Third Party & Independents Archives

Obama Hope Beating Clinton Help

Hope mongering has been working much better than experience mongering. Now, the rest of the story…. As befits American culture, politics is all about slick selling to the masses. Hillary Clinton is selling Day-1 help to victims and sufferers. Barack Obama is selling effervescent hope to yes-we-can dreamers. This media hyped horse race is like a fight between diet Coke and diet Pepsi, artificially sweetened candidates devoid of real nourishment.

The least educated, least sophisticated and least wealthy along with Hispanics are sipping Clinton’s fizzled-out drink. The most educated, most privileged, and most financially successful along with African-Americans are gulping down Obama’s charismatic pick-me-up.

As to who is buying what, consider these data: Clinton won the non-college-educated voters by 22 points in California, 32 points in Massachusetts, 54 points in Arkansas, and 11 points in New Jersey. In a Pew Research national survey, Obama led among people with college degrees by 22 points. In Connecticut, Obama beat Clinton among college graduates by 17 points and in New Jersey by 11 points. And note this: 39 percent of Virginia and 41 percent of Maryland Democratic primary voters reported incomes of $100,000 or more – clearly well educated people that would favor Obama.

A simplistic conclusion is that the dumber you are the more likely you prefer the first woman president because you believe this experience-selling status quo, corporate candidate. And the smarter you are the more likely you prefer the first black president because you embrace the change-promises and platitudes from the more authentic, inspirational candidate with the short resume. Clinton supporters appreciate the 10-point-plan-for-every-problem political pragmatist. Obamatons swoon over the big-picture, unity-promising political messiah.

Working-class Clinton supporters are like weary shoppers seeking decent food at low prices at Safeway and good coffee at Dunkin’ Donuts. Obama yes-we-can-happy-facers gladly pay exorbitant prices for the Whole Foods experience and Starbucks shtick.

Here are some realities that neither group wants to face:

Both candidates are establishment insiders.

Both are corporate-state politicians. Note that Robert Wolf, the CEO of UBS Americas, a major banking company, has raised more than $1 million for the Obama campaign. Large sources of Obama money are law firms, investment houses, and real estate companies, and 80 percent of his donors are affiliated with business, compared to 85 percent for Clinton.

Neither are true progressives or populists, like Kucinich and Edwards.

Both Clinton the fighter and Obama the talker will sell out once they confront presidential realities. Why? Because plutocracies know how to retain power AFTER elections. After two years it will be clear that the new president will have failed to extract the US from Iraq, will have failed to deliver universal health care, will have failed to address illegal immigration, will have done nothing to get a new and serious 9/11 investigation, will have done nothing to stop middle-class-killing globalization, and will have utterly disappointed the vast majority of Americans. The president’s most pressing priorities will be lowering expectations and getting reelected, despite raising taxes. The only people truly surprised at all this will be those lacking what the Greeks thought is a virtue: cynicism.

Finally, for those seeking serious political system reforms, it is troubling that neither Clinton nor, especially, Obama have the courage to advocate needed constitutional amendments, such as replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote for president, getting all private money out of politics, making universal health care a right, and preventing presidential signing statements that undermine laws.

Knowing that Congress is unlikely to propose such amendments, these candidates could advocate using, for the first time, what the Founders gave us in Article V: a convention of state delegates that could propose amendments, as described here. If Abraham Lincoln and Dwight D. Eisenhower could support using the convention option, certainly Day-1-Clinton and new-direction-Obama should.

Posted by Joel S. Hirschhorn at February 15, 2008 9:17 AM
Comments
Comment #245391

It is interesting how silent Congress persons are on Article V. Especially since they gave an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution. Some of them even fancy themselves as champions of the Constitution, but they are frauds.

A violation of those oaths are actually federal violations of the law, which makes most (if not all) of our politicians are criminals. They all have violated their oaths to protect and uphold the U.S. Constitution. Article V, and Article 4, Section 4 are just a few of Constitutional Violations.

Write any of the Congress persons and ask them about Article V, and then observe the silence.

All in Congress explicitly and knowingly chose to violate Article V in Walker v. Members of Congress (represented by DOJ attorney Karen D. Utiger), and inappropriately advised by Judge Coughenour’s ruling in Walker v. United States.

While most voters are unaware of these things, ignorance is not a valid excuse.
Ignorance is an invitation for abuse followed by more and more abuse.
As a result, we have these many abuses, hammering and cheating most Americans.
But, in the end, the voters have only themselves to thank for it, since most voters choose (due to ignorance, or misplaced partisan loyalties, or irrational fear of the OTHER party fueled by the circular partisan warfare, or apathy, or complacency, or delusion, or laziness) to repeatedly reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with 96.5% re-election rates.

Thus, the voters have the government that they deserve.

If we only address the bad politicians, without also addressing the voters, and voters fail to understand that “the voters have the government that they voters deserve”, the voters will never stop repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 96.5% re-election rates.

Thus, the enemy is all of US, because it is also criminal to idly sit by, watch a crime in progress, and do nothing about it.
So, while we have a Do-Nothing Congress, we also have Do-Nothing voters, and they all deserve each other.

Why do the majority of voters give Congress dismally low approval ratings (as low as 11%), endlessly whine and complain about their corrupt, irresponsible, incompetent, usurious, abusive, Do-Nothing Congress, AND THEN turn around and repeatedly reward those very same politicians with 96.5% re-election rates?

Therefore, when you hear any voter whining and complaining, just ask them:

  • Why do you repeatedly reward those incumbent politicians with 96.5% re-election rates?
As long as most voters do that, we have the government that we deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 15, 2008 12:07 PM
Comment #245392

Regardless of who the next president is, what can the next president accomplish if saddled again with the same, irresponsible, corrupt, incompetent, do-nothing Congress that not only allows, but perpetuates these abuses of the past 30+ years?

Might as well hang an anvil around their neck and try to swim upstream with it.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 15, 2008 12:17 PM
Comment #245396

You are certainly not alone, Joel, in your negative hope deficient crystal ball gazing into the presidency of 2009 and beyond. But, that is all this article is based on. Nothing more than those who look at one of the candidates and find reason for hope. They too hear what they are predisposed to hear from the candidates.

Some of this negativity vs. hope predisposition is genetic, some of it conditioned, and in rarer cases, insightful. I find no evidence of insight in your article, save your recognition that whoever the president is, will be fighting the corporatocracy which owns Congress.

Those with hope, can cite the power of the Veto as evidence that a president can combat the corporatocracy with some margin of success. Just as you imply that the presidency is without sufficient tools to do so, we will have to wait and see who is elected, and whether they are both willing and able to use the power of their office to diminish the corporatocracy control of Congress and all that Congress impacts.

It would be a huge help to the next president if voters who elect them, also vote to elect a sweep of new challenger candidates to the Congress and remove a large number of the incumbents who are owned by the corporatocracy.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 15, 2008 1:18 PM
Comment #245398

No endeavor of humans is ever accomplished without their first occurring the hope that it will be. Hope must precede accomplishment, or the endeavor will never begin.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 15, 2008 1:21 PM
Comment #245409

Joel:

I think Obama - McCain is a message to all of us about how must dispare there is about the last 15 years of politics.

Look at the red face of Bill Clinton and Rush Limbaugh for instance. The voters are rejecting both, and both are having temper tantrums over not being invited to the finals.

It looks like we are “firing” divisive politicians. It’s been a long time. I am “hopeful” that statemanship can return.

There is great risk. The only thing Obama has accomplished that I know of, is giving good speeches, and being awared most liberal member of the US Senate. So he by definition is a well spoken left extremist. (Most extreme member of the Senate on the left).

McCain is old, (plus 70) and has his own issues, but certainly has experience on foreign policy and a record of moving across polical lines.

In this troubled time, it’s actually nice to have a candidate in the R column that is close to where I am in ideology. I’m an R but don’t see democrats as satan incarnate. (A little misguided maybe ).

Hillary doesn’t seem all that bad to me as a candidate. It’s her husband that drives me crazy. I would support a Constitutional Amendment forbiding spouses to run for president. I think if Bill Clinton has accomplished one thing, he has shown the wisdom in having only one president at a time in the white house.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 15, 2008 3:27 PM
Comment #245415

To: David Remer

Since you keep beating your favorite dead horse of electing new members to Congress, how about a detailed analysis over the past 10 congressional elections that first identifies the new members elected and then objectively examines what fraction of those new members truly demonstrated that they were anti-establishment, anti-status quo, anti-corporatist state, anti-corruption, anti-earmarks, etc. I have never seen any data, nor have I observed that merely electing new Democrats or Republicans truly plants the seeds of political reform in Congress.

Posted by: Joel S. Hirschhorn at February 15, 2008 4:01 PM
Comment #245416

“Messiah”
That is exactly what secular progressives who are deliriously fanatical about Obama have found in his warm and uplifting rhetoric. They have their Messiah, their chosen one, who will bring change (who knows what kind of change) but CHANGE! The promise of Change is what got Clinton into the Whitehose in 92’ while Bush was touting experience, Clinton (with the short resume in comparison) was touting change in warm platitudes.

So it is with Barack O’Bama. No one has a clue what he has demonstrated himself to be. People couch his previous behavior under the irrational guise that he only did what he was elected, by radically left liberals, to do. As though moderates were not involved, only people from the radically left. His record is virtually identical with Ted Kennedy, but he has the awfully ignorant public-at-large drunk on the promise of change.

Liberals are extremely unhappy with the way the country is, and have always rabidly hated George Bush because he comes off like a bumbling buffoon, but O’Bama offers nothing but Change (to what NO ONE can say) people try and infer something based on listening carefully to what he is saying, but NO ONE has a clue what this Messiah will do once he gets in the white house - besides pull out of Iraq.

The rock star status that he has achieved is nothing short of absolute empirical proof how shallow the average voter has become. Virtually every interview I have ever heard, and anyone I have ever asked, can say nothing about him other than that he will bring much needed change, and that he seems like a great guy.

