A Shameful Reality - Is this the key to Republican victory in 2008?

*** This post was contributed by Lefty from A View from Battleship Cove...

Republicans face a huge challenge to keep the White House in 2008. The President has stood firm in his convictions, despite public opinion and the consequences to his legacy. After 8 years of George W. Bush, the nation is not only ready for a new president but for a new ideology.

It seems that Senator John McCain will be the eventual Republican candidate. As a moderate Republican McCain is the probably the candidate that offers the G.O.P. the best shot at winning come November. McCain probably has the best chance of appealing to independent voters and conservative Democrats.

This is a reality of Presidential politics. In order to win a candidate needs to keep the core support of the party, while appealing to independents and the 'swing' voters of the other major party.

This year the Democratic party has the instant appeal of a historic candidacy. If Senator Clinton is the nominee then America will have the chance to elect the first woman president. If Senator Obama is the nominee America will have the chance to elect the first African American president. There are Democrats who are offended at the notion that a win in November would come in part because of people simply voting for history. Despite this, the fact is there are people who will support a candidate of historic precedent. There are women who will vote for the first woman and African Americans who will vote for the first African American president. The fact that Clinton and Obama are both formidable candidates only makes supporting them easier.

In the face of this, in order to win in November the Republicans need to offer up a candidate who will appeal to those voters not inclined to vote for Clinton or Obama. They need to offer up someone moderate enough to appeal to Democrats and independent voters but there is a shameful reality. If the Republicans do win in the 2008 it will not only be because the candidate appealed to independents and conservative Democrats it will be because of what the candidate was not. Just as there are voters who will vote for the historic precedent of the Democratic ticket there will be voters who will vote for the Republican because it means not voting for a woman or an African American.

It's sad to think that there is an element of our society who can't or won't see past skin color or gender. It's tragic that this element will now lend its support to the Republican party and have their prejudices misrepresented as conservative values.

With a moderate candidate as the Republican nominee here is the opportunity for the party to reposition toward the center and to reconnect with the American people. Here is the chance for the Republican party to once again champion progressive ideals.

However, it is a shameful reality that a Republican victory would come in part due the prejudices of the American voter.

Lefty

Originally posted at A View from Battleship Cove

*****Washington Post has linked to this post - Sphere Related Blogs

Technorati Tags:
McCain, Huckabee, Romney, GOP, Democrats, Republican, Elections 08, Political Gender, Race in politics, Hillary, Barack, Obama, Voting for a Woman, Voting for a Black, Vote, View from Battleship Cove

The Republicans Might Try Making History, Too

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

It with with foreboding that I witness the acceleration of "Identity politics." There are great dangers in this; for while pundits gleefully fine comb election results showing who is voting for who, they are leaving a window open to a very nasty draft.

For example, in the Democratic race the buzz is that Hillary Clinton "has" the Hispanics and women. Barack Obama, on the other hand, "has" the young and blacks.

This is assuming that people vote FOR something all the time. They don't, and in fact vote against certain things when they have the opportunity. So, one could fairly conclude that women and Hispanics hate blacks and men, and that the young and blacks hate women. And whites, of course, hate everybody, including themselves.

Who knows? It's ridiculous to say the least. But identity politics is here and it's not going away anytime soon since it seems to "work" so well. This may sound quaint, but eventually elections will no longer appeal to Americans so much as selected "groups" of voters. What a shame.

The Republicans are apparently now experiencing that sinking feeling that Democrats have gone through for some years now. Their party somehow is not in sync with the voting public any more. People want a change. And right now their candidate is going to be facing either a highly qualified woman or a highly qualified black, or both, in November.

Suppose that John McCain wins the nomination. Democrats are going to find out exactly how conservative John McCain is within a few months. They are also going to learn that six years in the Hanoi Hilton somewhat immunizes someone from intimidation, to say the least.

He will choose a running mate. And that's where Condoleezza Rice comes in. If identity politics is the proper path to power, then why not use what is in your arsenal? There are two things that I can't help noticing about Dr. Rice...she's black and she's a woman.

More importantly, she has experience. Yeah, yeah, I know she has been serving the wrong boss, but that in itself should not be a disqualification. She has experience; deep experience. Many years from now I'm sure we'll hear the story of how to tried to educate and ineducatable president.

