.
‘The math’ shows that Obama cannot secure the nomination with pledged delegates. The popular vote is still very much in doubt. Who is prepared for the Democratic Party to make Clinton “the Al Gore of ’08” and steal this election? The answers go on and on – including those far-left commentators who want to oppress the vote by declaring that the results of Oregan were a “wake-up call” to all Democrats that this race is over. * sigh *
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Post #156
Subject: Where Have All the Leaders Gone?
The below is an excerpt from Where Have All the Leaders Gone? by Lee Iacocca with Catherine Whitney My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
Had Enough?
Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car.
[I saw on the TV just the other day that two guys had made a car that got 100 miles-per-gallon by refiguring an already-made hybrid car. One guy said that he filled the tank and drove some 9000 miles for over a month without going back to the gas station. Why isn’t a car company all over this?]
But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."
Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned “Titanic.” I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!
You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies.
[Yes, and who in our system of government is the last defense against an Imperial President? That’s right – the Supreme Court. And where have our “strict constructionists” been?]
Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?
I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have.
My friends tell me to calm down. They say, "Lee, you're eighty-two years old. Leave the rage to the young people." I'd love to – as soon as I can pry them away from their iPods for five seconds and get them to pay attention. I'm going to speak up because it's my patriotic duty. I think people will listen to me. They say I have a reputation as a straight shooter. So I'll tell you how I see it, and it's not pretty, but at least it's real. I'm hoping to strike a nerve in those young folks who say they don't vote because they don't trust politicians to represent their interests. Hey, America, wake up. These guys work for us.
Who Are These Guys, Anyway?
Why are we in this mess? How did we end up with this crowd in Washington? Well, we voted for them – or at least some of us did. But I'll tell you what we didn't do. We didn't agree to suspend the Constitution. We didn't agree to stop asking questions or demanding answers. Some of us are sick and tired of people who call free speech treason. Where I come from that's a dictatorship, not a democracy.
And don't tell me it's all the fault of right-wing Republicans or liberal Democrats. That's an intellectually lazy argument, and it's part of the reason we're in this stew. We're not just a nation of factions. We're a people. We share common principles and ideals. And we rise and fall together.
Where are the voices of leaders who can inspire us to action and make us stand taller? What happened to the strong and resolute party of Lincoln? What happened to the courageous, populist party of FDR and Truman? There was a time in this country when the voices of great leaders lifted us up and made us want to do better. Where have all the leaders gone?
[I saw Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s coverage of Ted Kennedy’s illness today say that Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama for President because Obama reminded him of his brother, Bobby – as someone able to unite. Matthews cited the example of the diverse crowds that met Bobby’s funeral train. Are ya kidding me!?! Obama is a divider, NOT a uniter – ask the ‘bitter’ voters who have no place in Obama’s Democratic Party.]
[Where have all the leaders gone? Indeed.]
Subject: Where Have All the Leaders Gone?
The below is an excerpt from Where Have All the Leaders Gone? by Lee Iacocca with Catherine Whitney My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
Had Enough?
Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car.
[I saw on the TV just the other day that two guys had made a car that got 100 miles-per-gallon by refiguring an already-made hybrid car. One guy said that he filled the tank and drove some 9000 miles for over a month without going back to the gas station. Why isn’t a car company all over this?]
But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."
Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned “Titanic.” I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!
You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies.
[Yes, and who in our system of government is the last defense against an Imperial President? That’s right – the Supreme Court. And where have our “strict constructionists” been?]
Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?
I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have.
My friends tell me to calm down. They say, "Lee, you're eighty-two years old. Leave the rage to the young people." I'd love to – as soon as I can pry them away from their iPods for five seconds and get them to pay attention. I'm going to speak up because it's my patriotic duty. I think people will listen to me. They say I have a reputation as a straight shooter. So I'll tell you how I see it, and it's not pretty, but at least it's real. I'm hoping to strike a nerve in those young folks who say they don't vote because they don't trust politicians to represent their interests. Hey, America, wake up. These guys work for us.
Who Are These Guys, Anyway?
Why are we in this mess? How did we end up with this crowd in Washington? Well, we voted for them – or at least some of us did. But I'll tell you what we didn't do. We didn't agree to suspend the Constitution. We didn't agree to stop asking questions or demanding answers. Some of us are sick and tired of people who call free speech treason. Where I come from that's a dictatorship, not a democracy.
And don't tell me it's all the fault of right-wing Republicans or liberal Democrats. That's an intellectually lazy argument, and it's part of the reason we're in this stew. We're not just a nation of factions. We're a people. We share common principles and ideals. And we rise and fall together.
Where are the voices of leaders who can inspire us to action and make us stand taller? What happened to the strong and resolute party of Lincoln? What happened to the courageous, populist party of FDR and Truman? There was a time in this country when the voices of great leaders lifted us up and made us want to do better. Where have all the leaders gone?
[I saw Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s coverage of Ted Kennedy’s illness today say that Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama for President because Obama reminded him of his brother, Bobby – as someone able to unite. Matthews cited the example of the diverse crowds that met Bobby’s funeral train. Are ya kidding me!?! Obama is a divider, NOT a uniter – ask the ‘bitter’ voters who have no place in Obama’s Democratic Party.]
[Where have all the leaders gone? Indeed.]
Friday, May 16, 2008
Post #155
Subject: An open letter to Dan Abrams
I want the Democratic nomination contest to continue. I like to see Chelsea Clinton on the campaign trail NOT answering questions that are none of your business! :p
Seriously, Dan, I’m not sure if you have any say-so over the other TV shows at MSNBC, but you need to speak to a couple of your colleagues – their favoritism is hanging out! :p
No, I’m not talking about their ‘pro-Obama’ stance – which is annoying. During coverage of Hillary Clinton’s win in ‘bitter’ West Virginia, they showed Obama flapping in Missouri. Why are the voters of West Virginia less important than the voters in Missouri who have already voted? Is that a good message for the Obama campaign?
Rather, I’m talking about their ‘anti-Clinton’ stance.
The other night, Chris Matthews began his show with “The mystery of Hillary Clinton. What‘s she thinking? What‘s she doing? What‘s she planning? What does she want?” Good Lord. Ya’d think she was pure Evil. Where are the same questions about John Edwards?
And, Dan, did you see Keith Olbermann’s ambush interview of Clinton? His elaborate build-up to the question about Scaife left no reasonable answer available. In fact, I had to turn to Faux News and Bill O’Reilly for a fair and balanced interview of Clinton. Faux News! [rolleyes]
How can two guys who are so good on war be so, uh, so undemocratic concerning the Democratic Party? Let all the ‘bitter’ votes count. Their constant whining that it’s over, that West Virginia doesn’t matter, their snide comments, their rude jokes – all reflect badly on themselves and Obama.
At the end of the day, ‘the math’ shows that Obama cannot secure the nomination with pledged delegates and that the popular vote is still very much in doubt. Is Chris Matthews prepared for the Democratic Party to make Clinton “the Al Gore of ’08” and steal this election?
Subject: An open letter to Dan Abrams
I want the Democratic nomination contest to continue. I like to see Chelsea Clinton on the campaign trail NOT answering questions that are none of your business! :p
Seriously, Dan, I’m not sure if you have any say-so over the other TV shows at MSNBC, but you need to speak to a couple of your colleagues – their favoritism is hanging out! :p
No, I’m not talking about their ‘pro-Obama’ stance – which is annoying. During coverage of Hillary Clinton’s win in ‘bitter’ West Virginia, they showed Obama flapping in Missouri. Why are the voters of West Virginia less important than the voters in Missouri who have already voted? Is that a good message for the Obama campaign?
Rather, I’m talking about their ‘anti-Clinton’ stance.
The other night, Chris Matthews began his show with “The mystery of Hillary Clinton. What‘s she thinking? What‘s she doing? What‘s she planning? What does she want?” Good Lord. Ya’d think she was pure Evil. Where are the same questions about John Edwards?
And, Dan, did you see Keith Olbermann’s ambush interview of Clinton? His elaborate build-up to the question about Scaife left no reasonable answer available. In fact, I had to turn to Faux News and Bill O’Reilly for a fair and balanced interview of Clinton. Faux News! [rolleyes]
How can two guys who are so good on war be so, uh, so undemocratic concerning the Democratic Party? Let all the ‘bitter’ votes count. Their constant whining that it’s over, that West Virginia doesn’t matter, their snide comments, their rude jokes – all reflect badly on themselves and Obama.
At the end of the day, ‘the math’ shows that Obama cannot secure the nomination with pledged delegates and that the popular vote is still very much in doubt. Is Chris Matthews prepared for the Democratic Party to make Clinton “the Al Gore of ’08” and steal this election?
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Post #154
Subject: Legitimate questions of judgment, experience
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/1060220.html
… by Joseph C. Wilson IV….
In recent weeks Americans have been subjected to a litany of outrageous statements from Sen. Barack Obama's pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. While Obama was finally compelled to distance himself from his radical preacher, the relationship raises legitimate questions about Obama's judgment and naivete.
[Such as: Why did Obama nod “Amen” to racist garbage for 20 years while Oprah Winfrey left Wright’s church in the mid-90s? Why did Obama not denounce Wright earlier for his children’s sake?]
[For those of you who question why a pastor’s statements are important during a Presidential campaign – Chris Matthews, that is an elitist question. Obviously, there is no understanding of the role of religion among ‘the great unwashed.’ * sigh *]
Obama, after all, wants to be president of the United States, and in that quest has proposed unconditional summit meetings with some of our country's most determined enemies, including Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
[I saw on TV that Bill Bradley, former Presidential candidate, criticized Hillary Clinton’s “obliterate Iran” comment as being reckless telegraphing. What is anymore reckless telegraphing than unconditional summits?]
Obama's campaign has been built upon his supposed transcendent qualities and intuitive judgment. His foreign policy experience is limited to having lived in Indonesia between the ages of 6 and 10, and having traveled overseas briefly as a college student. He further claims that a speech he gave against the war in Iraq six years ago to extremely liberal supporters in a campaign for state senator in Illinois is sufficient proof of his superior judgment in national security matters and qualifies him to be president and commander-in-chief of U.S. Armed Forces at a time when we are fighting two extraordinarily difficult wars. As with his relationship with Wright, a closer examination is warranted.