This messianic, unquestioning worship of the man as an idol is extremely scary to me. No one is scrutinizing him in any way on the Change he says he’ll bring. Again, everyone of his fans are drunk on the IDEA of change, as though his changes will fulfill all of the things they personally perceive as wrong with America.

The president of the United States is the most important person in the world, and it is horrifying that so many millions of people have their blinders on in the rush to elect a man they can articulate NOTHING about, save likability. Bush has done such a poor job, that as a country, can we afford to elect someone who promises great change but offers no substantive explanation of what those changes will be. And along the Messianic line, his speeches have become less about change and more about the Obama Campaigns Strength. This is scary self-fulfilling Goebbels at its best.

I personally don’t think the nation could morally survive another 8 years of a Bill Clinton.

I also don’t think most Americans think the age of consensual sex should be lowered to 14 as O’Bama does.

He is demonstrably the most liberal senator of 2007 and the people on this blog who routinely refer to themselves as independent, should be just as wary of a candidate this far to one side, as they would be of Pat Robertson for a candidate on the right.

Scary times.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at February 15, 2008 4:05 PM
Comment #245420
Joel wrote: Since you keep beating your favorite dead horse of electing new members to Congress, how about a detailed analysis over the past 10 congressional elections that first identifies the new members elected and then objectively examines what fraction of those new members truly demonstrated that they were anti-establishment, anti-status quo, anti-corporatist state, anti-corruption, anti-earmarks, etc. I have never seen any data, nor have I observed that merely electing new Democrats or Republicans truly plants the seeds of political reform in Congress.
That is because the numbers of NEW members of Congress has been very small, except when things finally get bad enough to cause anti-incumbent voting sentiment to rise to higher levels (such as the Civil War and the Great Depression).

The problem is that the incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly in Congress have enjoyed a 96.5% seat-retention rate since year 1980.

Thus, there are too few new members to Congress to stand up to the incumbents and the status quo.

Besides, what can it hurt to stop rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election.

You have written previously of the need for civil (peaceful) disobedience. What could be more civily disobedient and have the greatest chance at disrupting the status quo than repeatedly voting out bad politicians, rather than repeatedly rewarding them with re-election?

Why repeatedly reward incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election when these 10+ abuses continue to grow worse every year for the past 30+ years?

Seems like a no-brainer to me, and I’m no genius.
Perhaps you should give it some serious consideration, and look at these many Pros-and-Cons?

Posted by: d.a.n at February 15, 2008 4:49 PM
Comment #245422

You seem to be forgetting that FDR was born with an extremely thick and heavy silver spoon in his mouth, yet went on to fight tooth and nail against the very aristocracy he had born into.

It is not wise to assume the worst about people, until they have a chance to prove themselves.
But, that seems to be exactly what you are doing in this article. Indeed, I think you are dismissing Obama in very disturbing ways here. First of all, the man is a Harvard graduate and a professor of Constitutional Law, yet you’re making him out to be either a complete airhead, or a snake-oil salesman, or both. Rather than judge him on his amazing ability with oratory alone, you might want to look at his platform - as there is plenty of real substance and firm stands being taken there.
Rather than preemptively write him off before he even takes office, you might also want to look into what he has being doing during his time in the Senate (even though he hasn’t been there as long as some voters might like). If you do, you might see why many of us who have voted for him believe that he has already displayed an ability to lead and reach across the aisle, while at the same time maintaining his integrity.

I would also remind you that many of our greatest presidents were also eloquent orators that inspired this nation. In fact it’s an ability that has been most valuable to us just when we needed such inspiration the most. Finally, while I agree that cynicism is a beneficial and highly necessary trait, so too is hopefulness. In my view, it is necessary to have a little of both - simply because it keeps us thinking and moving forward. And, much like a balancing act, we should expect to have moments of grace, and moments of clumsiness, but if we’re careful, we won’t tip over in either direction. :^)

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 15, 2008 5:09 PM
Comment #245425

Most voters simply don’t understand how high re-election rates are in Congress.
In the last 7-Nov-2006 election, many voters believe there was a big upset in Congress, but over 90% of the incumbents were still re-elected, and the seat-retention rate (for each party) was 93.1%.

New-comers to Congress can’t get any reforms passed when the vast majority of politicians refuse to change the status quo.

Politicians are well aware of this, and that is why the continue to be irresponsible, corrupt, and unaccountable … because the voters not only fail to hold them accountable, but reward the politicians for it with perpetual re-election.

The bottom line is this … which of the following has a higher likelihood of holding incumbent politicians accountable?

  • (1) Vote out all irresponsible incumbent politicians?

  • (2) or not voting at all?

  • (3) or repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with re-election?
Seems to me, option (1) is the ONLY logical choice.

Regardless of who the next president is, what can the next president accomplish if saddled again with the same, irresponsible, corrupt, incompetent, do-nothing Congress that not only allows, but perpetuates these abuses of the past 30+ years?

At any rate, the voters will have the government that they deserve. Maybe voters will become less complacent, apathetic, blindly loyal, deluded, ignorant, and lazy when they are jobless, homeless, and hungry?

Posted by: d.a.n at February 15, 2008 5:15 PM
Comment #245429

Joel said: “nor have I observed that merely electing new Democrats or Republicans truly plants the seeds of political reform in Congress.”

How could you possibly, with 92 to 98 percent of the Congress getting reelected every election. DUH, Joel.

BTW, it’s not a dead horse. And I am not alone in seeing the growing risk to incumbents. I refer you to Blakely’s article at The Hill, which has circulated through Newsweek and Politico as well, entitled: Analysis: Incumbents At Risk This Year. A dead horse doesn’t raise enough money to begin mass mailing campaigns like Vote Out Incumbents Democracy has. Obama’s campaign is also testament to that fact.

I also refer you to the historical fact that after the 2006 elections which unseated an entire party from majority power in the Congress that ethics reform did follow, and even Bush found a veto pen for pork barrel spending. Refutes your assertion of no evidence changing Congress’s personnel doesn’t result in reform. It is just a beginning, but, it is a beginning. All great things begin with a beginning, you know.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 15, 2008 5:45 PM
Comment #245442

Why do I support Obama for the Democratic Party Nomination? Put simply, I believe the guy who is unafraid to campaign on what Democrats, and most Americans really want will be the guy less inhibited and with more incentive to do as we are asking.

What’s more, he’s also not afraid to tell people that this all won’t be so easy.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that there’s a certain charm to a candidate who treats the voters as people with potential, as adults, as participants in the process.

With Bush, I’ve always gotten the impression that he believes we’re all in Kindergarten, and can’t make a decent judgment without his help. I’m really tired of that, and I’m also tired of my party trying to win with risk-averse consensus candidates rather than aggressive, progressive go-getters.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 15, 2008 11:32 PM
Comment #245444

Stephen,
Perfect.

With Bush, I’ve always gotten the impression that he believes we’re all in Kindergarten, and can’t make a decent judgment without his help.

Yet you ascribe to the idea that Government knows best. The Socialist/Liberal agenda which you frequently concur with/preach on this blog asserts the very thing that you say you are tired of getting from George Bush.

The masses are all in kindergarten, and we (the government) must take care of their education, their welfare, their health, and their income.

Your comments are completely hypocritical and make no sense.

To Veritas - O’Bama HAS had a chance to prove himself - and he has proved himself to be the most liberal senator of ALL 100 senators in the year 2007. THAT is what he has proven himself to be. But the ignoramus public at large is drunk on the idea that he will change America in a way that each person sees fit. It’s psychology 101, and they have found their Messiah, and rationale and record be damned.

I say again, scary times.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at February 16, 2008 12:35 AM
Comment #245447

Yukon Jake,
Hilarious. Limbaugh-esque.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 16, 2008 1:06 AM
Comment #245451

Does Barack Hussein Obama really want the age of consent lowered to 14?

Posted by: Duane-o at February 16, 2008 1:16 AM
Comment #245456

Yukon Jake You make it sound as if being liberal is a crime. Well Get over it, its not a crime. This ignoramus public you speak of is fed up with the false messiah of conservativism trashing this country the past 7 years and hopefully is wiseing up to the fascist/corporatist crap you all have been peddling.

Whether you realize it or not we have watched millions of jobs leave this country to child labor countries while under the conservative/fascist rule you seem to think is so good for this country.
We have watched wages go down, and the cost of education go up. We have watched as the conservatives have borrowed this country into 9 trillion dollars of debt.
We have watched as the conservatives wasted $50 million tax dollars in a witch hunt to crucify Clinton over whitewater. We watched as the conservatives/fascist voted in the compassionate conservative/fascist 2 seperate times and trashed the constitution that they claim to cherish so much. Not once but many times. We watched as conservatives voted in the worst administration in history as well as the worst congress in history and bloated the government and turned the country into a police state, while screaming small government, low taxes.

So Obama doesnt really need to say much at this point, because any change is good for this country after the fascist conservative crap we have been living with. Besides why should he say anything at this point with the fascist/conservative/corporatist swiftboating already starting issues are irrevelent. You guys claim you need to know more about where he stands but for what. Do you think we believe it will make a difference in your opinion. Ha.

Why even the moderate repubs candidates were all talking change yet you were not whining about that. Even the repubs have voted your guys out in the primary. Conservatism turns out to be nothing more than a $100 hat on a $5 dollar head. Good riddance.
Your false ideology was tried but found to be corrupt and lacking in any substance.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 16, 2008 1:55 AM
Comment #245457

Why do you ask, Duane-o? Are you curious about the age of consent for personal reasons? FYI, the age of consent is already 14 in Missouri, and in Pennsylvania, it’s only 13.

Remember, sex should always be safe until you’re both HIV tested, all grown up, and ready to support a baby.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 16, 2008 2:00 AM
Comment #245458

j2t2, stellar rant! In my view, every word of it rings true.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 16, 2008 2:13 AM
Comment #245459

I ask, Veritas, because I don’t want to have a false impression of a position taken by Barack Hussein Obama on a certain issue. I like to get my facts straight, good conservative that I am, before I go huffin and puffin. I will do whatever is within my means to help cause a colossal defeat of Barack Hussein Obama (including using his middle name often), but trying to be a good Christian prevents me from using outright falsehoods against him, however effective they might be. Now, can anyone verify if Barack Hussein Obama has taken this position on the age of consent laws?