Like Hillary Clinton, she is a lady in public. In private I'm sure she's just as capable as the New York senator at peeling paint off the walls in expressing her displeasure. I could never over-emphasize that the human brain being carried around in a female body is a brain nonetheless. Some are bad ones while others are good. Sen. Clinton and Sec. Rice both are blessed with excellent ones.

Republicans need to stop despairing over the thought of a McCain nomination. They need to go outside that box and make as bold a political move as the Democrats. Secretary Rice is more than qualified to serve as vice president, or as president. Such a running mate would also totally skew the current assumption that all black and women voters are going to automatically gravitate towards the Democrats.

It's a suggestion, not an endorsement. There is that question as to whether or not Dr. Rice would be willing to serve. I figure if she could stand eight years around George W. Bush she wouldn't have a problem serving a McCain or a Romney. The idea is that she serves her country, and my feeling is that Condoleezza Rice would have no problem with that.

Without such a move, the Republican effort to retain the White House will be, as Lincoln once said, " like shoveling fleas across the barnyard."
****************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

Playing History Scrabble To Help With The Future

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

With the presidential primaries reaching a climax on February 5th, I feel at this point that I am paddling in circles within the Sea of Insanity. At the time of writing, many candidates have withdrawn, essentially leaving four: John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.

The Republican race appears to be McCain's to lose. After Tuesday the pundits will start speculating on who McCain will choose as a running mate. Time will tell on that one.

The Democrats have a more interesting dynamic going on. One is the first serious woman candidate for the presidency; the other the first black American to do so. Both are very intelligent people; both have egos large enough to sustain them through the process they are now going through.

So, who would not only be the better candidate, but who would make the better president? Democrats seem split 50/50 on this right now. Sen. Obama is charismatic; he actually DOES transcend many things that heretofore have separated Americans. His problem is that he is still rather unknown on specifics. His rhetoric is wonderful; he's one of the finest public speakers I've heard in a long time. How that would translate into effectiveness as a president is obviously debatable.

Hillary Clinton has many attributes that would suit her well. She's determined, intelligent, and obviously not afraid of planting her boot in the backside of those who need a little motivation. Her being a woman with those characteristics may alienate those who prefer women who are demure and silent. I, for one, do not. Ego and aggressiveness are necessary for a chief executive. Margaret Thatcher had it in spades, and she is a lady nonetheless.

Sen. Clinton's millstone is her husband. And this is where the history scrabble comes in. Suppose that we could swap the terms of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. How would the two decades...the 90's and this one...have been different?

Here we run into a bit of a quandary. What makes the difference, the presidents or the times themselves? The 90's were to a great extent a fallow period, almost exactly spanning the fall of Soviet communism (but not communism itself) and the arrival of the Paranoid Period on 9/11/2001.

President Bush would have revelled in the 90's. Oil probably would have risen in price no matter world markets, but otherwise he would have been smack in the middle of a time that favored the conservative cycle. It's doubtful that he would have invaded that many countries, although what action he would have taken in Haiti or Afghanistan would have been more forceful than Mr. Clinton's was.

President Clinton, on the other hand, would probably have done much better in this decade. During his second term he would have been able to take advantage of the slow swing from the conservative to the liberal cycle. With all due respect, Clinton's savvy and intelligence far surpass that of George W. Bush, and his handling of many post 9/11 factors would have been much different, and more than likely better.

History might read like a story; all that happened in the past seems inevitable. Yet that is not so. History is flux; a constant change that requires adaptation by the people living it. We are not the same people we were at the time of our birth, and neither is our nation. A century from now the United States will be much more different still.

Our last two presidents were, in my opinion, the wrong people at the wrong times. THIS election is one of the most important in decades, because whoever it is must be the RIGHT person for the RIGHT time.

Sen. McCain I'll look at more carefully in the future. As for the choice between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton it's almost a toss-up. I have greater hope for Obama than Clinton. Yet all the same I've changed my mind about moving to Canada if Hillary Clinton moves into the White House.

Sen. Clinton's biggest failing is this: she has not developed her own identity. That is why Bill is a burden. For if she becomes the nominee....if she becomes the president, then it must be made clear that a Clinton II administration is politically divorced from her husband's.