In the U.S. Senate, to which he was elected in 2004, a year after the launching of Operation Iraqi Freedom, he has done little to act on his asserted anti-war position, and has said repeatedly that had he been in the Senate at the time of the vote on the authorization for the use of military force he doesn't know how he would have voted. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Europe, with jurisdiction over NATO, he has held not a single oversight meeting because, as he admitted, he was too busy running for president, even though NATO's presence in the Afghanistan war is critical to success in that venture.
Obama repeats the incorrect and politically irresponsible mantra that Sen. Hillary Clinton voted for the war and that therefore he is more qualified to be president. Unlike Obama, as the last acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq during the first Gulf War, I was deeply involved in that debate from the beginning.
President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell made it clear publicly and in their representations to Congress that the authorization was not to go to war but rather to give the president the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations to reinvigorate international will to contain and disarm Saddam Hussein, consistent with the resolutions passed at the time of the first Gulf War.
With passage of the resolution, the president did in fact achieve a U.N. consensus, and inspectors returned to Iraq. Hans Blix, the chief U.N. inspector, has said repeatedly that without American leadership there would have been no new inspection regime.
SADDAM WAS A SERIAL VIOLATOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS, had started two wars in the region in the previous decade, continued to threaten his neighbors, including Israel, which he once said he would destroy with weapons of mass destruction. We may not have fully understood how little remained of his WMD arsenal, but were we really willing in the aftermath of 9/11 to give him a free pass, as Obama's rewriting of history suggests he might have done?
The approach of tough diplomacy backed by the threat of military action was the correct one and it yielded exactly the desired results, a unanimously passed U.N. resolution and the capitulation of Saddam when he readmitted the inspectors.
The betrayal occurred not when the president was given the tools he needed to secure international support for inspections, but rather when Bush refused to allow the inspectors to complete their work and decided preemptively to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq.
[So, Clinton voted for ‘a big stick’ – which worked. The problem was when George W. Bush swung that ‘stick’ by himself – un-Constitutionally. * sigh *]
That decision and power was his alone -- not the Congress' and certainly not Hillary Clinton's. Obama is wrong to turn Bush's war into Clinton's responsibility. And Obama is dangerously naive in failing to understand the need in international crises to blend tough diplomacy with the other foreign policy tools at our disposal to achieve a strong national security posture.
Judgment and leadership in foreign policy are not intuitive. They are learned through experience. Obama's long and close relationship with the anti-American hate-monger Wright, his inattention to his responsibilities in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his careless approach to Iraq all suggest that he would benefit from more experience. We should ask whether we want those lessons to be learned in the White House.
[I, for one, hate to see my Party taken over by the wet-behind-the-ears far-left. Kids…. * sigh *]
[Look, this contest is for the heart-and-soul of the Democratic Party – the far-left of Obama and the center-left of Clinton. And the country is center-left. Why do you think the right hates the ‘Clinton brand’ so much?]
[And Obama’s far-left, well -- Why are the voters of West Virginia less important than, say, the voters in North Carolina? Is that a good message for the Obama campaign?]
(Joseph C. Wilson IV is a former diplomat and U.S. ambassador. He was senior director for African Affairs in the Clinton administration. In 2003 he wrote a New York Times opinion piece, "What I didn't find in Africa," challenging the Bush administration's use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq.)
Subject: Legitimate questions of judgment, experience
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/1060220.html
… by Joseph C. Wilson IV….
In recent weeks Americans have been subjected to a litany of outrageous statements from Sen. Barack Obama's pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. While Obama was finally compelled to distance himself from his radical preacher, the relationship raises legitimate questions about Obama's judgment and naivete.
[Such as: Why did Obama nod “Amen” to racist garbage for 20 years while Oprah Winfrey left Wright’s church in the mid-90s? Why did Obama not denounce Wright earlier for his children’s sake?]
[For those of you who question why a pastor’s statements are important during a Presidential campaign – Chris Matthews, that is an elitist question. Obviously, there is no understanding of the role of religion among ‘the great unwashed.’ * sigh *]
Obama, after all, wants to be president of the United States, and in that quest has proposed unconditional summit meetings with some of our country's most determined enemies, including Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
[I saw on TV that Bill Bradley, former Presidential candidate, criticized Hillary Clinton’s “obliterate Iran” comment as being reckless telegraphing. What is anymore reckless telegraphing than unconditional summits?]
Obama's campaign has been built upon his supposed transcendent qualities and intuitive judgment. His foreign policy experience is limited to having lived in Indonesia between the ages of 6 and 10, and having traveled overseas briefly as a college student. He further claims that a speech he gave against the war in Iraq six years ago to extremely liberal supporters in a campaign for state senator in Illinois is sufficient proof of his superior judgment in national security matters and qualifies him to be president and commander-in-chief of U.S. Armed Forces at a time when we are fighting two extraordinarily difficult wars. As with his relationship with Wright, a closer examination is warranted.
In the U.S. Senate, to which he was elected in 2004, a year after the launching of Operation Iraqi Freedom, he has done little to act on his asserted anti-war position, and has said repeatedly that had he been in the Senate at the time of the vote on the authorization for the use of military force he doesn't know how he would have voted. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Europe, with jurisdiction over NATO, he has held not a single oversight meeting because, as he admitted, he was too busy running for president, even though NATO's presence in the Afghanistan war is critical to success in that venture.
Obama repeats the incorrect and politically irresponsible mantra that Sen. Hillary Clinton voted for the war and that therefore he is more qualified to be president. Unlike Obama, as the last acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq during the first Gulf War, I was deeply involved in that debate from the beginning.
President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell made it clear publicly and in their representations to Congress that the authorization was not to go to war but rather to give the president the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations to reinvigorate international will to contain and disarm Saddam Hussein, consistent with the resolutions passed at the time of the first Gulf War.
With passage of the resolution, the president did in fact achieve a U.N. consensus, and inspectors returned to Iraq. Hans Blix, the chief U.N. inspector, has said repeatedly that without American leadership there would have been no new inspection regime.
SADDAM WAS A SERIAL VIOLATOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS, had started two wars in the region in the previous decade, continued to threaten his neighbors, including Israel, which he once said he would destroy with weapons of mass destruction. We may not have fully understood how little remained of his WMD arsenal, but were we really willing in the aftermath of 9/11 to give him a free pass, as Obama's rewriting of history suggests he might have done?
The approach of tough diplomacy backed by the threat of military action was the correct one and it yielded exactly the desired results, a unanimously passed U.N. resolution and the capitulation of Saddam when he readmitted the inspectors.
The betrayal occurred not when the president was given the tools he needed to secure international support for inspections, but rather when Bush refused to allow the inspectors to complete their work and decided preemptively to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq.
[So, Clinton voted for ‘a big stick’ – which worked. The problem was when George W. Bush swung that ‘stick’ by himself – un-Constitutionally. * sigh *]
That decision and power was his alone -- not the Congress' and certainly not Hillary Clinton's. Obama is wrong to turn Bush's war into Clinton's responsibility. And Obama is dangerously naive in failing to understand the need in international crises to blend tough diplomacy with the other foreign policy tools at our disposal to achieve a strong national security posture.
Judgment and leadership in foreign policy are not intuitive. They are learned through experience. Obama's long and close relationship with the anti-American hate-monger Wright, his inattention to his responsibilities in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his careless approach to Iraq all suggest that he would benefit from more experience. We should ask whether we want those lessons to be learned in the White House.
[I, for one, hate to see my Party taken over by the wet-behind-the-ears far-left. Kids…. * sigh *]
[Look, this contest is for the heart-and-soul of the Democratic Party – the far-left of Obama and the center-left of Clinton. And the country is center-left. Why do you think the right hates the ‘Clinton brand’ so much?]
[And Obama’s far-left, well -- Why are the voters of West Virginia less important than, say, the voters in North Carolina? Is that a good message for the Obama campaign?]
(Joseph C. Wilson IV is a former diplomat and U.S. ambassador. He was senior director for African Affairs in the Clinton administration. In 2003 he wrote a New York Times opinion piece, "What I didn't find in Africa," challenging the Bush administration's use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq.)
Friday, May 02, 2008
Post #153
Subject: Mission Accomplished
The White House said Wednesday that President George W. Bush has paid a price for the “Mission Accomplished” banner that was flown in triumph five years ago but later became a symbol of U.S. misjudgments and mistakes in the long and costly war in Iraq.
What price? Somebody named Bush die?
Yesterday was the fifth anniversary of Bush’s dramatic landing in a Navy jet on an aircraft carrier homebound from the war. The USS Abraham Lincoln had launched thousands of airstrikes on Iraq.
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” Bush said at the time. “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on.” The “Mission Accomplished” banner was prominently displayed above him – a move the White House came to regret as the display was mocked and became a source of controversy.
“President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said 'mission accomplished – for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission,'” White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday. “And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year.”
Oh, yeah, that price – that mean nasty media making fun. Whew – I thought “the price” was something big, like Laura getting a splinter in her “Victory Garden.” :p
She said what is important now is “how the president would describe the fight today. It’s been a very tough month in Iraq, but we are taking the fight to the enemy.”
Oh, man – he still doesn’t get it. The enemy we are fighting in Iraq is NOT our real enemy. Indeed, the Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and makig us less secure. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to our real enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats and have provided Al-Qaeda with a recruiting poster.
Bush, in a speech earlier this month, said “while this war is difficult, it is not endless.”
If that wasn’t so tragic, the irony would be overwhelming.
Subject: Mission Accomplished
The White House said Wednesday that President George W. Bush has paid a price for the “Mission Accomplished” banner that was flown in triumph five years ago but later became a symbol of U.S. misjudgments and mistakes in the long and costly war in Iraq.
What price? Somebody named Bush die?
Yesterday was the fifth anniversary of Bush’s dramatic landing in a Navy jet on an aircraft carrier homebound from the war. The USS Abraham Lincoln had launched thousands of airstrikes on Iraq.
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” Bush said at the time. “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on.” The “Mission Accomplished” banner was prominently displayed above him – a move the White House came to regret as the display was mocked and became a source of controversy.
“President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said 'mission accomplished – for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission,'” White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday. “And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year.”
Oh, yeah, that price – that mean nasty media making fun. Whew – I thought “the price” was something big, like Laura getting a splinter in her “Victory Garden.” :p
She said what is important now is “how the president would describe the fight today. It’s been a very tough month in Iraq, but we are taking the fight to the enemy.”
Oh, man – he still doesn’t get it. The enemy we are fighting in Iraq is NOT our real enemy. Indeed, the Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and makig us less secure. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to our real enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats and have provided Al-Qaeda with a recruiting poster.