Posted by: Duane-o at February 16, 2008 2:15 AM
Comment #245461

Duane-o,
I can think of no reply to those childish comments - other than to say that I don’t believe for a moment that Jesus of Nazareth could fill anyone up with so much rage and racism.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 16, 2008 2:48 AM
Comment #245465

Exactly what was racist about anything I posted? Linking Barack Hussein Obama with Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, two men of a different race than BHO? I know, Barack Hussein Obama is above attack because he is promising balloons and lollipops and the realization of John Lennon’s “Imagine” and a worldwide “free love” fest within his first 100 days in office. Meanwhile he is breaking his earlier promise made to McCain that if the two of them were the nominees, they would be publicly funded. The agreement was made last year, before BHO became such a fundraising machine, now he’s reneging.

Oh, yeah and as far as the TRUE Messiah goes:

Rage? John 2:13 And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
14And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;
16And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.

Maybe not racism, but religious supremacism? John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Okay, maybe racism. Matthew 15:22And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

By the way, Jesus was a divider, not a uniter. Matthew 10:34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
37He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Yeah, Jesus was more about the “Audacity of TRUTH”. The original Straight Talk Express!!



Posted by: Duane-o at February 16, 2008 5:53 AM
Comment #245468

You really cannot equate education with intelligence. Educated people are more likely to be taken in by cults. I really am not comparing Obama to a cult, but the triumph of hope over experience is one of the hallmarks of cults.

The bigger contradiction contained in this debate is the assumption that Hillary Clinton represents experience. She has been a Senator for seven years – just a little longer than Obama. Before that, she was married to a successful politician.

It is sort of like those guys that play doctors on TV. One of my friends is a farmer. He is good at that. His wife is a surgeon. They have been married for more than twenty years. I would not ask the wife for advice about soil and I certainly would not want to trust my friend with heart surgery. Being near something is not the same as doing something.

So we have Obama – an attractive good talker with very little experience and we have Hillary Clinton – a less attractive talker with a little more experience than the guy with almost none.

Then we have John McCain who actually has done many of the things both these junior varsity candidates talk about. It doesn’t matter whether Clinton or Obama is nominated. In November Americans will have the choice between hope and experience. Hope is great. But sometime soon these guys will have to say WHAT they hope for. Then we can decide if it worth having AND if the Dems can help us get it … or not.

Posted by: Jack at February 16, 2008 7:14 AM
Comment #245473

Jack,

The choice Americans will have (if things stay the way they are) is between a candidate that has said we could stay in Iraq for a hundred years and one that has been against the war from day one. That alone dooms McCain. Sorry.

Duane-o

Ah, a Bible rant. How fun. This is Watchblog, right? The political site? Well, at least now we all know where your obsession with Obama’s middle name comes from. Oh, and you should really doublecheck your talking points from…. I’m gonna guess Hannity? Obama reneged on nothing. One of his spokespersons was asked about the promise and basically replied that talking about that promise was getting the cart in front of the horse. They want to concentrate on getting nominated before worrying about funding a general election. A trifle evasive perhaps, but hardly damning. Once he gets the nod, then we should bring it up again, and if he does renege, I will be right there with you with my own ton of bricks.

And to Joel and everyone else who thinks Obama is just hot air:

Obama has this really nifty thing called a website. You may have heard of such a thing before. :v) He lists all of his stances and all of his plans right there, in good ol’ digital black and white. Check it out.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at February 16, 2008 10:01 AM
Comment #245476


“You really cannot equate education with intelligence. Educated people are more likely to be taken in by cults. I really am not comparing Obama to a cult, but the triumph of hope over experience is one of the hallmarks of cults.”

Jack couldnt agree more. We have seen this phenomenon play out the past 20 years. The conservative cult of Reagan. WWRD? Im more Reagan than you yadayadayada. Its good to see that you can see it in the other party after all thats the first step to seeing it in yourself. Perhaps an awakening to this fact by the “Im more conservative than you are crowd” will allow reasonable discourse to return to the national political stage.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 16, 2008 10:27 AM
Comment #245480

Jack,

This is the first time I’ve seen you come out as anti-education and anti-hope. Amazing.


While I find Joel’s cynicism to be a good dose of reality based thinking, I believe it was Freud who felt depressives were simply realistic. Many think Freud was himself depressed.


I like Barrack’s message and agree that many of his follower’s glow with some sort of messianic beatification. They will be dissapointed, but if we don’t give anyone a chance, we are doomed to either subjugation or in need of a bloody revolution, which I hope isn’t d.a.n.’s message.

Posted by: googlumpugus at February 16, 2008 11:31 AM
Comment #245484

All three (John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama) have terrible records on illegal immigration, all pander to the immigrant/illegal immigrant vote, and very unlikely (based on their voting record) to do anything to address illegal immigration. Despite the polls that show most Americans want existing immigration laws enforced and the borders secured, it appears Democrat and Republican voters have conveniently given up (or ignoring) the issue of illegal immigration?

John McCain:___ career grade: “D”, recent grade: “D” (27%)

Hillary Clinton:__ career grade: “D”, recent grade: “D-” (22%)

Barack Obama:__ career grade:”D-“, recent grade: “D-” (20%)

62% of all persons in Congress scored higher than these three candidates based on their illegal immigration voting records.

Who really thinks any of these three candidates will now suddenly do anything to help enforce existing immigration laws any better than the several past decades?
John McCain now (conveniently) says “I get it now”?
And Hillary’s (conveniently) flip-flopped on the position of drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens?
Barack Obama openly states that he wants to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses?
Perhaps they should all re-read Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution?
But then, perhaps they feel the same way about the Constitution as G.W. Bush (43) who said about the U.S. Constitution: “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” (source: Capitol Hill Blue) ?

Based on these candidates pathetic voting records on illegal immigration, what is the real likelihood that the following will actually ever be enforced any better than the several past decades?
What are they waiting for?
Why don’t their voting records reflect their recent rhetoric?

  • (1) fines will be paid for being here illegally,

  • (2) illegal immigrants must learn English,

  • (3) illegal immigrants will be forced to the back of the line
Laws already exist, but all three candidates did little to enforce them, and that is because all three choose to despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits from cheap labor and votes.

Since all three took an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, but all three have failed to even remotely adhere to Article 4, Section 4 (among other flagrant violations of the Constitution), none of them are likely to get my vote (i.e. when all candidates are equally unacceptable, do not vote for any of them; a write-in for Mickey Mouse would make more sense). Hopefully (but unlikely), someone else will run for office that truly has more compassion for American citizens (www.victimsofillegalaliens.com) than illegal aliens?

It’s good to see voters show some interest in the political process.

But regardless of which one of these oath-violators (i.e. violators of their oath to uphold the Constitution) becomes president, how will the president be able to resolve any of the nation’s pressing problems if the president is still saddled with the same, FOR-SALE, corrupt, irresponsible, incompetent incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly in Do-Nothing Congress?

At any rate, the voters will have the government that they deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 16, 2008 12:40 PM
Comment #245488

j2t2

“Yukon Jake You make it sound as if being liberal is a crime.”

where did he say that? you then go on to do the same thing you acuse him of( rant about the evil conservatives). is being a conservative a crime? why not refute his contention by telling us why he’s wrong? why you believe (if you do) that there is substance behind obamas messege for change, and just what that is. BTW give me some substance not more emotional anti-conservative rhetoric.

Posted by: dbs at February 16, 2008 12:58 PM
Comment #245489

Re Iraq 100 years, this is what McCain said:
“We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.”

A quick pullout from Iraq will doom us to war everlasting, or at least a very long time. The most important reason to be against Obama is his utter lack of understanding when it comes to Iraq. He proudly says he will cut and run in 60 days. I do not believe he is telling the truth (which is good), but the day afer he is elected (if that comes to pass) our enemies will take heart and know that they can roll us all the way to New York, Washington, Chicago or even Berkeley.

Last time we chose hope over experience, we got Jimmy Carter AND - BTW - last time we chose a president w/o real foreign policy experience, we got George W. Bush. Half a term in the Senate doesn’t and a childhood in Indonesia doesn’t really cut it.

And when you just substitute hope for action, things rarely turn out well.

Posted by: Jack at February 16, 2008 1:04 PM
Comment #245501

Jack, all parts of the world are volatile. So what you seek is global hegemony by America’s military. It is neither a feasible economic approach nor even a strategically sound one.

McCain, if elected, will go down just like the this president you supported went down, ignorant of the consequences of his own belief system, until millions and millions have paid for his ignorance.

Fortunately, the American public is not so ignorant anymore as your choices for president. I hope your disappointment in Nov. isn’t too severe and you can still find some American non-partisan patriotism to wish and support the best of the next President, regardless of who it is, and critique them objectively for their inevitable flaws and errors.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 16, 2008 1:59 PM
Comment #245502

Jack:

last time we chose a president w/o real foreign policy experience, we got George W. Bush.

I find this funny, since you’ve seemed so fond of Bush’s foreign policy stances!
Anyway, since McCain’s dangerous and overwrought foreign policy positions are almost identical to those of Bush the level of experience doesn’t really matter. Clearly We the People don’t want another war-mongerer in the White House, and we know we can’t afford it.

Half a term in the Senate doesn’t and a childhood in Indonesia doesn’t really cut it.


Obama has been serving on three of the four Senate Committees dealing with foreign policy issues: Foreign Relations, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and Veterans’ Affairs. He’s also the Chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee for Europe, which is to be responsible for our relations with NATO and the European Union. He’s extremely smart and his diplomatic gifts are more than apparent. He’ll do just fine.

And when you just substitute hope for action, things rarely turn out well.