If the odds favor a Democrat being our next president, then I would warn both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton of one thing:

Our best presidents made major decisions with an eye on history itself. It's a much better guidepost than polls or pundits. We, as individuals, come and go. The republic itself is sustained by wise decisions.

We've had enough bad ones lately.

Who is Caroline Kennedy to Endorse Anyone?

By Michael Linn Jones

Henry David Thoreau once said that the state of a man’s mind is dependent upon the state of his bowels. Nothing truer has ever been said…anyone with intestinal flu will argue the point. Visual impairment also has an effect upon one’s state of mind, but fortunately not as drastic as the digestive system. When everything is fuzzy you might assume that fuzzy thinking is to follow.

Perhaps that is true. But I”ve managed to follow most of what has been going on with the primaries. Today I read an opinion piece by Ruth Hochberger in the Huffington Post, Endorsed by Caroline: What Was the Times Thinking?

Much has been written about why someone who has never before evidenced any particular political proclivity felt the need to declare for a candidate in a primary in a state in which there doesn’t seem to be much doubt who is likely to win. Some theorize her recent political conversion may stem from a lifelong search to recapture the dad she never knew or from an antipathy toward the Clintons.

SNIP,

One would also expect that one standard would be that the author has demonstrated some prolonged interest and acquired expertise in the field of the commentary: for example, an academic, a published author, a former government official. To my knowledge, Caroline Kennedy had a brief career as a lawyer, then authored a couple of well-reviewed volumes on privacy and constitutional law, and a collection of her mother’s favorite poetry.

So, why does the Times elect to publish a column basically extolling hope for the future as the prescribed elixir for our children? Could it be (gasp!)… a desire for publicity? A certain knowledge that Caroline Kennedy’s name — just like Britney on the cover of US Weekly– will attract attention, hit the wires, and maybe sell more newspapers or get more eyeballs to the Web? When I looked this morning, her column was the most frequently e-mailed at the moment.

If that’s the case, the Times has declined a bit in my estimation. No better, really, than People magazine. I still believe (I know, I know, I’m too old to be this naïve) that the principal function of journalism — including the editorials and commentary — is to educate. While I have no beef with Caroline, nor with her electoral choices, I am suspicious of the motives of the Times in publishing her opinions. There are way more qualified “endorsers” and way more educated and involved kids of politicians (if that’s what they were after) available. Their last names just aren’t “Kennedy.”

The impression I get is that Ms. Hochberger does not consider Caroline Schlossberg as “qualified” to endorse a political candidate. It is fair to ask if this sentiment would have been expressed had the endorsement gone to Sen. Clinton instead. I don’t know if Obama is the right choice…don’t know if Clinton is, either. But Mrs. Schlossberger is a citizen and entitled to an opinion.

Ms. Hochberger seems to feel that one must be an elite to offer political commentary, yet even that is qualified by what KIND of elite. Blogging (ewww!) allows a whole slew of “unqualified” people to offer opinion on things political. Blogging is the closest thing to a national townhall meeting that modern Americans have ever experienced. It’s quite untidy and full of opinions that vary as greatly as the people who populate this nation. The great unwashed are capable, believe it or not, of common sense from time to time and dare I say…wisdom?

To compare printing the thoughts of Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg to Britney Spears is a blind swing of the axe. I”m a few years older than Caroline, but my unrefined and unqualified memory brings me to make certain observations about Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg:

* Her father was publicly murdered when she was six years old. Each November of her life since 1963 she has to endure the possibility that someone will ask her about the Zapruder film, or something similarly insensitive.

* She was not quite 11 years old when her uncle Robert was gunned down.

* She is married and has 3 children. She has had the unique experience of burying her father, mother, and brother before she was 45 years of age. She has chosen to live a life of relative privacy both for herself and her family.

I probably shouldn’t mention that she is also an attorney, editor, and writer. Such activities are no indication that an individual has what it takes to express an opinion.

At least according to some.

But in my opinion, is Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg “qualified” to post an opinion in the New York Times?

You’re damned right she is. She’s earned it in a way very few could equal.