Bush, in a speech earlier this month, said “while this war is difficult, it is not endless.”
If that wasn’t so tragic, the irony would be overwhelming.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Post #152
Subject: Quit, Obama, Quit
Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Monday that Barack Obama must drop out of the Democratic presidential race after the June primaries in order to unify the party by the convention and win the election in November. ”We want the voters to have their say. That's over on June 3," Dean said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
Oh, wait – Dean really said that either Hillary Clinton or Obama must quit after the primaries.
Dean also said that while the party rules say Democratic superdelegates can wait until the party's August 25 convention to make up their minds, that would be too late to unify the party and defeat the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain. "We really can't have a divided convention. If we do it's going to be very hard to heal the party afterwards," Dean said. "So we'll know who the nominee is and that'll give us an extra 2 1/2 months to get our party together, heal the wounds of having a very closely divided race and take on Senator McCain."
There’ll be no division – Obama will do the right thing and quit. There are nine primaries left, and Clinton leads the popular vote. Who is prepared to make Clinton “the Al Gore of ’08” and steal this election?
Let’s suppose Obama whines about Michigan. I say let’s have a one-day national primary, a re-vote. I wonder how many votes would switch today. And, Goodness, have a state-by-state, winner-take-all count that mimics the November election.
This is where the superdelegates come in. It is their responsibility to dismiss a candidate who has fatally wounded himself. The only division will come from Obama’s ego if he refuses to read the handwriting on the wall.
Clinton leads McCain by 9 in a poll released today while Obama and McCain were tied. Save us, superdelegates!
Subject: Quit, Obama, Quit
Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Monday that Barack Obama must drop out of the Democratic presidential race after the June primaries in order to unify the party by the convention and win the election in November. ”We want the voters to have their say. That's over on June 3," Dean said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
Oh, wait – Dean really said that either Hillary Clinton or Obama must quit after the primaries.
Dean also said that while the party rules say Democratic superdelegates can wait until the party's August 25 convention to make up their minds, that would be too late to unify the party and defeat the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain. "We really can't have a divided convention. If we do it's going to be very hard to heal the party afterwards," Dean said. "So we'll know who the nominee is and that'll give us an extra 2 1/2 months to get our party together, heal the wounds of having a very closely divided race and take on Senator McCain."
There’ll be no division – Obama will do the right thing and quit. There are nine primaries left, and Clinton leads the popular vote. Who is prepared to make Clinton “the Al Gore of ’08” and steal this election?
Let’s suppose Obama whines about Michigan. I say let’s have a one-day national primary, a re-vote. I wonder how many votes would switch today. And, Goodness, have a state-by-state, winner-take-all count that mimics the November election.
This is where the superdelegates come in. It is their responsibility to dismiss a candidate who has fatally wounded himself. The only division will come from Obama’s ego if he refuses to read the handwriting on the wall.
Clinton leads McCain by 9 in a poll released today while Obama and McCain were tied. Save us, superdelegates!
Friday, April 25, 2008
Post #151
Subject: John McCain and his 99-year war
It is not important that John McCain will keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years if they are not taking casualties. What is important is how many years McCain will keep our troops there if they are taking casualties. Five years? 10? 20? 50? 99?
We are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time. The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm. The Iraq War is NOT the War on Terror.
How long will McCain continue to squander blood and treasure for no strategic gain? Indeed, the Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats and have provided Al-Qaeda with a recruiting poster.
Do not look for an answer from “Mr. Straight-Talk” BEYOND “we’ll be there as long as it takes to get the job done.” He will not define “job” in a way that applies to a military mission – a favorite tactic of George W. Bush.
To do so, to define the “job” as something the military can do – such as ‘getting’ Saddam, hunting down and destroying terrorist training camps and toppling governments that harbor ‘em, would be to acknowledge that the “job” is perpetual war. And that is fighting terrorism how?
Osama bin Laden, in a videotape released on the eve of the ‘04 election, said that his intention was to bankrupt America. Bin Laden cited the example of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan where a guerrilla war of 10 years forced a bankrupt Soviet Union to withdraw and collapse. How much closer are we to achieving the goal of bin Laden?
McCain warns about the consequences of leaving, but what about the consequences of staying? At what point will McCain say “enough is enough?” How many more lives will be sacrificed? How many more billions? Will it take a terrorist attack here at home for McCain to realize that Iraq is not the place he needs to hang tough?
My fear is that we’ll end up like Russia, a second-rate power with a lot of nuclear weapons we can’t afford to secure.
Subject: John McCain and his 99-year war
It is not important that John McCain will keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years if they are not taking casualties. What is important is how many years McCain will keep our troops there if they are taking casualties. Five years? 10? 20? 50? 99?
We are involved in the decisive ideological struggle of our time. The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm. The Iraq War is NOT the War on Terror.
How long will McCain continue to squander blood and treasure for no strategic gain? Indeed, the Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure. The Iraq War itself is giving aid and comfort to the enemy – we are losing the ability to respond militarily to other threats and have provided Al-Qaeda with a recruiting poster.
Do not look for an answer from “Mr. Straight-Talk” BEYOND “we’ll be there as long as it takes to get the job done.” He will not define “job” in a way that applies to a military mission – a favorite tactic of George W. Bush.
To do so, to define the “job” as something the military can do – such as ‘getting’ Saddam, hunting down and destroying terrorist training camps and toppling governments that harbor ‘em, would be to acknowledge that the “job” is perpetual war. And that is fighting terrorism how?
Osama bin Laden, in a videotape released on the eve of the ‘04 election, said that his intention was to bankrupt America. Bin Laden cited the example of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan where a guerrilla war of 10 years forced a bankrupt Soviet Union to withdraw and collapse. How much closer are we to achieving the goal of bin Laden?
McCain warns about the consequences of leaving, but what about the consequences of staying? At what point will McCain say “enough is enough?” How many more lives will be sacrificed? How many more billions? Will it take a terrorist attack here at home for McCain to realize that Iraq is not the place he needs to hang tough?
My fear is that we’ll end up like Russia, a second-rate power with a lot of nuclear weapons we can’t afford to secure.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Post #150
Subject: open mouth, insert feet, Pt. II
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26004
“Stix Nix Obama’s Trix” by Jennifer Rubin
THE GOP SEES AN OPENING
Hillary got some help from the Republicans who decided that it was time to rough up the rookie candidate. (Whether the McCain team believes that Obama can be dislodged from the lead in favor of Hillary - who now trails John McCain in polls across the board - or whether they hope he can be bloodied before stumbling to the nomination, …
[Of course, John McCain wants a black as an opponent – appeals to racism can play to some %80 of voters whereas appeals to sexism can play to only some %50 of voters. Of course, too, McCain wants a bloodied opponent – and Barack Obama keeps doing it to himself.]
.... they were not about to miss this opportunity.) McCain’s communications director cut to the chase:
“It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking. It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans.’
Karl Rove predicted the mega-gaffe would doom Obama’s chances in Pennsylvania and Americans for Tax Reform’s, Grover Norquist went further, declaring it would cost him the election.
Robert Gleason, head of the Pennsylvania GOP remarked that this would raise “even more questions” about Obama’s values and observed:
"The vast majority of Pennsylvanians believe wholeheartedly in their Constitutional right to bear arms, have a strong devotion to their faith, and believe that our government should be actively looking for a solution to the illegal immigration crisis, and Barack Obama managed to offend every single one of us with this one statement. With a diverse population, many with immigrant backgrounds, it is sad Obama wants to paint the Keystone State with this broad brush of ignorance."
[A sharp commenter [?] at another blog nailed Obama as an elitist BEFORE these latest comments back when he went bowling. Obama must have thought, the poster said, ‘if these ya-hoos can bowl, I can too.’ And, without a lesson, he made a fool of himself ]
Obama must be wondering, “Who would have thought that a bunch of bare footed, Bible thumping, know-nothings would take such offense?” Obama had slipped on the ice of his own condescension. Now the question is: can he recover?
He tried out a longwinded explanation Friday night in Indiana for why he believed the poor downtrodden of Middle America had no choice but to resort to firearms and faith to easy their economic pain, but somehow that did not seem to fly. He quickly detoured into insulting McCain. He tried again on Saturday to explain he had meant no disrespect, but there was no way to take the sting out of his own words. Reporters were left scratching their heads: did he really believe voters would not be insulted by his treatise on their political backwardness?
THE MEDIA DESCENDS
Even the usually solicitous MSM spotted this as a gigantic problem for their beloved candidate. One MSNC analyst put it: “Regardless of what he really meant by it, the idea that you're calling unemployed people bitter does not come off so good. I think that he's going to spend a lot of time on this between now and however long the election goes on.” Other pundits intoned: “It’s bad - and it drips condescension.”
You know things are not going well when Chris Matthews concedes “Nobody wants to be called ‘bitter.’” In short, this was a gaffe so bad that not even his media cheerleader could rescue him.
KEYSTONE IMPACT
Hick-gate may well halt Obama’s Keystone state progress in its tracks. Beginning with a double digit deficit in the Pennsylvania primary polls Obama had cut Clinton’s sixteen-point lead to mid-single digits. His enormous TV ad buy and the Clinton’s Three Stooges routine (Mark Penn, Bill and Hillary) had managed to fumble Hillary’s lead, tripping over free trade and repressed memories of Bosnia.
By Friday (before the effect of Hick-gate could register), Clinton’s lead in the Realclearpolitics.com average hovered just above seven points (but that included an outlying Survey USA poll which still showed her ahead by 18 points).
Now Clinton has her chance to short circuit Obama’s already anemic outreach to white working class voters. If not impressed with his “37” bowling score they likely won’t be thrilled to learn that he equates them with Lil Abner characters.
Before Friday some Pennsylvania voters might already have been worried about Obama’ outlook on America because of his long time association with the hate-mongering Reverend Wright. They might have even been irked after reading in Obama’s memoirs that he considers the country beset by racists around every corner and even in his own family.
Well now Hillary can fully exploit those suspicions that Obama is an elitist who looks down on his fellow citizens, regarding them as narrow-minded and foolish. She need not touch the remarks of Reverend Wright (and risk being labeled a race baiter herself): she now has Obama’s own words to work with.
What’s more, Obama’s somewhat ludicrous attempt to appeal to gun owners in Pennsylvania (and elsewhere) is now likely kaput. They likely wouldn’t have fallen for it anyway. Contrary to his perception that they are dullards, these voters are smart enough to doubt the sincerity of a man who favored strict gun control as a state senator and failed to sign on to the Congressional friend of the court brief asking the Supreme Court to hold the D.C. handgun ban unconstitutional.