And when you substitute overly aggressive hawkishness in place of diplomacy you get exactly what we’ve got right now.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 16, 2008 2:05 PM
Comment #245506

david

“I hope your disappointment in Nov. isn’t too severe “

i’m already disappointed. i don’t see where a vote for any one of the frontrunners is going to make things any better. if the decision to vote is based soley on iraq your statement might be accurate, but IMO there will be other issues. none of which any one candidate will have a monopoly on. god help us all come november, because no matter which one wins it’s still gonna be ugly.

Posted by: dbs at February 16, 2008 2:59 PM
Comment #245514

dbs- he didnt say “ You make it sound as if being liberal is a crime.” I said that due to the impression I got upon reading his comment. Of course I go on to do the same thing he did , Im glad we agree on that as that was my intention. It was a rant after all.

I think it is irrelevant that Obama may be the most liberal in the Senate, thats not the point. What I take exception to is the notion that there is a problem with him being the most liberal in the Senate, as if that is a problem. I also take exception to the statement that all of a sudden the American public has changed into kindergartners wanting the government to do everything for them. IMHO that is a gross exageration used often by the conservatives to insult liberal policies and liberals. So every now and then I like to put the shoe on the other foot.

As far as refuting the Obama point please reread what I said earlier “So Obama doesnt really need to say much at this point, because any change is good for this country after the fascist conservative crap we have been living with. Besides why should he say anything at this point with the fascist/conservative/corporatist swiftboating already starting issues are irrevelent.”

Now as far as the swiftboating I was thinking specifically of Duane-o’s earlier post on spreading known falsehoods on Obama’s religion for starters.

“BTW give me some substance not more emotional anti-conservative rhetoric.”
dbs are you saying these statements are not factual and without substance? Or does it irritate you that I started throwing in the corporatist/fascist/conservative thing? I did that because Im tired of seeing “Socialist/Liberal” used in such a flippant manner. So again I just like to put the shoe on the other foot every once in a while. Seems you dont think it fits so well on the other foot but I ain’t wearing it on this foot anymore.

“i don’t see where a vote for any one of the frontrunners is going to make things any better.”
and “god help us all come november, because no matter which one wins it’s still gonna be ugly.”

Well dbs I disagee, it has been ugly the past 7 years and we certainly cant do any worse than the compassionate conservative has done. I think I expressed this in my previous post. Hopefully things do get better, but it wont unless the conservatives in the house and senate decide its time to work together to solve the mess we are in, but at least it wont get worse. I would ask that those who think no matter which one wins it’s still gonna be ugly look back at the run the conservatives have had and the dismal results they have acheived. I would ask that they consider that ideology may sometimes get in the way and to try being flexible and allow those that represent us to get the best of what both liberals and conservatives have to offer and use what works best to solve the problem.
A little give and take could go along way. (It did until the talk show conservative/fascist/
authoritarian/ corporatists riled up the kindergartners with their hate filled rhetoric.) :)

Posted by: j2t2 at February 16, 2008 5:15 PM
Comment #245517
… we are doomed to either subjugation or in need of a bloody revolution, which I hope isn’t d.a.n’s message.
No, neither “subjugation” or “bloody revolution” is my message (nor absolutely necessary).

However, they may be inevitable.

My message is that there is a simple, peaceful, logical, no-brainer, common-sense solution, which has been right under our very own noses all along.
But people must first overcome their apathy, complacency, laziness, greed, irrational fears (e.g. of the OTHER party), delusion, and/or blind partisan loyalties.

And that is NOT easy for humans to overcome … at least until sufficiently motivated by the painful and inevitable consequences.
I too used to wallow in the partisan warfare, blame the OTHER party, and fear the OTHER party’s winning seats in Congress without realizing the fact that most (if not all) incumbent politicians in BOTH parties in the two-party duopoly in the Do-Nothing Congress were really very similar. Today, there is truly very little difference between most (if not all) of the incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly in the Do-Nothing Congress, and since most (if not all) are so similarly corrupt, irresponsible, and incompetent, it really makes very little difference (if any) which party-lever the voters pull. Thus, the common-sense thing to do is to stop repeatedly rewarding incumbents with perpetual re-election. But, unfortunately, common-sense does not always prevail. Not until the lack of it becomes too painful.

Still, few believe that, despite the fact that Congress can not get anything done.
Partly because the 535 bumbling, stumbling clowns in Congress (and their 200,000 employees) are far less powerful than the much more powerful Executive Branch (and its 2 million employees that throttle our freedoms and prosperity).
But mainly because the whole bunch, quite simply, are increasingly corrupt and unaccountable, as evidenced by the nation’s serious problems growing in number and severity.

Thus, the question to voters is:

    Why keep doing it?
Unfortunately, progress and education comes very slowy and painfully (i.e. 2.00 steps forward, 1.99 steps backward), but forward progress usually comes about, eventually, when going backwards finally becomes too painful.

“Subjugation” (of sorts) is more likely first, and usually precedes “bloody revolution”.
In fact, some subjugation already exists today (e.g. lawlessnes, legal plunder via eminent domain abuse, Constitutional violations, usury, corporcrisy and corporatism, plutocracy, wars based on weak excuses if not out-right lies, etc., etc., etc.).

Revolution is totally unnecessary (yet), since voters could (first) simply stop repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election.

But, at this time, most voters seem to be sufficiently happy (or deluded) to repeatedly reward incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates for the past several decades (i.e. party seat-retention rates have been 96.5% on average since year 1980).

After all:

  • 50% of all 200 million eligible voters don’t even feel the need or usefulness to vote at all,

  • many that do vote are very loyal to their party,

  • and incumbent politicians in Congress have enjoyed 90%+ re-election rates for a very long time, despite the dismally low (11%) approval ratings for Congress (www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1844140220070919).
However, the high re-election rate may decrease slightly when enough Americans become jobless, homeless, and hungry as a consequence of their tolerance and indifference to the last 30+ years of these abuses, which did not come about by mere coincidence, and continue to increase the growing wealth-disparity gap.

Regardless, the voters will have the government that they deserve.

Jack wrote: He [obama] proudly says he will cut and run in 60 days.
Cut and run ?

Did Obama say “cut and run”?
Of course not.
We do not need to remain in Iraq indefinitely.
Especially if (as you have asserted many times) the surge has been a success and things are now going so well, eh?
And why do we need troops all over the world?
Why must we be the world police?
Why must we be nation builders (something G.W.Bush (42) derided while campaigning) ?
Where the hell are these crazy ideas coming from that we need to have millions of troops all over the planet?
We can no longer afford it.
Nation-wide debt is over $48 Trillion! (mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat.htm)
The National Debt is over $9.2 Trillion, and the INTEREST alone is costing over $1 Trillion per day!
$12.8 Trillion was borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby-boomer bubble approaching.
Nation-wide personal debt is over $20 Trillion.
State and local government debt is over $6 Trillion.
Where will the INTEREST on that $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt going to come from, much less the $48 Trillion for the PRINCIPAL alone?
The U.S. is borrowing over $3 Billion per day.
The U.S. Dollar is falling like a rock.
Where the hell are these crazy ideas coming from that we can keep this up much longer?

Jack wrote: A quick pullout from Iraq will doom us to war everlasting, or at least a very long time.
That is fear-mongering.

I don’t buy that logic one bit.
Especially when the U.S. has the capacity to totally decimate any enemy (if necessary), and take the rest of the planet with us if so desired?

And our occupation of Iraq will not stop terrorism.
If anything, the lies (e.g. no WMD) and exaggerations used to pre-emptively invade Iraq have made it worse.

I think Iraq is now more about redemption and “saving face” for the irresponsible politicians that got us into that mess in Iraq in the first place.
How cavalier to “save face” at the expense of our troops, while Congress gives itself a raise 9 times between 1997 and 2007, while our troops go without armor, medical care, and promised benefits?
We have done enough to help fix our screw up in Iraq.
And again, especially if (as you have asserted many times) the surge has been a success and things are now going so well, eh?
The U.S. is not obligated, nor can it afford to continue this indefinitely.

Or, are you [Jack] now admitting that the surge has worked, but the peace is fragile and unsustainable without a large U.S. contingency in Iraq indefinitely?

Posted by: d.a.n at February 16, 2008 5:54 PM
Comment #245518

j2t2

i’m sticking to my guns on this one. with either of the democrats all i see is tax increases, and a large expansion in gov’t entitlements, and i can’t get to exited about mc cain. either way i don’t see much progress, as no matter who has control the other is just going to obstruct. so i see the next 4 years as just more of the same. hardly anything to be positive about. this election cycle should be entertaining though i’ll say that much.

Posted by: dbs at February 16, 2008 6:27 PM
Comment #245523

dbs what type of government entitlements do you see being expanded? Bushes taxes cuts hopefully wont be made permenent and the deficit will go down but I look at that as a good thing. To continue to accrue debt for the grandkids doesnt appeal to me. We’ve already done enough damage to that generation I think its time we gave them a break and paid our own way.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 16, 2008 8:25 PM
Comment #245524

Jack, it seems you are saying we stay there for 1. the next 50 years to solve the problem with AQI or 2. we leave then have to come back to fight the war everlasting. Hopefully there is a none of the above on this issue.
I say that if its eternal fighting either way we bring the soldiers home, discharge the corporate welfare program we have going over there and rest up for the big one. Sometimes when its screwed up this bad its better to just start from scratch. We obviously were mislead on this by the current administration and mission accomplished didnt have a thing to do with the war.With this war sucking our grandkids resources down the toilet at an ever increasing rate how smart is it to continue in this manner. We will be leaving these kids at war and bankrupt as we fade into the sunset, what kind of legacy is that.


Posted by: j2t2 at February 16, 2008 8:42 PM
Comment #245525

It’s Amazing!

The solution is staring all of you in the face and you laugh, you condemn, you ignore, and then you whine and complain.

You have been led to believe that the constitution is an obscure document that lacks credibilitity because of our current environment.