Originally posted at MichaelLinnJones.com

Moments of Clarity and Clinton

While on a recent road trip Hillary Clinton is talking about the economy and now is the time to talk about the economy and how we all got into this horrible mess. The near future is not as positive as some people would like to think and a clear path through it is needed. With the latest reports coming in from all of the world stock exchanges, the “Maybe Recession” is a world wide concern when you are talking about the United States of America. World economics is the key to saving not only our own economy but the worlds.

One of the key factors to the U.S. economy is the middle class and the shear numbers of them with disposable income. The facts are simple and the middle class in America has been downsized and locked out of the “Bush” economy from benefits too salary increases. In that same time period the cost of living in America has gone through the roof. One large contributor to that lockout was the executive release of responsibility in corporate America. In the world of business it should be called a signing statement, similar to the thoughts of our current President and the Constitution. Downsizing and outsourcing of entire manufacturing plants out of the country not to be competitive but to ensure the yearly top executives bonuses are protected and of course adjusted for inflation.

In some circles it could be argued that NAFTA and every other acronym for free trade helped to boost the economy in America but they never really stipulated if it was South America or North of the border of America? In reality, free trade literally meant a migration of American middle class jobs out of America and that is yet just one more source of the downfall of our economy. When our government supports the rights of other nations citizens for good jobs at good wages you better look at your last days of employment because that is the first tax break for corporate America to send your job over the border. Key phrases for shutting a factory or manufacturing plant here in the states is “Stock Holder Value”. Largest benefactors to stock holder value are CEO’s and top executives with stock options.

Senator Clinton in her race for the White House spoke about where she thinks we as a nation need to be and it is hard to argue with her thoughts when you look at the numbers realistically. Over at the New York Times they have this interview with Senator Clinton…

Todd Heisler/The New York Times

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said that if she became president, the federal government would take a more active role in the economy to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration.

In one of her most extensive interviews about how she would approach the economy, Mrs. Clinton laid out a view of economic policy that differed in some ways from that of her husband, Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton campaigned on his centrist views, and as president, he championed deficit reduction and trade agreements.

Reflecting what her aides said were very different conditions today, Mrs. Clinton put her emphasis on issues like inequality and the role of institutions like government, rather than market forces, in addressing them.

She said that economic excesses — including executive-pay packages she characterized as often “offensive” and “wrong” and a tax code that had become “so far out of whack” in favoring the wealthy — were holding down middle-class living standards.

Interviewed between campaign appearances in Los Angeles on Thursday, she said those problems were also keeping the United States economy from growing as quickly as it could.

“If you go back and look at our history, we were most successful when we had that balance between an effective, vigorous government and a dynamic, appropriately regulated market,” Mrs. Clinton said. “And we have systematically diminished the role and the responsibility of our government, and we have watched our market become imbalanced.”

She added: “I want to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market.” - New York Times

Senator Clinton is obviously correct in stating that the markets from housing to Wall Street’s power brokers are out of control and need government oversight more now than ever. If our nation is to survive the current recession then restraints and intervention needs to come from our government. If it does not then the Robber Barron’s of days long gone will run the economy and the nation into the ground and ride out the destruction on the billions earned prior. And you can bet your last Rockefeller shiny new dime that they will pull their investments out of the stock market long before it crashes and outsource it to safer shores.

Salaries of record for one year to think about from Too Much…

$118.9 million for Leslie Blodgett, CEO of Bare Escentuals, who cashed out over 5 million option shares in her cosmetics company for a $117.6 million personal profit.

$415.5 million for Occidental Petroleum CEO Ray Irani. To reach this total, the Times added to Irani's $52.1 million in pay, as calculated by Equilar, the $270.1 million Irani cleared from cashing out stock options and the $93.3 million he withdrew from his deferred stock plan. Irani still holds another $124 million in deferred pay.

$647 million for Apple CEO Steve Jobs

$127 million for UnitedHealth CEO William McGuire

$32.6 million for Todd Nelson, CEO of the Apollo Group, a profit-making collection of higher education institutions

$131 million for Robert Nardelli, the Home Depot CEO forced out in January

$97 million for Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis

$1.5 billion for James Simons, Renaissance Technologies

$39.1 million for Ford CEO Alan Mulally, a sum that includes an $18.5-million bonus for leaving Boeing to join Ford. Ford had six executives in the industry's top 15, despite record 2006 losses of $12.6 billion.