IMPACT
Next week’s voting will reveal how deep Obama’s self-inflicted wound is. Should Hillary nab a comfortable win in Pennsylvania, any hopes of putting her out of the Democrats’ misery will vanish. All eyes will turn to the exit polls. If Obama has dug his own grave with working class white voters (the very segment that was fleeing his coalition in Texas and Ohio) the superdelegates will perk up. Then her dire warnings of impending doom for the Democratic Party with an Obama nominee might seem downright credible.
[Barak Obama has been judged not by the color of his skin but the content of his character.]
And John McCain? He is living up to his self-described billing as the luckiest man alive.
Subject: open mouth, insert feet, Pt. II
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26004
“Stix Nix Obama’s Trix” by Jennifer Rubin
THE GOP SEES AN OPENING
Hillary got some help from the Republicans who decided that it was time to rough up the rookie candidate. (Whether the McCain team believes that Obama can be dislodged from the lead in favor of Hillary - who now trails John McCain in polls across the board - or whether they hope he can be bloodied before stumbling to the nomination, …
[Of course, John McCain wants a black as an opponent – appeals to racism can play to some %80 of voters whereas appeals to sexism can play to only some %50 of voters. Of course, too, McCain wants a bloodied opponent – and Barack Obama keeps doing it to himself.]
.... they were not about to miss this opportunity.) McCain’s communications director cut to the chase:
“It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking. It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans.’
Karl Rove predicted the mega-gaffe would doom Obama’s chances in Pennsylvania and Americans for Tax Reform’s, Grover Norquist went further, declaring it would cost him the election.
Robert Gleason, head of the Pennsylvania GOP remarked that this would raise “even more questions” about Obama’s values and observed:
"The vast majority of Pennsylvanians believe wholeheartedly in their Constitutional right to bear arms, have a strong devotion to their faith, and believe that our government should be actively looking for a solution to the illegal immigration crisis, and Barack Obama managed to offend every single one of us with this one statement. With a diverse population, many with immigrant backgrounds, it is sad Obama wants to paint the Keystone State with this broad brush of ignorance."
[A sharp commenter [?] at another blog nailed Obama as an elitist BEFORE these latest comments back when he went bowling. Obama must have thought, the poster said, ‘if these ya-hoos can bowl, I can too.’ And, without a lesson, he made a fool of himself ]
Obama must be wondering, “Who would have thought that a bunch of bare footed, Bible thumping, know-nothings would take such offense?” Obama had slipped on the ice of his own condescension. Now the question is: can he recover?
He tried out a longwinded explanation Friday night in Indiana for why he believed the poor downtrodden of Middle America had no choice but to resort to firearms and faith to easy their economic pain, but somehow that did not seem to fly. He quickly detoured into insulting McCain. He tried again on Saturday to explain he had meant no disrespect, but there was no way to take the sting out of his own words. Reporters were left scratching their heads: did he really believe voters would not be insulted by his treatise on their political backwardness?
THE MEDIA DESCENDS
Even the usually solicitous MSM spotted this as a gigantic problem for their beloved candidate. One MSNC analyst put it: “Regardless of what he really meant by it, the idea that you're calling unemployed people bitter does not come off so good. I think that he's going to spend a lot of time on this between now and however long the election goes on.” Other pundits intoned: “It’s bad - and it drips condescension.”
You know things are not going well when Chris Matthews concedes “Nobody wants to be called ‘bitter.’” In short, this was a gaffe so bad that not even his media cheerleader could rescue him.
KEYSTONE IMPACT
Hick-gate may well halt Obama’s Keystone state progress in its tracks. Beginning with a double digit deficit in the Pennsylvania primary polls Obama had cut Clinton’s sixteen-point lead to mid-single digits. His enormous TV ad buy and the Clinton’s Three Stooges routine (Mark Penn, Bill and Hillary) had managed to fumble Hillary’s lead, tripping over free trade and repressed memories of Bosnia.
By Friday (before the effect of Hick-gate could register), Clinton’s lead in the Realclearpolitics.com average hovered just above seven points (but that included an outlying Survey USA poll which still showed her ahead by 18 points).
Now Clinton has her chance to short circuit Obama’s already anemic outreach to white working class voters. If not impressed with his “37” bowling score they likely won’t be thrilled to learn that he equates them with Lil Abner characters.
Before Friday some Pennsylvania voters might already have been worried about Obama’ outlook on America because of his long time association with the hate-mongering Reverend Wright. They might have even been irked after reading in Obama’s memoirs that he considers the country beset by racists around every corner and even in his own family.
Well now Hillary can fully exploit those suspicions that Obama is an elitist who looks down on his fellow citizens, regarding them as narrow-minded and foolish. She need not touch the remarks of Reverend Wright (and risk being labeled a race baiter herself): she now has Obama’s own words to work with.
What’s more, Obama’s somewhat ludicrous attempt to appeal to gun owners in Pennsylvania (and elsewhere) is now likely kaput. They likely wouldn’t have fallen for it anyway. Contrary to his perception that they are dullards, these voters are smart enough to doubt the sincerity of a man who favored strict gun control as a state senator and failed to sign on to the Congressional friend of the court brief asking the Supreme Court to hold the D.C. handgun ban unconstitutional.
IMPACT
Next week’s voting will reveal how deep Obama’s self-inflicted wound is. Should Hillary nab a comfortable win in Pennsylvania, any hopes of putting her out of the Democrats’ misery will vanish. All eyes will turn to the exit polls. If Obama has dug his own grave with working class white voters (the very segment that was fleeing his coalition in Texas and Ohio) the superdelegates will perk up. Then her dire warnings of impending doom for the Democratic Party with an Obama nominee might seem downright credible.
[Barak Obama has been judged not by the color of his skin but the content of his character.]
And John McCain? He is living up to his self-described billing as the luckiest man alive.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Post #149
Subject: open mouth, insert feet
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26004
“Stix Nix Obama’s Trix” by Jennifer Rubin
Barack Obama broke the first rule of Democratic presidential politics: never let on that you believe rural American voters are hicks straight out of Deliverance. Unfortunately for The Chosen One’s adoring fans, he could not have picked a worse time to reveal his contempt for average Americans.
[“Every man I meet is my superior in some way. In that, I learn of him." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson. Unless Barack Obama believes that, he shouldn’t be President. Yes, that applies to all candidates.]
THE MOTHER OF ALL GAFFES
On Friday the usually Obamaphile Huffington Report turned the tables on him, breaking a story (complete with audio tape) that Obama had regaled a hoity-toity California fundraising audience with his thoughts on the rural folk of Pennsylvania. In remarks that his Left- wing Harvard professors would heartily endorse, he explained that the Californians should take pity on Pennsylvanians:
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them, And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
[In case Obama doesn’t get it, “bitter” is not offensive. What is offensive is the idea that “bitterness” can explain religious fervor. Did “bitterness” cause Obama to nod “Amen” to Reverend Wright for 20 years? There was no “bitterness” 50 years ago, how to explain those other ‘clings?’]
This was manna from political heaven for Hillary Clinton (who had spent most of Friday explaining a new set of fabrications from Bill about her brush with death in Bosnia) just as she was heading off into the political wilderness.
The Pennsylvania primary next week is do or die for Hillary. A loss or narrow win will send her packing; a comfortable victory will hush the hounds baying for her to leave the race. And for the campaign which could not shoot straight (or rather could not keep their shooting stories straight), the Clinton team finally had a clear shot at their target.
Even the worst-run presidential campaign in recent memory could see this opening. Hillary charged out with comments at a campaign appearance chiding Mr. Hope for finding only bitterness in Pennsylvania. (“I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves.”) and then moved in for the kill:
“Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families.”
The Clinton camp spent the remainder of the weekend pounding at Obama, Hillary personally whacking at him and surrogatees descending en masse to make certain the entire state knew they had been insulted.
[Not so bad for “the worst-run presidential campaign in recent memory,” huh?]
Subject: open mouth, insert feet
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26004
“Stix Nix Obama’s Trix” by Jennifer Rubin
Barack Obama broke the first rule of Democratic presidential politics: never let on that you believe rural American voters are hicks straight out of Deliverance. Unfortunately for The Chosen One’s adoring fans, he could not have picked a worse time to reveal his contempt for average Americans.
[“Every man I meet is my superior in some way. In that, I learn of him." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson. Unless Barack Obama believes that, he shouldn’t be President. Yes, that applies to all candidates.]
THE MOTHER OF ALL GAFFES
On Friday the usually Obamaphile Huffington Report turned the tables on him, breaking a story (complete with audio tape) that Obama had regaled a hoity-toity California fundraising audience with his thoughts on the rural folk of Pennsylvania. In remarks that his Left- wing Harvard professors would heartily endorse, he explained that the Californians should take pity on Pennsylvanians:
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them, And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
[In case Obama doesn’t get it, “bitter” is not offensive. What is offensive is the idea that “bitterness” can explain religious fervor. Did “bitterness” cause Obama to nod “Amen” to Reverend Wright for 20 years? There was no “bitterness” 50 years ago, how to explain those other ‘clings?’]
This was manna from political heaven for Hillary Clinton (who had spent most of Friday explaining a new set of fabrications from Bill about her brush with death in Bosnia) just as she was heading off into the political wilderness.
The Pennsylvania primary next week is do or die for Hillary. A loss or narrow win will send her packing; a comfortable victory will hush the hounds baying for her to leave the race. And for the campaign which could not shoot straight (or rather could not keep their shooting stories straight), the Clinton team finally had a clear shot at their target.
Even the worst-run presidential campaign in recent memory could see this opening. Hillary charged out with comments at a campaign appearance chiding Mr. Hope for finding only bitterness in Pennsylvania. (“I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves.”) and then moved in for the kill:
“Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families.”
The Clinton camp spent the remainder of the weekend pounding at Obama, Hillary personally whacking at him and surrogatees descending en masse to make certain the entire state knew they had been insulted.
[Not so bad for “the worst-run presidential campaign in recent memory,” huh?]
Friday, April 11, 2008
Post #148
Subject: Joe Lieberman, another politician...
I’m no fool. I realize most politicians are the worst form of human scum, lyin’ cheatin’ bastards who’ll do anything to get elected. Sometimes, tho, I’ll run across one whom I think to be misguided but honest.