How much of our current environment is really a problem?

How much of our current environment is manufactured by our MSM?

I have no problem living where I live now.

I fear my government because the property next to my home is owned by the government.

It was stolen from it’s owner when a union convinced the employees to expect more than the business could provide.

My county government auctioned off the valuable assets that would support a textile industry in favor of aquiring the property.

That property, after 15 years, is still controlled and owned by the government that confiscated it.

Yet, none of us who live here realize it is our government that ended this business in our home town.

None of us realize a union destroyed an industry here in Starke County.

None of realize we killed the golden goose.

We expected alot, and got nothing.

What do we do now?

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 16, 2008 9:47 PM
Comment #245527

Fight back!

Posted by: PfcLarue at February 16, 2008 10:24 PM
Comment #245531

Dan & J2t2

You seem to understand. The surge has worked but the peace is fragile. That is what I have been trying to tell everybody. We can begin to pull our troops out, and we have, but we need to respond to conditions in Iraq, not the feckless opinions of comfortable people playing at protesting.

Is it fear mongering to point out the risks of leaving too soon vastly outweigh the costs of staying until the job is done? I know opponents of our policy in Iraq want to pretend that we can simply leave when we want w/o significant consequences, they are mistaken and do not understand the situation.

John McCain pointed out that we still have troops in Germany, Japan and Korea. We do not hear the passionate calls to bring them all home. These troops guaranteed the success of our ventures in those places. We learned the lesson of WWI, when we just went home and got WWII that it is often best to finish the job rather than take the easy way out.

President Bush was mistaken to believe that this would be a short, in-and-out proposition. The mission accomplished was a mistake too. The Dems, however, have not played their legitimate role as an opposition party. They pointed out the mistake, but then instead of working to compensate for the good of the country, they embraced defeat and some of them (Pelosi & Reid) actually stood in the way of success. It is despicable.

I believe history will judge George W. Bush harshly. His policies got us into a big mess in Iraq. Although I believe we will ultimately be successful - especially with the new strategies post -2006 - and now that we are there our best choice is to remain to finish the job, this could have been done in a better way. History will judge the Democratic leadership even more harshly. Harry Reid’s defeat comments and Nancy Pelosi’s failure speech will appear on future “History Channel” programs in the same context as Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time.” They failed their country too.

The history will go something like this:

President Bush blundered into Iraq based on flawed assumptions and with a mistaken strategy. It was not until 2006 that he found the winning strategy and generals to carry it out. Democratic leadership took political advantage of the situation, but failed to propose viable solutions and in fact impeded progress toward success. Fortunately, the U.S. political and security system was robust enough to achieve success despite poor decisions and positions on the part of the leadership of both parties.

Posted by: Jack at February 17, 2008 1:10 AM
Comment #245551

Duane-o, it’s also not very Christian of you to tell anyone who disagrees with you to come to Ohio and you’ll fight them on the street corner,which you have done in the past. Your middle name’s not Adolph, is it? I hope not.

Posted by: Ray at February 17, 2008 12:04 PM
Comment #245555

Jack said: “The surge has worked but the peace is fragile.”

16 American soldiers have died in Iraq this month. Another wounded last night. Dayala saw two more die yesterday. How many American wounded this month? I don’t know, typically many more than killed, thanks to our amazing Medical Corps facilities, technology, and troops. How many Iraqis died this month? The Bush Administration does not want that information known or released, as has been the case from the very beginning.

This Jack, IS NOT the DEFINITION OF PEACE! Peace is the absence of hostilities. PEACE HAS NOT been achieved in Iraq. You keep wanting to claim victory before victory has been achieved, credit before it is due, and vindication for your Presidential vote in 2000 and 2004 before it is justified. And in typical Republican fashion you attempt to do all this by redefining language to mean what you need it to mean as illogical and deceptive a practice as that is.

But, the majority still use the dictionary to learn language and Peace still means an absence of hostility. There is no peace in Iraq between the factions in Iraq. Only a reduction in the level of violence, the war continues to be fought. You insult the families of the dead by declaring they died “in peace” in Iraq. Must have been suicide, huh? Cause according to you there is in peace in Iraq so the dead can’t have died as a result of war. Are you ready to take their Purple Hearts and combat pay away now too, because Peace, according to you, has been achieved in Iraq?

Your claims of Peace are shamefully exaggerated and fabricated, apparently for egotistical and political reasons, dishonoring the fighting, dying, and wounded men and women engaging in this ongoing civil war and war of occupation in Iraq.

One of the hopes that attend Obama’s candidacy is an end to the Occupation War in Iraq. That of course is diametrically opposed to John McCain’s goal for Iraq which is to maintain the occupation and therefore that part of the war, in perpetuity. Not much hope in that agenda.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 17, 2008 12:49 PM
Comment #245556
Jack wrote: d.a.n & J2t2 You seem to understand. The surge has worked but the peace is fragile. That is what I have been trying to tell everybody. We can begin to pull our troops out, and we have, but we need to respond to conditions in Iraq, not the feckless opinions of comfortable people playing at protesting.
Much of the problem in Iraq was civil war too (not terrorism only).

playing at protesting”?
Where is the moral argument that justifies (so cavalierly from the comfort behind their computer screen) telling our U.S. troops to go risk life and limb to be the world police, while Congress gives itself 9 raises between 1998 and 2007, and our troops go without armor, medical care, and promised benefits? While Congress votes on pork-barrel, waste, and bridges to no where?

Jack wrote: Is it fear mongering to point out the risks of leaving too soon vastly outweigh the costs of staying until the job is done?
Yes, since the risks and costs are exaggerated and immaterial to the safety of the U.S. and our troops.

Jack, could you please tell us what those risks and costs are?

Jack wrote:
  • A quick pullout from Iraq will doom us to war everlasting, or at least a very long time.


Really? War with who? Iraq?
Who we will be doomed “to war everlasting” with?

Where is the moral argument that justifies telling our U.S. troops to go risk life and limb to be the world police, while Congress gives itself 9 raises between 1998 and 2007, and our troops go without armor, medical care, and promised benefits? While Congress votes on pork-barrel, waste, and bridges to no where?

What ever happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves will have little effect on the security of the U.S.
Is the issue the real security of the U.S., or nation-building, or the oil?

The bigger issue appears to be control of Iraq’s oil (regardless of how many U.S. troops have to die), and the politicians saving face for the mess they got us into (based on a complex web of lies and exaggerations).

Jack wrote: I know opponents of our policy in Iraq want to pretend that we can simply leave when we want w/o significant consequences, they are mistaken and do not understand the situation.
Again, I disagree, because Iraq was not, is not, and will not be a significant threat to the U.S.

Again, it is more about the control of Iraq’s oil, and the politicians saving face for the mess they got us into (based on a complex web of lies and exaggerations).

Jack wrote: John McCain pointed out that we still have troops in Germany, Japan and Korea.
We should not be there either.

What is up with this notion that we have to be the world police?

Jack wrote: We do not hear the passionate calls to bring them all home.
Not true. Several people (some were candidates for president) are asking to bring them all home. The U.S. can not afford to provide defense for everyone else.
Jack wrote: These troops guaranteed the success of our ventures in those places. We learned the lesson of WWI, when we just went home and got WWII that it is often best to finish the job rather than take the easy way out.
That is an exaggeration, and it is a leap of logic to say WWII was an inevitable result of the U.S. leaving Europe after WWI. Again, why must the U.S. be the world police? It is bankrupting us (nation-wide debt = $48 Trillion, and 2% of the U.S. population own more wealth than the remaining 98%). How much world-policing will we be doing when we are bankrupt, have a wrecked economy, and have no more capacity for more debt?
Jack wrote: President Bush was mistaken to believe that this would be a short, in-and-out proposition.
It could have been much shorter.

The U.S. could and should have left sooner.
The U.S. invaded Iraq in Mar-2003, and next month is Mar-2008.
The U.S. can’t stay forever to baby sit Iraq.

Jack wrote: The mission accomplished was a mistake too.
True. That was just one blunder of one hundreds of blunders.
Jack wrote: The Dems, however, have not played their legitimate role as an opposition party. They pointed out the mistake, but then instead of working to compensate for the good of the country, they embraced defeat and some of them (Pelosi & Reid) actually stood in the way of success. It is despicable.
Do you want to truthfully discuss despicable?

Most (if not all) of them in Congress, and G.W. Bush (43), and his administration, are irresponsible, corrupt, incompetent, and despicable.
Where is the moral argument that justifies telling our U.S. troops to go risk life and limb to be the world police, while Congress gives itself 9 raises between 1998 and 2007, and our troops go without armor, medical care, and promised benefits? While Congress votes on pork-barrel, waste, and bridges to no where?
Most (if not all) in Congress and the Excecutive Branch, and Justice Department are despicable for a number of reasons.
And truthfully, most voters are culpable too, and choose to use it to fuel the circular, divisive partisan warfare, and then repeatedly pull the party-lever and reward those same incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election. And most voters realize that their government, with regard to WMD in Iraq, was either lying or incompetent (either is bad), and still repeatedly reward incumbent politicians for all of it with perpetual re-election, failing to hold their government responsible and accountable. So truthfully, most of US are the problem, and that could what is truly despicable?

Jack wrote: I believe history will judge George W. Bush harshly. His policies got us into a big mess in Iraq.
And G.W. Bush (43) should be judged harshly, because he is either a liar, delusional, or both (probably both).
Jack wrote: Although I believe we will ultimately be successful - especially with the new strategies post -2006 - and now that we are there our best choice is to remain to finish the job, this could have been done in a better way.
Jack wrote: History will judge the Democratic leadership even more harshly. Harry Reid’s defeat comments and Nancy Pelosi’s failure speech will appear on future “History Channel” programs in the same context as Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time.” They failed their country too.
Sounds more like wishful thinking, and more wallowing in the circular partisan warfare.

The fact is, most (if not all) in Congress failed the country. That’s the truth, but too many want to twist the truth, fuel the circular, divisive partisan warfare, and refuse to be objective.