Some people would say that each one of these people earned their pay and in some cases I might not argue with you. In most cases though it is a race to the top of the heap and they never look back at all the folks they stepped on to get those annual salaries and mega stock options. That is not part of the horizon they are looking at when they cash out, sell out or move on to another corporate position to repeat the process all over again. Once there they never forget the politics that kept them there either with donations that max out. Atilla the Hun would have been very comfortable in corporate America but he would have owned it all.

Hillary Clinton is talking the talk and I would not be surprised if she became President that she would look at corporate politics with an evil eye but she will not hesitate to cash those campaign checks coming in till that day comes. She isn’t alone in the cashing of those check and that my friends scares me.

If your interested in seeing whom is giving political donations to whom and how much then I highly recommend NewsMeat. It’s a great search engine for political thoughts and seeing who is maxing out to their favorite candidates.

Papamoka

Posted on MichaelLinnJones.com and Bring It ON!

Feel free to link or borrow this post…

*****I See My Dreams has picked up this post...

Technorati Tags:
Hillary Clinton, Wall Street, CEO bonuses, middle class, lower class, mega rich, corporate America, CEO pay, economy, recession, politics, White House, Democrat, Republican, Obama, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Edwards, Florida Election, Nevada Election, Economic Politics, New York Times, Todd Heisler, NAFTA, CAFTA, SAFTA, Outsourcing Jobs, Moving factories, Corporate Tax Breaks, Jobs, Employment

"Ask Not What I Will Do For MY Country; Ask What My Country Can Do For Me"...Hillary Clinton's Mantra

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Hillary Rodham Clinton has now won the New Hampshire Primary. 8,000 voters put her 3% over Barack Obama. The MSM, despite pulling another 1948 poll debacle, is continuing its sandbox gossiping. Mainly by not concentrating on a few facts.

It was NOT a two-person race. John Edwards pulled 48,000 votes. Bill Richardson, 13,000. It is a fair question to ask what the result would have been if those two candidates' voters had only Clinton or Obama to choose from.

However, Hillary Clinton is back in the saddle, thanks to something that while not exactly intangible, doesn't smell so good. In fact, it stinks. Maureen Dowd hit the nail on the head when she wrote:

Her argument against Obama now boils down to an argument against idealism, which is probably the lowest and most unlikely point to which any Clinton could sink. The people from Hope are arguing against hope.

Dowd is among many who have questioned the whimpering "woe is me" scene that showed Clinton as "human." So Holy mother of pearl, after all these years the iron maiden produces tears in public. All I saw was an iron maiden who can produce tears.

For the core remains, and that core is so Clintonesque, so predictable, that I have a hard time with people not seeing it. Bill and Hillary Clinton are political siamese twins; inseparable, joined at the hip in a life-long pursuit of political office and the power (and money) that accompany it. They are particularly skilled at converting YOUR hope into their goals.

Here's what's really weird about our political situation as it stands: the Republican Party is far to the right of where it was 40 years ago. Thanks to the Democratic Leadership Council and the Clintons, the Democrats are far to the right of what they were 40 years ago.

So in essence, Hillary Clinton is a moderate Republican wanting to be president. But there are exceptions; there always are. When it comes to authoritarianism and using the power of the state to control the private lives of citizens, then Clinton is on the barricades with the rest of the self-righteous Constitution shredders.

The pundits are saying that women put Clinton over the top; that gender is a factor. Some hint that there might be a "closet" anti-black vote in New Hampshire also. I do take hope that in lily-white Iowa race did not matter. And being so close to Dr. King's birthday, and the unfortunately beaten into the ground "I have a dream" speech, it IS worth remembering his words on content of character instead of the color of one's skin.

Or their gender. To ignore character is foolish and a great disservice to the republic. And voters should take a long, hard look at the choices they have, while they still have them.

This nation is heading for the shallows, if not the shoals. Rough times are ahead, and if the Democrats nominate a candidate who cannot stop thinking of themselves long enough to think of their country, then God help us all.

One thing is for sure; Hillary Clinton may have shed a few tears in New Hampshire, and those tears may have garnered her those critical 8,000 votes. But once she is seated in the Oval Office not one tear will she shed for four years.