Joe Lieberman
Senator Lieberman's re-election campaign caused its own Web site to crash on the eve of the August 2006 Connecticut primary, federal investigators have found, not supporters of Democratic challenger Ned Lamont, whom Lieberman implied were responsible.
"In short, the server that hosted the joe2006.com Web site failed because it was overutilized and misconfigured," according to an October 25, 2006, e-mail included in FBI documents obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press. "There was no evidence of (an) attack."
That was some two weeks BEFORE the general election. Who in the Lieberman campaign knew about this – that is, the charge that their political opponent engaged in dirty tricks was false – BEFORE the election?
Lamont said Wednesday that Lieberman, a Democratic-leaning independent, should apologize.
"Senator Lieberman's campaign team accused an awful lot of good people of breaking the law on the eve of the primary, and they did it for political purposes," Lamont told the AP in a telephone interview. "If he does the right thing, he'll stand up and say, 'I was wrong."
Lieberman had implied that Lamont supporters had hacked the site, saying on primary day: "I'm concerned that our Web site is knocked out on the day of the primary, you'd assume it wasn't any casual observer."
His campaign asked the Justice Department to investigate; Lamont's campaign denied involvement.
A Lieberman spokesman said Wednesday that the Senator considered the case closed.
"We were told by our Web site administrator that there was clear evidence of an outside effort to disrupt our site, and that the administrator was so certain that the site had been attacked that he was willing to swear to it in a legal affidavit," Dan Gerstein said.
Not so fast. Joe Lieberman should apologize for the false accusations and for the time between when he first knew the accusations were false and now. It’s only decent.
And un-political….
Subject: Joe Lieberman, another politician...
I’m no fool. I realize most politicians are the worst form of human scum, lyin’ cheatin’ bastards who’ll do anything to get elected. Sometimes, tho, I’ll run across one whom I think to be misguided but honest.
Joe Lieberman
Senator Lieberman's re-election campaign caused its own Web site to crash on the eve of the August 2006 Connecticut primary, federal investigators have found, not supporters of Democratic challenger Ned Lamont, whom Lieberman implied were responsible.
"In short, the server that hosted the joe2006.com Web site failed because it was overutilized and misconfigured," according to an October 25, 2006, e-mail included in FBI documents obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press. "There was no evidence of (an) attack."
That was some two weeks BEFORE the general election. Who in the Lieberman campaign knew about this – that is, the charge that their political opponent engaged in dirty tricks was false – BEFORE the election?
Lamont said Wednesday that Lieberman, a Democratic-leaning independent, should apologize.
"Senator Lieberman's campaign team accused an awful lot of good people of breaking the law on the eve of the primary, and they did it for political purposes," Lamont told the AP in a telephone interview. "If he does the right thing, he'll stand up and say, 'I was wrong."
Lieberman had implied that Lamont supporters had hacked the site, saying on primary day: "I'm concerned that our Web site is knocked out on the day of the primary, you'd assume it wasn't any casual observer."
His campaign asked the Justice Department to investigate; Lamont's campaign denied involvement.
A Lieberman spokesman said Wednesday that the Senator considered the case closed.
"We were told by our Web site administrator that there was clear evidence of an outside effort to disrupt our site, and that the administrator was so certain that the site had been attacked that he was willing to swear to it in a legal affidavit," Dan Gerstein said.
Not so fast. Joe Lieberman should apologize for the false accusations and for the time between when he first knew the accusations were false and now. It’s only decent.
And un-political….
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Post #!47
Subject: … from Hot Air
An e-pal sent in “a discussion of the current presidential campaign's 'identity politics'... an excerpt from the discussion section after the post, which i find is usually as, or more, enlightening than blog posts themselves:
“The elitists and their candidates know nothing about America outside their Gulfstream ghettos and it is way too late for them to even start pretending that they do. All it does is to further insult us ‘great unwashed’ out here in ‘Jesusland.’
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/05/the-irony-of-identity-politics/
“Roses are red, Grasses are green; get off your ass and join the Marines!”
Racism was not a part of the ’08 campaign – ‘til Barak Obama made it so. He called for “understanding” of Reverend Wright – thereby exposing himself as a racist… or at least an apologist for racism. I can’t vote for that.
Of course, I can’t vote for the bankrupting of America either – which is exactly what Osama Bin Laden wants. [rolleyes]
Subject: … from Hot Air
An e-pal sent in “a discussion of the current presidential campaign's 'identity politics'... an excerpt from the discussion section after the post, which i find is usually as, or more, enlightening than blog posts themselves:
“The elitists and their candidates know nothing about America outside their Gulfstream ghettos and it is way too late for them to even start pretending that they do. All it does is to further insult us ‘great unwashed’ out here in ‘Jesusland.’
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/05/the-irony-of-identity-politics/
“Roses are red, Grasses are green; get off your ass and join the Marines!”
Racism was not a part of the ’08 campaign – ‘til Barak Obama made it so. He called for “understanding” of Reverend Wright – thereby exposing himself as a racist… or at least an apologist for racism. I can’t vote for that.
Of course, I can’t vote for the bankrupting of America either – which is exactly what Osama Bin Laden wants. [rolleyes]
Friday, April 04, 2008
Post #146
Subject: Exactly… Pt. II
Is America ready for a black President? Yes, we are.
Can America elect a black candidate for President who shares Dr. King’s faith in America’s ideals? Yes, we can.
Can America elect a racist? No, we can’t.
... from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23918341/
Poll: Clinton leads Obama, McCain in key states
Primary vote between Democrats split sharply along racial lines
WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton holds a 9-point lead over rival Barack Obama among likely Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters ahead of the state's April 22 primary, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday.
Clinton, a New York senator who would be the first female president, leads the Illinois senator 50 percent to 41 percent, the poll found. She also runs better against the likely Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio -- all important swing states in the general election.
In a general election matchup in Florida, McCain closely trails Clinton 42 percent to 44 percent but McCain leads Obama, who would be the first black president, 46 percent to 37 percent, according to the poll.
"The difference between Clinton and Obama in Florida is the white vote," said Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
In Ohio, Clinton has a 48 to 39 percent lead over McCain after months of too-close-to-call results, the poll found. In an Obama-McCain matchup, Obama gets 43 percent against 42 percent for McCain.
In Pennsylvania, Clinton tops McCain 48 to 40 percent and Obama leads the Arizona senator 43 percent to 39 percent.
Among Pennsylvania Democrats, Clinton leads 54 to 37 percent with women and ties Obama with men at 46 percent support.
The primary vote between Clinton and Obama splits sharply along racial lines.
Clinon leads 59 to 34 percent among white Pennsylvania likely primary voters while Obama leads 73 to 11 percent among black Democrats, the poll found.
Roughly 44 percent of people in all three states said the economy was the most important issue in their vote, while about a quarter of respondents said the war in Iraq is most important. The economic concerns of voters make Ohio a tougher challenge for McCain than has traditionally been the case for Republicans, who have never won the White House without carrying Ohio," Brown said. "But Obama's weakness among white men is an indication that he has not yet closed the sale among the lunch bucket brigade."
The poll was conducted March 24 through 31. Quinnipiac surveyed 1,135 Florida voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percent; 1,238 Ohio voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent; 3,484 Pennsylvania voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.7 percent including 1,549 Democratic likely voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent
Subject: Exactly… Pt. II
Is America ready for a black President? Yes, we are.
Can America elect a black candidate for President who shares Dr. King’s faith in America’s ideals? Yes, we can.
Can America elect a racist? No, we can’t.
... from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23918341/
Poll: Clinton leads Obama, McCain in key states
Primary vote between Democrats split sharply along racial lines
WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton holds a 9-point lead over rival Barack Obama among likely Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters ahead of the state's April 22 primary, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday.
Clinton, a New York senator who would be the first female president, leads the Illinois senator 50 percent to 41 percent, the poll found. She also runs better against the likely Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio -- all important swing states in the general election.
In a general election matchup in Florida, McCain closely trails Clinton 42 percent to 44 percent but McCain leads Obama, who would be the first black president, 46 percent to 37 percent, according to the poll.
"The difference between Clinton and Obama in Florida is the white vote," said Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
In Ohio, Clinton has a 48 to 39 percent lead over McCain after months of too-close-to-call results, the poll found. In an Obama-McCain matchup, Obama gets 43 percent against 42 percent for McCain.
In Pennsylvania, Clinton tops McCain 48 to 40 percent and Obama leads the Arizona senator 43 percent to 39 percent.
Among Pennsylvania Democrats, Clinton leads 54 to 37 percent with women and ties Obama with men at 46 percent support.
The primary vote between Clinton and Obama splits sharply along racial lines.
Clinon leads 59 to 34 percent among white Pennsylvania likely primary voters while Obama leads 73 to 11 percent among black Democrats, the poll found.
Roughly 44 percent of people in all three states said the economy was the most important issue in their vote, while about a quarter of respondents said the war in Iraq is most important. The economic concerns of voters make Ohio a tougher challenge for McCain than has traditionally been the case for Republicans, who have never won the White House without carrying Ohio," Brown said. "But Obama's weakness among white men is an indication that he has not yet closed the sale among the lunch bucket brigade."
The poll was conducted March 24 through 31. Quinnipiac surveyed 1,135 Florida voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percent; 1,238 Ohio voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent; 3,484 Pennsylvania voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.7 percent including 1,549 Democratic likely voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Post #145
Subject: Exactly…
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/29/65423/4259
As a loyal and faithful Democratic voter for my whole life, I’ve always voted against racism. I am a member of the Democratic base, poor white trash. Now, I’m being asked by the Democratic Party to support a racist who is half-black – as tho that matters.
As I believe John F. Kennedy said, ‘sometimes, party loyalty asks too much.'
Subject: Exactly…
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/29/65423/4259
As a loyal and faithful Democratic voter for my whole life, I’ve always voted against racism. I am a member of the Democratic base, poor white trash. Now, I’m being asked by the Democratic Party to support a racist who is half-black – as tho that matters.
As I believe John F. Kennedy said, ‘sometimes, party loyalty asks too much.'
Friday, March 28, 2008
Post #144
Subject: Racism and Sexism and the GOP
Have ya heard that the Republican party is worried about charges of racism and sexism in the ’08 election? Supposedly, they are having focus groups and studies to show how to avoid those charges.
Are ya kidding me!?! I thought that appeals to racism and sexism were the whole Republican strategy for ’08. :p
By the numbers, some %80 of voters are vulnerable to racist appeals – ‘I ain’t voting for no black man.’ Some %50 of voters are vulnerable to sexist appeals – ‘I ain’t voting for no woman.’ Is it any wonder that Republicans are drooling to run against a black man?