Jack wrote: The history will go something like this: President Bush blundered into Iraq based on flawed assumptions and with a mistaken strategy.
How generous to call it merely “flawed assumptions” ?

And how many blunders does it take before a mere “mistaken strategy” consisting of hundreds of blunders becomes incompetence (or worse, lies)?

Is it a mere flaw or mistake when a person surrounds themselves with enough “yes” persons to go along with their grand schemes, any less damaging to the people that suffered the consequences (death and destruction)?

Jack wrote: It was not until 2006 that he found the winning strategy and generals to carry it out.
Again, the choice of words are so kind.

G.W. Bush (43) couldn’t find his way out of a paper sack.
He initially had generals telling him the proper strategy in the beginning, but Bush tried to do it on-the-cheap, take shortcuts without any regard for the warnings from the generals, and without regard for the people that would suffer the consequences for his stubborness and trying to make military decisions based on politicals reasons. Bush finally allowed a change in course when his incompetence and meddling was all to obvious to everyone else too, and he needed a way to “save-face” for the unnecessary death and destruction of his failed meddling and mismanagement.

Jack wrote: Democratic leadership took political advantage of the situation,
Politicians on BOTH sides tried to take advantage of the situation, but partisan loyalties blind many to that fact.
Jack wrote: … but failed to propose viable solutions and in fact impeded progress toward success.
Not true.

Had the U.S. left Iraq anytime before now, it would not have been less of a success. What ever you call success has a price, and being the world police has a price, and the price is too high.

Jack wrote: Fortunately, the U.S. political and security system was robust enough to achieve success despite poor decisions and positions on the part of the leadership of both parties.
Again, had the U.S. left Iraq anytime before now, it would not have been less of a success.
Jack wrote:
  • A quick pullout from Iraq will doom us to war everlasting, or at least a very long time.
  • He [obama] proudly says he will cut and run in 60 days.
So, yes. That is fear-mongering, and it is not likely to work again.
  • (1) First of all, it would take a year (if not longer) for a complete pullout. So there’s nothing quick about it. Iraqis should be on notice that they had better get their act together, because they must eventually learn to do for themselves.
  • (2) Second, who would doom us to war everlasting with? Iraq? Terrorists? The terrorists already exist, and last I heard, Bin Laden and a lot of terrorists are in Afghanistan (not Iraq). Iraq become a magnet for terrorists for invading Iraq based on what you selectively call flawed assumptions and a mistaken strategy.
  • (3) If homeland security is really so important, why are the borders still wide-open, immigration laws still ignored, and thousands of Americans still being murdered annually by illegal aliens (www.victimsofillegalaliens.com)? More Americans have died at the hands of illegal aliens in less than two years, than the 3963 killed U.S. troops in Iraq, or the 2973 killed due to 11-Sep-2001 terrorist attacks.
  • (4) The U.S. can not afford to be the world police. The U.S. has $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt, and no one can say where the money to pay the INTEREST alone on that debt will come from, much less the money to pay the $48 Trillion of PRINCIPAL (especially since that money does not yet exist).
  • (5) Even if the U.S. left Iraq, and Iraq descended into civil war, so what? The U.S. has sacrificed enough already to keep that from happening. Where is the moral argument that justifies telling our U.S. troops to go risk their lives to be the world police while Congress gives itself 9 raises between 1998 and 2007, and our troops go without armor, medical care, and promised benefits?
Those are just a few inconvenient truths. Try not to leave out some of those objective (and non-partisan) facts when speaking of “feckless opinions of comfortable people playing at protesting”.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at February 17, 2008 1:00 PM
    Comment #245557

    CORRECTION: Bin Laden and a lot of terrorists are in Afghanistan and Pakistan (not Iraq).
    Bin Laden and a lot of terrorists are in Afghanistan and Pakistan (not only Iraq).

    Posted by: d.a.n at February 17, 2008 1:02 PM
    Comment #245593

    David

    Who do you think is fighting this civil war against whom?

    Who do you think is attacking U.S. troops?

    I am genuinely curious. The general level of understanding re Iraq is out of date and was never very good. I think that many Americans have certain metaphors and mental models that are not really applicable.

    The term occupation, for example, implies something like the occupation of France in WWII. This is not a good analogy. It is more like the cops “occuplying” a really bad neighborhood to try to establish order. That is the stage we are at today.

    A true occuptions or a true civil war would be simpler to leave. The kind of messy situtaion we have in real life is more complicated.

    Posted by: Jack at February 18, 2008 7:32 AM
    Comment #245606
    Jack wrote: The term occupation, for example, implies something like the occupation of France …

    Hmmmmm … should it be called an “occupation” when 70% of Iraqis (Sep-2007) want the occupier to leave?

    Should it be called an “occupation” when most of the occupants of the nation wish they had never invaded based on

    Jack wrote: “flawed assumptions”
    and exacerbated
    Jack wrote: “with a mistaken strategy” ?

    Jack wrote: A quick pullout from Iraq will doom us to war everlasting, or at least a very long time.
    War with who? Iraq? How many terrorists were in Iraq prior to Mar-2003?
  • Posted by: d.a.n at February 18, 2008 10:21 AM
    Comment #245607

    To all anti hope pessimists

    The greater majority of you who advocate against the message of Obama’s hope are entirely missing the point of his message. Because he is labeled a liberal you automatically pin undertones of a progressive amoral agenda to him. It is your shallow, hateful, uninformed and biased opinions that get in the way of your ability to see the reality of his message.

    Our country is at this point in time in dire straights, so to speak. It is in dire straights due to an incompetent runaway train of mis-management and hate induced gridlock over seven years of inept and corrupt republican rule. The American people recognize this and are quite simply demanding that it come to an end. We are fed up with being given false promise term after term with the knowledge that those promises are mostly unachievable and nothing more than campaign rhetoric.

    I see a lot of claims here that Obama presents promises but shows no means. This is false. I have heard him make no promises. His claim is that it will be very hard to effect the change to a functional government that we so desperately need in these dire times. It is this recognition and admission that our government is faltering that lends him credence. He appears to be a man of great intelligence and insightful ideals. His character and beliefs come across as genuine and lacking of false pretense. He is a practical man with a desire to bring an end to the old school of ineffective hate induced politics. Can the latter be honestly said about his opponents in this race. I think not.

    McCain or Clinton as president will only serve to insure that past practice will continue to be the status quo. My conscience and instincts tells me to go with the articulate practical man of intelligence and hope who does not present a false unachievable agenda in hopes of garnering the most votes.

    Posted by: RickIL at February 18, 2008 10:24 AM
    Comment #245615
    Our country is at this point in time in dire straights, so to speak. It is in dire straights due to an incompetent runaway train of mis-management and hate induced gridlock over seven years of inept and corrupt republican rule.
    No. It is that sort of wallowing-in and fueling the partisan warfare that is the problem, because it is so powerful, and destructive, and too many other voters are all too happy to wallow in it too, because it is easy to blame the politicians in the OTHER party than admit BOTH are so corrupt and irresponsible that any differences they have are insignificant.

    It is due to irresponsible government and the voters that repeatedly reward the irrresponsible incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly in Do-Nothing Congress with 93% to 99% re-election rates.

    The real problem is too many voters are seduced into wallowing in the circular, blame-game, divisive, distracting partisan-warfare fueled by the incumbent politicains.

    And regardless of who the next president is, they will be swimming up-stream with an anvil tied around their neck if that are saddled with the same, FOR-SALE, Do-Nothing Congress that refuses to address these 10+ abuses that have been hammering and cheating most Americans for 30+ years.

    Unfortunately, most voters are likely to focus ONLY on the presidency, and blind partisan loyalties, paving the way for the nation’s problems to continue to grow in number and severity.

    Posted by: d.a.n at February 18, 2008 12:50 PM
    Comment #245628

    d.a.n.

    The problem is general chaos. Currently we are discrediting the terrorists by beating them. The people of Iraq are learning to hate Al Qaeda both because of AQI’s cruelty AND because they are seen a losers.

    If terrorist are allowed to come back in strength, they will once again have the momentum as well as the ability to intimidate.

    After the Soviet pull out of Afghanistan, the country was left to the terrorists and the terrorist took their chance. Afghanistan is at the margins of affairs. Iraq is right in the middle. How much worse would that be?

    We are doing a good job of supressing the terrorist. There still are bad guys and there are still dangers, but we can finish the job.

    It would be a shame to lose it now just because some politicans w/o much understanding of the situaion want to make points with the Berkeley crown and the moveon.org/soros minions.

    The terrorists are like an infection. We have applied the cure and it is working in Iraq. But if we stop too soon, the pathegens will return, stronger and spreading.

    Posted by: Jack at February 18, 2008 2:48 PM
    Comment #245630

    Dan

    ” No. It is that sort of wallowing-in and fueling the partisan warfare that is the problem, because it is so powerful, and destructive, and too many other voters are all too happy to wallow in it too, because it is easy to blame the politicians in the OTHER party than admit BOTH are so corrupt and irresponsible that any differences they have are insignificant.”

    I am not attempting to fuel partisan warfare. I am simply using the truth to make a statement and point out the most obvious problem in politics today. The republicans have been in complete and total control for seven of the last eight years. It has been their desire to label dems as weak minded liberals with a socialist agenda aimed at giving government complete control of our lives. (there are numerous examples in many of the the previous threads) We all know this is total unabashed bunk. Never the less it has been this sort of accusatory fear based propaganda that has fueled the destructive hatred of politics today. It was the desire of the republcian party during their reign to all but totally ignore the wants of the democrat party. I am not in any way saying that the dems will be any better. I am saying that this sort of hate induced politics is exactly why our government is very limited in productivity.

    For the most part we both are thinking alike. We simply use different methods to get the same point across. In this context I was making the point to emphasize the fact that the realization of, admission of, and desire to end this hateful gridlock is the necessity on which Obama is basing the crux of his campaign.

    Because of continued gridlock and recognized obstructionism I have to believe that this election cycle will not be particularly good to those incumbents up for re-election. Because of the fact that Obama is not considered a member of the de facto old school politicians, placing him in the office of the presidency is a statement in itself to all those politicians who see fit to continue in the same old corrupt style of politics.

    Posted by: RickIL at February 18, 2008 3:22 PM
    Comment #245636
    I am not in any way saying that the Dems will be any better. I am saying that this sort of hate induced politics is exactly why our government is very limited in productivity.
    That is very true.
    I am saying that this sort of hate induced politics is exactly why our government is very limited in productivity.
    It is part of it, and the politicians in BOTH parties fuel the hatred, and circular partisan-warfare.

    As for Obama, I’m not convinced that he is really any less corrupt and irresponsible, because Barack Obama:

    • has a pathetic voting record on illegal immigration: Report Card: “D-” (pathetic)
    • says we should invest in our relationship with Mexico. (Sep 2007) {Translation: please send us more cheap labor, so that we can continue to despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits.}

    • says we should Focus on corruption to improve African development. (Oct 2006) {How about focusing on corruption in our own FOR-SALE, do-nothing, irresponsible government?}

    • says money is the original sin in politics and I am not sinless. (Nov 2007) {No $#!+ , and we are supposed to be impressed with that honesty? Barack said he’d also go along with public funding for the election, but now appears to be back pedaling.}

    • says we should create “Google for Government” to track government spending. (Aug 2007) {CAGW.ORG does that too, and Barack Obama scored a very low 30% on the Pork-Barrel Score Card; however, it is better than Hillary’s dismal 14%; but both are pathetic.}

    • says Campaigns last too long & cost too much. (Aug 2007) {Funny! And the 2008 campaign started over a year in advance.}

    • says he doesn’t take PAC money or federal lobbyists’ money. (Jul 2007) {FactCheck: no lobbyist money, but does take money from bundlers who lobby. Clever, eh? (Jul 2007)}

    • says Lobbyist influence comes from access, not money. (Oct 2006) {Really? And who if forcing them to accept the money?}

    • says we should have government healthcare like members of Congress have. (Sep 2007) {Whooooohoooo! That would be wonderful. And how about a cu$hy retirement system too? And a raise every year? And some other cu$hy perk$ like Do-Nothing Congress has?}

    • says to address minority health needs by more coverage & targeting. (Mar 2007) {Based on race?}

    • says health care should be tied to balancing costs and taxes nation wide. (Jun 2006) {Nevermind that Congress gives itself a raise 9 of the last 10 years for the fine job they are doing, have excellent healthcare, and cu$hy pension systems. Hypocrites.}

    • believes health care is a right, not a privilege for the few. (Sep 2004) {That’s debatable, since someone has to pay for it. Who? With a $9.2 Trillion National Debt? With $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching? With a $450 Billion debt in the PBGC pension system? With hundreds of billions in unfunded liabiliites for Medicare? And also with a REGRESSIVE tax system? etc., etc., etc.?}

    • says we should support veterans via the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act. (Aug 2007) {Interesting. Nevermind Congress giving itself 9 raises in 10 years, cu$hy perk$ and benefits while our troops go without armor, adequate medical care, and promised benefits.}

    • says we are currently inspecting 3% of all incoming cargo. (Oct 2004) {UUhhmmmm … what about the borders? But then, Barack wants to give drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens?}

    • voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006) {Interesting. }

    • says comprehensive immigration solution includes employers & borders. (Nov 2007) {Really? The borders are near wide-open. Yet Obama is concerned that only 3% of cargo coming into our ports is not inspected?}

    • says illegal aliens come here to work, not to drive. (Nov 2007) {Really? Then why are they driving? Has he looked at the statistics of illegal aliens arrested for drunk driving and homicide via drunk driving? He should read this to see a small sample of the thousands of Americans killed annually by drunk driving illegal aliens. Tell that garbage to the thousands of Americans killed annually by illegal aliens.}

    • supports granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. (Nov 2007) {Nothing like pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits, eh?}

    • Give immigrants who are here a rigorous path to citizenship. (Jun 2007) {You bet! That’s tens of millions of Democrat votes! Duh! Never mind about enforcing existing laws, or upholding Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.}

    • wants to extend welfare and Medicaid to immigrants. (Jul 1998) {legal or illegal immigrants? Because 32% of illegal aliens ALREADY receive welfare; hundreds of hospitals overrun by illegal aliens are closing; }

    • Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007) {That was the SHAMNESTY BILL which was defeated.}

    • Voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007) {Interesting. So, we must print everything in 50 different languages?}

    • Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006) {You bet! Need to keep the inflow of cheap labor to keep wages depressed. Besides, those immigrants will become good little Democrat voters.}

    • Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006) {Wonderful. Especially with the 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching and $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from the Social Security system. But, it buys votes, and the voters will reward us for all of it anyway with 95% to 99% re-election rates.}

    • Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006) {Yep! Nothing like pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other. }

    • Owes unions who endorsed him; that’s why he’s in politics. (Oct 2006) {Cha Ching! So how have the unions been helped lately? By selling out American workers almost daily?}

    • says the wealthy should pay a bit more on the payroll tax. (Oct 2007) {A bit more? Warren Buffet’s income tax rate on $46 Million is 17.7% but the income tax rate on his secretary making $60,000 is 30% ? The tax curve is regressive due to a myriad of tax loop-holes for the wealthy. Just ask Warren Buffet, the 2nd wealthiest person in the U.S.}

    Because of continued gridlock and recognized obstructionism I have to believe that this election cycle will not be particularly good to those incumbents up for re-election.
    That would be great, but don’t get your hopes up too high. Unfortunately, and it is very likely too many voters can’t chew gum and dribble a basketball at the same time, and will fail again (as usual) to also stop repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbents in Do-Nothing Congress with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.

    The VOTERS are culpable too, and regradless of who the next president is, they won’t be able to accomplish much (if anything) if the voters saddle the next president with the same FOR-SALE, irresponsible, corrupt, Do-Nothing Congress.

    But perhaps, in time, enough voters will do as you believe, when enough Americans are jobless, homeless, and hungry?

    At any rate, the VOTERS will have the government that they deserve.

    Posted by: d.a.n at February 18, 2008 4:31 PM
    Comment #245640

    Rick
    For every Rep who labels “dems as weak minded liberals with a socialist agenda aimed at giving government complete control of our lives,” there is a Dem who lables Reps as religious zealots trying to install a theocracy to control our lives and THAT is the “sort of wallowing-in and fueling the partisan warfare that is the problem.”
    There are numerous examples of that in almost every thread and we know this is total unabashed bunk also.

    Will it end? No.
    Too many people believe its ok for their party to do things that affect the “other side,” and that it is wrong for the “other side” to do the same thing to them.
    We are at a tipping point in this country and the political “war” will only get worse over the next 10-20 years.

    We are a very divided country and Obama is too far to the left to be the one who brings us together.

    Posted by: kctim at February 18, 2008 5:16 PM
    Comment #245652

    Dan

    Obama is not the perfect candidate. There is no such thing. No one candidate can possibly satisfy the whims of every voter in this country. We all have pretty much the same priorities, all that changes is the order of importance. The order of importance varies by location, age, occupation etc. In the end we all have to decide who is the most logical choice to best meet our immediate and future needs. My number one concern at this point in time is restoring government to a functional entity. Until that happens there can and will be no great strides made in the progress of this country. I can not say absolutely for sure that he will be able to necessitate the needed change. Nor does he make that claim. But he does display a deep desire to work in that direction. I figure we can guarantee that nothing will change with Clinton or McCain, or we can take a chance on the man who truly believes it is needed. Of the three major candidates left he is the only one who does not have years of experience learning to manipulate the corruptive ropes of congress. He is not as of yet a tainted tenured insider of old school politics.

    Posted by: RickIL at February 18, 2008 6:47 PM
    Comment #245653
    Jack wrote: d.a.n. The problem is general chaos.
    There’s lots of that world-wide. Why does it suspiciously appear to depend on where the oil is?
    Jack wrote: Currently we are discrediting the terrorists by beating them.
    Fighting terrorism is a good thing.

    How many terrorists were in Iraq before the U.S. invaded Iraq?
    Isn’t Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and/or Afghanistan?
    Isn’t the Taliban re-grouping in Afghanistan?

    Jack wrote: The people of Iraq are learning to hate Al Qaeda both because of AQI’s cruelty …
    That is no revelation.
    Jack wrote: … AND because they are seen a losers.
    Hmmmmm … I think you are grasping at straws.
    Jack wrote: If terrorist are allowed to come back in strength, they will once again have the momentum as well as the ability to intimidate.
    There are over 28 Million Iraqis to take care of that.

    Where is the moral argument that justifies telling our U.S. troops to go risk life and limb to be the world police, while Congress gives itself 9 raises between 1997 and 2007, and our troops go without armor, medical care, and promised benefits? While Congress votes on pork-barrel, waste, and bridges to no where?

    Jack wrote: After the Soviet pull out of Afghanistan, the country was left to the terrorists and the terrorist took their chance.
    Interesting how the U.S.’s role in that conflict is so conveniently omitted (using Afghanistan to get back at the Soviet Union).
    Jack wrote: Afghanistan is at the margins of affairs. Iraq is right in the middle. How much worse would that be?
    Nonsense.

    Afghanistan is larger than Iraq (28 Million) with a population of 32 Million.
    Ohhhhhh … that’s right. Iraq has O I L, eh?

    Jack wrote: We are doing a good job of supressing the terrorist.
    What’s this we crap?

    The U.S. Troops are doing the hard work, while …

    Jack wrote: “feckless opinions of comfortable people playing at protesting

    Again, where is the moral argument that justifies telling our U.S. troops to go risk life and limb to be the world police, while Congress gives itself 9 raises between 1997 and 2007, and our troops go without armor, medical care, and promised benefits? While Congress votes on pork-barrel, waste, and bridges to no where?