Of course, Obama is not helping his case by appearing as a racist himself. It’s not a big leap in logic to think that, after 20 years of sitting in the pew of Reverend Wright spewing his racist garbage, a little bit of venom has rubbed off.
Oh, how the Republicans must be grinning – YouTube has freely provided all the campaign advertising needed for ’08, and John McCain will not have dirty his hands.
I’m telling ya: I’m NOT voting for a warmonger – I’m NOT voting for a racist. I’ll just sit out this year – and enjoy the talking heads trying to explain how a candidate who had delivered ‘the greatest political speech of the past 40 years’ lost. Are ya listening, Chris Matthews? You’ll blame Hillary – even tho Barack stepped on his own toes.
Oh, I know all about “black rage” – living in a fully integrated area and working for a predominately black company and having attended black churches. I feel qualified to spot a racist – and am insulted when I hear that I ‘just don’t get it.’
The irony is that I was fully prepared to vote for a black man – as I have done before – even after the news of Reverend Wright broke. It wasn’t until Obama called for “understanding” that I realized what I was dealing with.
Thank Goodness that Hillary is still in the race – providing an alternative….
I, for one, am sick and tired of calls for Hillary to quit – let all the votes count. Barack IS ahead, but ya don’t stop a football game at the end of the 3rd quarter. I think that some peeps are worried that Barack Obama can’t finish – well, he can’t. He’ll need some of those evil nasty superdelegates to clinch the nomination.
No wonder they want Hillary to quit.
Subject: Racism and Sexism and the GOP
Have ya heard that the Republican party is worried about charges of racism and sexism in the ’08 election? Supposedly, they are having focus groups and studies to show how to avoid those charges.
Are ya kidding me!?! I thought that appeals to racism and sexism were the whole Republican strategy for ’08. :p
By the numbers, some %80 of voters are vulnerable to racist appeals – ‘I ain’t voting for no black man.’ Some %50 of voters are vulnerable to sexist appeals – ‘I ain’t voting for no woman.’ Is it any wonder that Republicans are drooling to run against a black man?
Of course, Obama is not helping his case by appearing as a racist himself. It’s not a big leap in logic to think that, after 20 years of sitting in the pew of Reverend Wright spewing his racist garbage, a little bit of venom has rubbed off.
Oh, how the Republicans must be grinning – YouTube has freely provided all the campaign advertising needed for ’08, and John McCain will not have dirty his hands.
I’m telling ya: I’m NOT voting for a warmonger – I’m NOT voting for a racist. I’ll just sit out this year – and enjoy the talking heads trying to explain how a candidate who had delivered ‘the greatest political speech of the past 40 years’ lost. Are ya listening, Chris Matthews? You’ll blame Hillary – even tho Barack stepped on his own toes.
Oh, I know all about “black rage” – living in a fully integrated area and working for a predominately black company and having attended black churches. I feel qualified to spot a racist – and am insulted when I hear that I ‘just don’t get it.’
The irony is that I was fully prepared to vote for a black man – as I have done before – even after the news of Reverend Wright broke. It wasn’t until Obama called for “understanding” that I realized what I was dealing with.
Thank Goodness that Hillary is still in the race – providing an alternative….
I, for one, am sick and tired of calls for Hillary to quit – let all the votes count. Barack IS ahead, but ya don’t stop a football game at the end of the 3rd quarter. I think that some peeps are worried that Barack Obama can’t finish – well, he can’t. He’ll need some of those evil nasty superdelegates to clinch the nomination.
No wonder they want Hillary to quit.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Post #143
Subject: An exit strategy without an exit, Pt. III
The “World Blog” is a service of NBC News – available at msnbc.com – in which reporters from around the world file a local news story, complete with local sources, that have implications for us. Richard Engel, Middle East bureau chief, filed “An exit strategy without an exit” – my Posts #141 and #142 – careful readers of this blog already know about this story. :P
Now, what makes the “World Blog” so interesting is that ordinary peeps get to add their 2 cents – such as:
“There is a strategy:
“Investigate the money trail blazed by Grover Norquist, Bush et al, multinationals, and defense contractors.
“1. Uncover where the billions have disappeared to, or to whom has been receiving kick-backs. In the real world, we call this embezzlement - it MUST be rampant there.
“2. The multinationals and defense contractor outfits that pulled the political puppets' strings for no-bid contracts, etc. - you COERCE these folks to REBUILD Iraq, since it was they - with the AEI "strategists" and the Bush White House cheerleaders; that brought war to common Iraqis and working class Americans.
“You LET them; with their RECORD profits pick up the tab.
“You let the multinationals that have hoarded money in off shore accounts (CitiBank, Banque Suisse, Deutsche Bank, etc. - the latter a preferred bank by the bin Laden family) pay the BILLIONS owed in CORPORATE TAXES to the USA -
“Gee - I think $63 Billion could be utilized to help our VETERANS - I think it could be utilized to help educate more Americans; I think it could be used to help insured American who lack health insurance; I think it could be utilized to off-set the mortage-loan-sharks that have helped evict American families out into the street!
“Read John Zdanowitz's (Florida International Univ.)work about profit laundering, tax evasion, etc. by these multinationals - read how the shell companies launder the profits they make to fund terror!
“Then - WHEN the MULTINATIONALS & DEFENSE CONTRACTORS do pay to rebuild Iraq - they employ IRAQI people to do the work so they can support their families; helping them establish a better, more normal life with security and basic necessities -
“If they were busy, being productive; having the necessities to help their families - they would NOT be as inclined engage in terror: their needs were being met. Read Mike Mazaar's article entitled " The Psychology of Terror" (Hoover Institute's Policy Review). Maazar is a professor at the Army War College.
“Yep. It's about time these MULTINATIONALS PAY for what they reap. It is they that wallow in the dividends - Lynn Cheney is on the BOARD at GENERAL DYNAMICS - gee - cozy, ethical, no-conflict of interest relationship with her war mongering husband and their fellow colleagues at American Enterprise Institute.”
“Seems to be a plan to perpetuate the gravy train for the"Military Industrial Complex" at the cost of many lives & increasing national debt.”
‘The US force size should be: no more than in Korea, paid for by Iraq, and be accompanied by a regional treaty similar to NATO or SEATO.”
“Bush and company misled the Congress” – the people’s representatives :p – “and we went into Iraq. Saddam was the objective then.” Only because the small minds in the White House bought the insane theories of Laurie MyLroie. “But the scenario has changed and so has the strategic goal. How we got there is not an excuse to run out.” How we got there IS important so that we can learn from our mistake – enough votes for an idiot so that he can “steal” an election. “The job that needs to be done is to crush the Islamic fundamentalist and radicals..The Dems need to wake up to the realities of the world. America needs to wake up to the threat that the House of Saud pose in the Wahabi version of Islam! “ And the reality is that Bush’s Iraq policy is NOT addressing Islamic fundamentalism and is making that movement grow. [rolleyes]
Subject: An exit strategy without an exit, Pt. III
The “World Blog” is a service of NBC News – available at msnbc.com – in which reporters from around the world file a local news story, complete with local sources, that have implications for us. Richard Engel, Middle East bureau chief, filed “An exit strategy without an exit” – my Posts #141 and #142 – careful readers of this blog already know about this story. :P
Now, what makes the “World Blog” so interesting is that ordinary peeps get to add their 2 cents – such as:
“There is a strategy:
“Investigate the money trail blazed by Grover Norquist, Bush et al, multinationals, and defense contractors.
“1. Uncover where the billions have disappeared to, or to whom has been receiving kick-backs. In the real world, we call this embezzlement - it MUST be rampant there.
“2. The multinationals and defense contractor outfits that pulled the political puppets' strings for no-bid contracts, etc. - you COERCE these folks to REBUILD Iraq, since it was they - with the AEI "strategists" and the Bush White House cheerleaders; that brought war to common Iraqis and working class Americans.
“You LET them; with their RECORD profits pick up the tab.
“You let the multinationals that have hoarded money in off shore accounts (CitiBank, Banque Suisse, Deutsche Bank, etc. - the latter a preferred bank by the bin Laden family) pay the BILLIONS owed in CORPORATE TAXES to the USA -
“Gee - I think $63 Billion could be utilized to help our VETERANS - I think it could be utilized to help educate more Americans; I think it could be used to help insured American who lack health insurance; I think it could be utilized to off-set the mortage-loan-sharks that have helped evict American families out into the street!
“Read John Zdanowitz's (Florida International Univ.)work about profit laundering, tax evasion, etc. by these multinationals - read how the shell companies launder the profits they make to fund terror!
“Then - WHEN the MULTINATIONALS & DEFENSE CONTRACTORS do pay to rebuild Iraq - they employ IRAQI people to do the work so they can support their families; helping them establish a better, more normal life with security and basic necessities -
“If they were busy, being productive; having the necessities to help their families - they would NOT be as inclined engage in terror: their needs were being met. Read Mike Mazaar's article entitled " The Psychology of Terror" (Hoover Institute's Policy Review). Maazar is a professor at the Army War College.
“Yep. It's about time these MULTINATIONALS PAY for what they reap. It is they that wallow in the dividends - Lynn Cheney is on the BOARD at GENERAL DYNAMICS - gee - cozy, ethical, no-conflict of interest relationship with her war mongering husband and their fellow colleagues at American Enterprise Institute.”
“Seems to be a plan to perpetuate the gravy train for the"Military Industrial Complex" at the cost of many lives & increasing national debt.”
‘The US force size should be: no more than in Korea, paid for by Iraq, and be accompanied by a regional treaty similar to NATO or SEATO.”
“Bush and company misled the Congress” – the people’s representatives :p – “and we went into Iraq. Saddam was the objective then.” Only because the small minds in the White House bought the insane theories of Laurie MyLroie. “But the scenario has changed and so has the strategic goal. How we got there is not an excuse to run out.” How we got there IS important so that we can learn from our mistake – enough votes for an idiot so that he can “steal” an election. “The job that needs to be done is to crush the Islamic fundamentalist and radicals..The Dems need to wake up to the realities of the world. America needs to wake up to the threat that the House of Saud pose in the Wahabi version of Islam! “ And the reality is that Bush’s Iraq policy is NOT addressing Islamic fundamentalism and is making that movement grow. [rolleyes]
Friday, March 21, 2008
Post #142
Subject: An exit strategy without an exit, Pt. II
The “World Blog” is a service of NBC News – available at msnbc.com – in which reporters from around the world file a local news story, complete with local sources, that have implications for us. Richard Engel, Middle East bureau chief, filed “An exit strategy without an exit” – my Post #141 – careful readers of this blog already know about this story. :p
Now, what makes the “World Blog” so interesting is that ordinary peeps get to add their 2 cents – such as:
“A report of this on NPR called it a "treaty" with the Bush Administration going out of its way to avoid using the word "treaty". No wonder. A "treaty" requires Senate approval while bilateral agreements generally do not. This is symptomatic of this administrations' go-it-alone-I-know-whats-good-for-you philosophy. They readily violate the Constitute behind our backs and say the Constitute doesn't apply when they do it in front of our faces.”
“That is why the Democratic canditates are demanding that Bush not negotiate a permanent committment to keep our troops in Iraq during the rest of his tenure. No matter, he is going to do it anyway. That not the only matter that he will try to entangle us into before he leaves. How about permanent tax cuts for the rich, Continued survalence on citizens, renewing the Patriot Act. Bush, is going to use fear as a weapon to bludgen the Congress into going along with more funding for this stupid war and further eroding our Constitution rights. That is why I believe an impeachment trial should begin. That is the only way to corral this man.”
Yes, you’d think that President George W. Bush would stop pissing on our leg and telling us it’s raining. But nobody has the courage to stop him – or even try. Bush is leading us down a road to ruin, and peeps seem content to follow. * sigh *
The truly sad thing is that Bush’s way – a disrespect for our Constitution, our people and way of life – is not the way to win the War on Terror. Bush just wants 10 more months without a homeland attack – he’ll call his time a “success,” damn the long-term consequences.
“AS LONG AS THE AMERICAN MILITARY PRESENSE IS IN IRAQ, IT WON'T MATTER IF THE SOLDIERS STAY IN BASE CAMPS OR IN CAVES, THEY WILL STILL BE THERE AND SUBJECT TO ATTACKS AND PROTESTS BY THE IRAQI PUBLIC. THERE IS NO IDEA OF HOW MANY US TROOPS WILL BE NEEDED TO STAY AND TRAIN THE IRAQI'S AND OF COURSE, WHAT WILL THE US TROOPS DO WHEN THEY COME UNDER ATTACK? YES I KNOW THEY WILL FIGHT BACK BUT WHERE, IN THE FIELD, NEIGHBORHOODS, WHERE? AS LONG AS AMERICAN SOLDIERS HAVE TO COMPLETE TOURS OD DUTY IN IRAQ, THIS WAR WILL NOT BE OVER AND OUR SOLDIERS' PRESENCE WILL CONSTANTLY REMIND THE IRAQI PEOPLE OF OUR INTERVENTION AND ONLY SEEM LIKE A PUPPETEER PULLING STRINGS AND STILL CONTROLING THEIR COUNTRY.”
“There will continue to be war and violence in Iraq until we're willing to confront the root cause of global jihadism, our wonderful "friends and allies," the Saudis:
http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com/
"It is no coincidence that the overwhelming majority of the hijackers on 9/11, and the vast majority of the fanatical suicide bombers wreaking havoc in Iraq, all seem to be coming from the exact same place. Indeed, even now they are working steadfastly to undermine the gains we've recently made in Iraq:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/world/middleeast/24sunni.html?ref=middleeast
"And you can bet they continue to destabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan, diligently spreading their Wahhabi crap. To cite but one telling example:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2007/12/bhutto_remembered.html
"Until we open our eyes and confront the real enemy, we will not make one inch of real progress in the War on Terror.”
Subject: An exit strategy without an exit, Pt. II
The “World Blog” is a service of NBC News – available at msnbc.com – in which reporters from around the world file a local news story, complete with local sources, that have implications for us. Richard Engel, Middle East bureau chief, filed “An exit strategy without an exit” – my Post #141 – careful readers of this blog already know about this story. :p
Now, what makes the “World Blog” so interesting is that ordinary peeps get to add their 2 cents – such as:
“A report of this on NPR called it a "treaty" with the Bush Administration going out of its way to avoid using the word "treaty". No wonder. A "treaty" requires Senate approval while bilateral agreements generally do not. This is symptomatic of this administrations' go-it-alone-I-know-whats-good-for-you philosophy. They readily violate the Constitute behind our backs and say the Constitute doesn't apply when they do it in front of our faces.”
“That is why the Democratic canditates are demanding that Bush not negotiate a permanent committment to keep our troops in Iraq during the rest of his tenure. No matter, he is going to do it anyway. That not the only matter that he will try to entangle us into before he leaves. How about permanent tax cuts for the rich, Continued survalence on citizens, renewing the Patriot Act. Bush, is going to use fear as a weapon to bludgen the Congress into going along with more funding for this stupid war and further eroding our Constitution rights. That is why I believe an impeachment trial should begin. That is the only way to corral this man.”
Yes, you’d think that President George W. Bush would stop pissing on our leg and telling us it’s raining. But nobody has the courage to stop him – or even try. Bush is leading us down a road to ruin, and peeps seem content to follow. * sigh *
The truly sad thing is that Bush’s way – a disrespect for our Constitution, our people and way of life – is not the way to win the War on Terror. Bush just wants 10 more months without a homeland attack – he’ll call his time a “success,” damn the long-term consequences.
“AS LONG AS THE AMERICAN MILITARY PRESENSE IS IN IRAQ, IT WON'T MATTER IF THE SOLDIERS STAY IN BASE CAMPS OR IN CAVES, THEY WILL STILL BE THERE AND SUBJECT TO ATTACKS AND PROTESTS BY THE IRAQI PUBLIC. THERE IS NO IDEA OF HOW MANY US TROOPS WILL BE NEEDED TO STAY AND TRAIN THE IRAQI'S AND OF COURSE, WHAT WILL THE US TROOPS DO WHEN THEY COME UNDER ATTACK? YES I KNOW THEY WILL FIGHT BACK BUT WHERE, IN THE FIELD, NEIGHBORHOODS, WHERE? AS LONG AS AMERICAN SOLDIERS HAVE TO COMPLETE TOURS OD DUTY IN IRAQ, THIS WAR WILL NOT BE OVER AND OUR SOLDIERS' PRESENCE WILL CONSTANTLY REMIND THE IRAQI PEOPLE OF OUR INTERVENTION AND ONLY SEEM LIKE A PUPPETEER PULLING STRINGS AND STILL CONTROLING THEIR COUNTRY.”
“There will continue to be war and violence in Iraq until we're willing to confront the root cause of global jihadism, our wonderful "friends and allies," the Saudis:
http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com/
"It is no coincidence that the overwhelming majority of the hijackers on 9/11, and the vast majority of the fanatical suicide bombers wreaking havoc in Iraq, all seem to be coming from the exact same place. Indeed, even now they are working steadfastly to undermine the gains we've recently made in Iraq:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/world/middleeast/24sunni.html?ref=middleeast
"And you can bet they continue to destabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan, diligently spreading their Wahhabi crap. To cite but one telling example:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2007/12/bhutto_remembered.html
"Until we open our eyes and confront the real enemy, we will not make one inch of real progress in the War on Terror.”
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Post #141
Subject: An exit strategy without an exit
The “World Blog” is a service of NBC News – available at msnbc.com – in which reporters from around the world file a local news story, complete with local sources, that have implications for us. Richard Engel, Middle East bureau chief, filed “An exit strategy without an exit” – careful readers of this blog already know about this story. :p
* * *
Nearly half a decade since the big bangs of "Shock and Awe," the United States and the Iraqi government are about to start writing a plan for U.S. forces to exit the war in Iraq, but not the country.
Senior U.S. and Iraqi officials will soon begin negotiating a strategic agreement to answer critical questions about the future role and commitment of U.S. forces in Iraq.
The agreement, being tentatively called the U.S.-Iraq Friendship and Cooperation Agreement, could be the most important bilateral arrangement since the war, setting up U.S.-Iraqi relations for years, if not decades, to come.
American and Iraqi negotiators so far seem to have similar visions for the agreement. Both sides see a long-term U.S. military commitment to support, equip and train Iraqi forces.
On Thursday Iraq’s foreign minister, Hoshar Zebari, one of Iraq’s four principal negotiators, told NBC News the agreement should be finished by July and calls for a new mission for U.S. troops.
"What kind of role does Iraq want the U.S. forces to play?" I asked.
"I think to continue the role of building, supporting and arming the Iraqi security forces, and also to provide support, let’s say, on request in the future because we want our forces to be self reliant to stand on their own," said Zebari. "We cannot continue to rely and depend on the U.S. support indefinitely. I think we can, and we know how, to defend ourselves and how to stand up provided we are given the means."
"So you would like U.S. forces to stay on bases to come out and provide support when they’re asked to do?" I asked.
"I think that’s the idea. Instead of carrying out these daily patrols, exposure, and combat missions, you see, this would be changed. And this is a plus really both for Iraqis and for the American soldiers," he said.
The timing is critical and somewhat controversial. Both U.S. and Iraqi negotiators want to finish the agreement while the Bush administration is still in office. It’s reasonable. They don’t want to start from square one with a new administration.
But critics say the Bush administration is trying to lock the United States into an open-ended military commitment in Iraq before leaving office.
On Thursday, Iraq was putting down markers. Zebari said Iraq wants the agreement to include:
- A U.S. commitment of military support and protection
- Clarification of the legal status of U.S. troops and private security contractors, including Blackwater USA, both currently immune from Iraqi prosecution
- A counter-terrorism partnership
- Continued U.S. training and supplies of military hardware
A senior American negotiator told NBC News that Washington wants the agreement to be flexible and said it will not include details about specific troop levels or permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.
When I asked a senior Iraqi official if the agreement means there will be long-term American bases in Iraq, he said, "This is an agreement of enduring military support. The soldiers are going to have to stay someplace. They can’t stay in the air."
* * *
Now, what makes the “World Blog” so interesting is that ordinary peeps get to add their 2 cents – such as:
“the empire is on it's last legs. it will end just like all the others.”
Ya been reading my blog? :p The decline-and-fall has been going on since 1950 and our involvement in the Korean, uh, Police Action – George W. Bush has only accelerated the coming end.
“This is all going to cost money. How are we going to pay for this? It would be a lot less expensive if we just got out, period. Ron Paul wants to get all of our troops off of foreign soil and put them to work protecting our borders. I think that is a much better idea.”