    Jack wrote: There still are bad guys and there are still dangers, but we can finish the job.
    Hmmmmmm … and the last time I heard, the terrorists were originally in Afghanistan, and Osama Bin Laden is still in Pakistan and/or Afghanistan.

    Ohhhhhh … that’s right. Iraq has O I L, eh? I keep forgetting.

    Jack wrote: It would be a shame to lose it now just because some politicans w/o much understanding of the situation want to make points with the Berkeley crown and the moveon.org/soros minions.
    What is a shame is the inability to make the moral argument that justifies telling our U.S. troops to go risk life and limb to be the world police, while Congress gives itself 9 raises between 1997 and 2007, and our troops go without armor, medical care, and promised benefits? While Congress votes on pork-barrel, waste, and bridges to no where?

    What is a shame is these lies and blunders trying to justify the attempts of a failed administration to “save face”, regardless of the risk of life and limb of our U.S. troops being forced to be the world police, while Congress gives itself 9 raises between 1997 and 2007, and our troops go without armor, medical care, and promised benefits.

    Jack wrote: The terrorists are like an infection.
    Yes, and so are those that try to capitalize on it for their own nefarious reasons.
    Jack wrote: We have applied the cure and it is working in Iraq.
    Really? Is that why 70% of Iraqis (Sep-2007) want the U.S. to leave now?

    How many terrorists were in Iraq before Mar-2003?

    Jack wrote: But if we stop too soon, the pathegens will return, stronger and spreading.
    More fear mongering.

    Do you really believe this nonsense?

    Posted by: d.a.n at February 18, 2008 6:54 PM
    Comment #245657
    RickIL wrote: d.a.n, Obama is not the perfect candidate. There is no such thing. No one candidate can possibly satisfy the whims of every voter in this country.
    True. For me, there is are some things are absolute MUST HAVES, some things that are IMPORTANT, BUT NOT MUST HAVES.

    For me, all three candidates (John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton) fail the MUST HAVES, and none are likely to get my vote unless they can be very convincing about their change in position.

    All three have pathetic voting records on illegal immigration:
    John McCain:___ career grade: “D”, recent grade: “D” (27%)
    Hillary Clinton:__ career grade: “D”, recent grade: “D-” (22%)
    Barack Obama:__ career grade:”D-“, recent grade: “D-” (20%)

    62% of all persons in Congress scored higher than these three candidates based on their illegal immigration voting records.

    RickIL wrote: We all have pretty much the same priorities, all that changes is the order of importance.
    True. But the voters are far too willing to over-look these many abuses hammering and cheating most Americans for the past 30+ years, and illegal immigration is one of the major issues, which quadrupled in severity and numbers when the Do-Nothing Congress pulled the wool over the voters with the first SHAMNESTY of 1986.
    RickIL wrote: The order of importance varies by location, age, occupation etc.
    True. Most states don’t understand the problems at the border states.

    Hundreds of hospitals, overrun by illegal aliens, are closing.
    32% of illegal aliens receive welfare.
    29% of all incarcerated in Federal prisons are illegal aliens (and the first offese of being in the U.S. illegally is not a federal offense).

    RickIL wrote: In the end we all have to decide who is the most logical choice to best meet our immediate and future needs.
    True.

    And none of the presidential candidates will get my vote.

    But more importantly, what can the next president accomplish to address the nation’s pressing problems if the next president is saddled with another corrupt, FOR-SALE, irresponsible, do-nothing Congress?

    RickIL wrote: My number one concern at this point in time is restoring government to a functional entity.
    We are the government.

    The problem with government is not just bad politicians, but too many voters that repeatedly reward incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.

    RickIL wrote: Until that happens there can and will be no great strides made in the progress of this country.
    To be honest, I don’t think progress will come about until the lack of it becomes too painful.

    Progress and decline is a process.
    Progress comes painfully slow.
    It is 2.00 steps forward and 1.99 steps backward.
    Government won’t become more responsible and accountable until the voters do.
    Until then, the voters will have the government that they deserve.

    RickIL wrote: I can not say absolutely for sure that he will be able to necessitate the needed change.
    It is highly unlikely, because the voters will most likley saddle the next president with another with another corrupt, FOR-SALE, irresponsible, do-nothing Congress.
    RickIL wrote: Nor does he make that claim.
    People have big hopes.

    Funny (sad actually) how the voters are all transformed into cheer-leaders for the very people that use and abuse the voters (via these 10+ abuses: one-simple-idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm).
    Those voters hopes will most likely be dashed as long as they think one person can solve their problems for them.

    RickIL wrote: But he does display a deep desire to work in that direction.
    I am not at all convinced of that. His voting record is not that difference from the others. Also, I’m not sure he understands much about economics. But, few in Do-Nothing Congress do.
    RickIL wrote: I figure we can guarantee that nothing will change with Clinton or McCain,
    Who the next president is not nearly as important as whether the next president with another with another corrupt, FOR-SALE, irresponsible, do-nothing Congress.

    This is lost on most voters.

    RickIL wrote: … or we can take a chance on the man who truly believes it is needed. Of the three major candidates left he is the only one who does not have years of experience learning to manipulate the corruptive ropes of congress. He is not as of yet a tainted tenured insider of old school politics.
    I’m not at all sure of that.

    Barack’s position on illegal immigration alone is despicable.
    None of the three candidates seem too concerned about enforced existing laws, or upholding Article 4, Seciton 4 of the U.S. Constitution.
    None of the three candidates seem too concerned about a number of other Constitutional violations, and Barack Obama holds himself up as a champion of the U.S. Constitition.

      Also, Barack Obama’s even admits to a “boneheaded” move in involving contributor Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a Chicago businessman, in the purchase of the property on June 15, 2005. Rezko’s wife, Rita, also an Obama donor, bought the adjoining plot in Hyde Park from the couple, Fredric Wondisford and Sally Radovick, for the $625,000 asking price, the same day that Obama bought the house for $300,000 less than the asking price. Antoin Rezko was under federal investigation at the time. Rezko was indicted on unrelated fraud charges 16 months later, in October 2006. Obama has since returned about $85,000 in campaign contributions made or raised by Rezko… . In January 2006, Rita Rezko sold the Obamas one-sixth of the lot, for $104,500, to expand their yard.

    So, the real case for Obama may be a lack of information, more than a lack of misdeeds?
    At any rate, I don’t think Hillary, McCain, or Obama will get my vote because they all failed the most basic MUST HAVES.

    At any rate, the voters will have the government that they deserve, and the next president ain’t likely to accomplish much (if anything) if saddled with another corrupt, FOR-SALE, irresponsible, do-nothing Congress.

    Posted by: d.a.n at February 18, 2008 7:51 PM
    Comment #245659

    Well, I’ve said that all Barack Hussein Obama has is nothing but rhetoric. I was wrong. Apparently, HE DOESN’T EVEN HAVE THAT!

    Posted by: Duane-o at February 18, 2008 8:59 PM
    Comment #245661

    Those claims if plagiarism are pretty weak.
    I wouldn’t make to much of that.
    Voters should look carefully at the candidates’ voting records.

    John McCain’s voting record, statements, positions

    Hillary Clinton’s voting record, statements, positions

    Barack Obama’s voting record, statements, positions

    And don’t forget CONGRESS!

    The President and the V.P. is only two persons.

    Do you want the next president shackled with the same corrupt, FOR-SALE, irresponsible, Do-Nothing Congress?

    Posted by: d.a.n at February 18, 2008 9:05 PM
    Comment #245704

    Hope, Help, or Homily (in McCain’s case) will all be an improvement over our current situation. I lean toward Obama, but really believe that any of the three can do well. I’m really pissed at McCain’s flip on the torture issue and his movement toward evangelicals this go around, but all in all, he’s been a good senator and would likely be a good president. Obama is one of those guys who doesn’t come along too often. Inspirational. Facts are Facts, and more people have voted in democratic primaries this time around and it’s in large part due to Obama’s candidacy. Clinton will do fine because she is a technocrat, and has the ability to get things done. I don’t like her cozying up to the corporate interests as much as she does, but people are fooling themselves if you believe if industry will not be at the decision making table.

    I’m leaning toward Obama because I think he’s got the chops for the job. I also believe he has a unique chance of inspiring the youth in this country to get more involved in what’s going on around them.

    I can live with any of the three. I look forward to seeing the last of the George W. Bush era…

    Posted by: Dennis Sherrard at February 19, 2008 10:16 AM
    Comment #245758

    Hello Dennis, it’s been a while since we’ve heard from you.

    I can live with any of the three.
    Me too, though I don’t know that I will give my vote to any of those three. Too bad we don’t have better choices. Is there anyone else in Congress, or any governors you’d prefer to see running for office? Maybe some one else will still decide to get into the election?
    I look forward to seeing the last of the George W. Bush era…
    It’s safe to say most people will. Even many Republicans.

    The sad thing about the Republican party is that John McCain may be one of the most honest Republicans in his party. However, the incumbent politicians in both parties are so irresponsible, corrupt, incompetent, pork-happy, and wasteful, the differences are minor.

    Most people know Hillary Clinton, and she gets more very wealthy donors, but the less wealthy Democrats don’t like her much compared to Barack Obama, who gets more support from less wealthy donors (of $200 or less).

    90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money.

    It will be interesting to see if it [money] works for Hillary this time, because while Hillary appears to get more money from more wealthy donors, Obama appears to get more donors, which should translate into more votes.

    At any rate, John McCain is trailing far behind BOTH Hillary and Obama in donations, which doesn’t bode well for his election, regardless of who gets the Democrat nomination. Surely, they are aware of that?

    Sadly, the voters will probably forget about Congress, and blindly pull the party-lever, giving the Democrat party their turn to abuse power for awhile. Spending and debt are already out-of-control, and it will be interesting to see how long before the voters become disillusioned with their new Do-nothing Congress that has enjoyed 93%-to-99% re-election rates for many decades.

    Posted by: d.a.n at February 19, 2008 6:41 PM
    Post a comment