“What ever long term commitments the Bush Administration is trying to "Commit" us to, I hope the U.S. Congress and the new administration undoes and gets us out of there. The President can not sign accord with other nations without Congressional approval anyway. Then again, we've seen this president try and usurp the U.S. Constitution time and time again. I bet he wishes the U.S. were a Kingdom instead of a Democracy.”
King Weasel – has a nice ring to it, huh?
Subject: An exit strategy without an exit
The “World Blog” is a service of NBC News – available at msnbc.com – in which reporters from around the world file a local news story, complete with local sources, that have implications for us. Richard Engel, Middle East bureau chief, filed “An exit strategy without an exit” – careful readers of this blog already know about this story. :p
* * *
Nearly half a decade since the big bangs of "Shock and Awe," the United States and the Iraqi government are about to start writing a plan for U.S. forces to exit the war in Iraq, but not the country.
Senior U.S. and Iraqi officials will soon begin negotiating a strategic agreement to answer critical questions about the future role and commitment of U.S. forces in Iraq.
The agreement, being tentatively called the U.S.-Iraq Friendship and Cooperation Agreement, could be the most important bilateral arrangement since the war, setting up U.S.-Iraqi relations for years, if not decades, to come.
American and Iraqi negotiators so far seem to have similar visions for the agreement. Both sides see a long-term U.S. military commitment to support, equip and train Iraqi forces.
On Thursday Iraq’s foreign minister, Hoshar Zebari, one of Iraq’s four principal negotiators, told NBC News the agreement should be finished by July and calls for a new mission for U.S. troops.
"What kind of role does Iraq want the U.S. forces to play?" I asked.
"I think to continue the role of building, supporting and arming the Iraqi security forces, and also to provide support, let’s say, on request in the future because we want our forces to be self reliant to stand on their own," said Zebari. "We cannot continue to rely and depend on the U.S. support indefinitely. I think we can, and we know how, to defend ourselves and how to stand up provided we are given the means."
"So you would like U.S. forces to stay on bases to come out and provide support when they’re asked to do?" I asked.
"I think that’s the idea. Instead of carrying out these daily patrols, exposure, and combat missions, you see, this would be changed. And this is a plus really both for Iraqis and for the American soldiers," he said.
The timing is critical and somewhat controversial. Both U.S. and Iraqi negotiators want to finish the agreement while the Bush administration is still in office. It’s reasonable. They don’t want to start from square one with a new administration.
But critics say the Bush administration is trying to lock the United States into an open-ended military commitment in Iraq before leaving office.
On Thursday, Iraq was putting down markers. Zebari said Iraq wants the agreement to include:
- A U.S. commitment of military support and protection
- Clarification of the legal status of U.S. troops and private security contractors, including Blackwater USA, both currently immune from Iraqi prosecution
- A counter-terrorism partnership
- Continued U.S. training and supplies of military hardware
A senior American negotiator told NBC News that Washington wants the agreement to be flexible and said it will not include details about specific troop levels or permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.
When I asked a senior Iraqi official if the agreement means there will be long-term American bases in Iraq, he said, "This is an agreement of enduring military support. The soldiers are going to have to stay someplace. They can’t stay in the air."
* * *
Now, what makes the “World Blog” so interesting is that ordinary peeps get to add their 2 cents – such as:
“the empire is on it's last legs. it will end just like all the others.”
Ya been reading my blog? :p The decline-and-fall has been going on since 1950 and our involvement in the Korean, uh, Police Action – George W. Bush has only accelerated the coming end.
“This is all going to cost money. How are we going to pay for this? It would be a lot less expensive if we just got out, period. Ron Paul wants to get all of our troops off of foreign soil and put them to work protecting our borders. I think that is a much better idea.”
“What ever long term commitments the Bush Administration is trying to "Commit" us to, I hope the U.S. Congress and the new administration undoes and gets us out of there. The President can not sign accord with other nations without Congressional approval anyway. Then again, we've seen this president try and usurp the U.S. Constitution time and time again. I bet he wishes the U.S. were a Kingdom instead of a Democracy.”
King Weasel – has a nice ring to it, huh?
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Post #140
Subject: Crimes Against the Constitution?
March 4, 2008 – Voters in two Vermont towns approved measures calling for the indictment of President George Weasel Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for what they consider violations of the Constitution. More symbolic than anything, the items sought to have police arrest Bush and Cheney if they ever visit the two towns or to extradite them for prosecution elsewhere -- if they're not impeached first.
The question put to voters referred to "crimes against our Constitution" but did not specify the allegations. I could list a few – beginning with the biggie of declaring war all by himself. No matter how much you scare Congress, the Constitution does not change.
"I realize it's an extreme thing to do, and really silly in a way," said Robert George, 74, a retired photographer. "But I'm really angry about us getting involved in the war in Iraq and him (Bush) disrespecting the will of the people."
The White House press office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, but a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee denounced the indictment effort. "It appears that the left wing knows no bounds in their willingness to waste taxpayer dollars to make a futile counterproductive partisan political point," said Blair Latoff. "Town people would be much better served by elected officials who sought to solve problems rather than create them."
Well, gee, Blair, I bet you’re fun at dinner parties. [rolleyes]
Subject: Crimes Against the Constitution?
March 4, 2008 – Voters in two Vermont towns approved measures calling for the indictment of President George Weasel Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for what they consider violations of the Constitution. More symbolic than anything, the items sought to have police arrest Bush and Cheney if they ever visit the two towns or to extradite them for prosecution elsewhere -- if they're not impeached first.
The question put to voters referred to "crimes against our Constitution" but did not specify the allegations. I could list a few – beginning with the biggie of declaring war all by himself. No matter how much you scare Congress, the Constitution does not change.
"I realize it's an extreme thing to do, and really silly in a way," said Robert George, 74, a retired photographer. "But I'm really angry about us getting involved in the war in Iraq and him (Bush) disrespecting the will of the people."
The White House press office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, but a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee denounced the indictment effort. "It appears that the left wing knows no bounds in their willingness to waste taxpayer dollars to make a futile counterproductive partisan political point," said Blair Latoff. "Town people would be much better served by elected officials who sought to solve problems rather than create them."
Well, gee, Blair, I bet you’re fun at dinner parties. [rolleyes]
Friday, March 07, 2008
Post #139
Subject: George W. Bush calls for Bush on steriods! :p
‘I totally screwed up – I listened to the wrong people and began an unnecessary war and messed up the aftermath by listening to more of the wrong people, leaving us all more vulnerable to terrorism. But frat boys will be frat boys, buying the Nutty theories of Laurie MyLroie. If only I can blame somebody else….’ – probably thought President George W. Bush as he endorsed John McCain Wednesday.
"John showed incredible courage, strength of character and perseverance in order to get to this moment and that's exactly what we need in a president – somebody who can handle the tough decisions, somebody who won't flinch in the face of danger," Bush said, appearing with McCain in the Rose Garden.
‘That sounds good,’ probably thought Bush, ‘but I wonder what my speechwriters mean. What “tough decisions” did he make during the campaign that uniquely qualify him to be President? In my 2000 campaign, I made a big deal of my charming ignorance of foreign affairs, not even knowing the name of Korea’s leader. It’s not so charming now.’
‘My Dad said that McCain’s “character was forged in the crucible of war,”’ the Weasel probably thought. ‘What does “crucible” mean? And what does being a prisoner of war have to do with fighting terrorism from the White House? Tho, sometimes, I feel like a prisoner of war as if the Iraq War was somehow my fault.’
“A while back I don't think many people would have thought that John McCain would be here as the nominee of the Republican Party," Bush said. "Except he knew he'd be here and so did his wife, Cindy."
‘Ah-h-h, Cindy, the drug addict who had an interracial baby. I hope John don’t take a swing at me for the smears of 2000. I can take him,’ Bush probably thought, ‘but I gotta watch for that sucker punch. Maybe him keeping me waiting and tap dancing like a fool is all of his revenge for 2000,… the wimp.’
"They're not going to be voting for me, I've had my time in the Oval Office. It's not about me," Mr. Record-Low-Approval-Rating said. "I've done my bit. But they're going to be looking at him. I'm going to be in Crawford with my feet up. He's going to be sitting in behind that desk making decisions on war and peace."
‘Ha Ha – how do you like my present, McCain’s War!?! Just do not expect too much from Crawford when you straight talk the American people about sacrifice, and I won’t mention your daughter.’
Subject: George W. Bush calls for Bush on steriods! :p
‘I totally screwed up – I listened to the wrong people and began an unnecessary war and messed up the aftermath by listening to more of the wrong people, leaving us all more vulnerable to terrorism. But frat boys will be frat boys, buying the Nutty theories of Laurie MyLroie. If only I can blame somebody else….’ – probably thought President George W. Bush as he endorsed John McCain Wednesday.
"John showed incredible courage, strength of character and perseverance in order to get to this moment and that's exactly what we need in a president – somebody who can handle the tough decisions, somebody who won't flinch in the face of danger," Bush said, appearing with McCain in the Rose Garden.
‘That sounds good,’ probably thought Bush, ‘but I wonder what my speechwriters mean. What “tough decisions” did he make during the campaign that uniquely qualify him to be President? In my 2000 campaign, I made a big deal of my charming ignorance of foreign affairs, not even knowing the name of Korea’s leader. It’s not so charming now.’
‘My Dad said that McCain’s “character was forged in the crucible of war,”’ the Weasel probably thought. ‘What does “crucible” mean? And what does being a prisoner of war have to do with fighting terrorism from the White House? Tho, sometimes, I feel like a prisoner of war as if the Iraq War was somehow my fault.’
“A while back I don't think many people would have thought that John McCain would be here as the nominee of the Republican Party," Bush said. "Except he knew he'd be here and so did his wife, Cindy."
‘Ah-h-h, Cindy, the drug addict who had an interracial baby. I hope John don’t take a swing at me for the smears of 2000. I can take him,’ Bush probably thought, ‘but I gotta watch for that sucker punch. Maybe him keeping me waiting and tap dancing like a fool is all of his revenge for 2000,… the wimp.’
"They're not going to be voting for me, I've had my time in the Oval Office. It's not about me," Mr. Record-Low-Approval-Rating said. "I've done my bit. But they're going to be looking at him. I'm going to be in Crawford with my feet up. He's going to be sitting in behind that desk making decisions on war and peace."
‘Ha Ha – how do you like my present, McCain’s War!?! Just do not expect too much from Crawford when you straight talk the American people about sacrifice, and I won’t mention your daughter.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)