No, you and I will be the ones crying.
***************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

BUSH'S GREATEST LEGACY? THE SEEDS FOR A SECOND CIVIL WAR

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Currently it is a real chore following the numerous candidates for the presidency. The process doesn't bore me so much as frustrate. To me, there is this treadmill of red herrings that citizens are supposed to chase after. Doing so facilitates the basic dishonesty of the process, enabling the triumph of the same sort of corporate-composite persona to sit in the Oval Office.

Recently I struggled through a book, THE LATE GREAT U.S.A. by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D. The book deals with the quiet but persistent effort to unite Mexico, The United States, and Canada into a North American Union. Even if a fraction of the book's contents approach the truth, it is an alarming thing to learn that your nation is being co-opted into a foreign alliance/assimilation without the people knowing about it.

The one criticism Dr. Corsi is open to is that, after being instrumental in the re-election of George W. Bush through his efforts in the Swiftboat smearing of John Kerry, he has awoken a little late. But, better late than never I suppose.

The plausibility of Dr. Corsi's allegations is increased by the fact that much of what the book says explains some rather bizarre things. One, NAFTA is STILL being touted as a great success yet we are dealing with millions of illegal aliens flooding into the U.S. looking for work. Secondly, President Bush's rather distant and blurred response to the border issue fits into the scenario outlined by Dr. Corsi.

NAFTA was, as it turns out, the "thin end of the wedge." It was not just a trade agreement, but a tool to further advance the eventual integration of 3 nations into one. Corsi compares the effort to the formation of the European Economic Union, and frankly it's hard to argue his point.

President Bush has done practically nothing to seal the border, which is nonsensical in light of the 9/11 attacks. However, it DOES make sense if you are just biding your time until a fait accompli is presented to the people of the 3 respective nations that the new borders are with Guatamala and....the Arctic Circle.

Those reading this will not live to see the full impact of George W. Bush's acts. The end result of a "North American Union" will be the disintegration of the United States. From time to time small glimpses surface. Recently a rapist/murderer in Texas cried foul on his prison sentence because he did not have access to the Mexican Consulate because belatedly he discovered he was born in Mexico. The uncanny aspect of this is when the Bush White House started issuing instructions to the Texas courts on how to handle the case.

Of course, a president accustomed to issuing orders to Congress doesn't have much of a problem issuing orders to a court.....and remember ANY court if he deems it necessary.

After a while, you have to stop listening to what some people say and concentrate on what they DO. George W. Bush has been an utter failure in many things, but not adhering to the faith in a constitutional American government is his greatest. President Bush has been riding his bike blind-folded through the minefield of misjudment. He always has someone to bail him out. But WE do not. We must live with the consequences of a president's actions. It helps if the president is at least OPEN and HONEST with the American people. But apparently honesty with the American people takes a back seat to maintaining and strengthening the bond between government and multi-national corporations.

A North American Union will not be announced at one particular event. It will be achieved through stealth, a little agreement here; a little agreement there, with the Congress being given little or NO notice.

Jame Buchanan is sometimes credited with being the worst president we have ever had. This is mainly due to the fact that he did practically nothing to prevent the Civil War. The Civil War was about many things, but mainly this: what type of nation are we going to be? Two opposing views of life and government came to blows that devastated the nation, but made the decision through armed struggle.

It would be naive to assume that what happened 150 years ago would never come to pass again. It will. By his policies President Bush is planting the seeds for a horrific harvest. The end result will be a struggle for what kind of nation we will remain, or become.

So whoever succeeds President Bush must "address the mess." Most issues are macro in scale compared to the actual life of this nation. But, that is not going to be discussed nor addressed. We will be reassured that "change" is coming.

Yeah, sure. In this sense I am quite conservative. I don't WANT the kind of change I see coming. A voice in the wilderness, perhaps, but a common currency, a common central bank, a "council of ministers" who will decide what laws and regulations are to be created and enforced.....no I don't want that.

It seems to me sad that a nation born in fire, in rebellion of a government thousands of miles away, should be devolving back to a collection of corporate colonies.

We need another George 1, not another George 43.
***************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

*****Buzz Tracker has linked to this post...
*****Reuters has picked up this entire post...

Beware Candidates Speaking On God's Behalf

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

The Iowa Caucus is soon approaching, and it's getting ugly. Mind you, while Hillary and Barack are poking around for the jugular, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney seem involved in a religious war for the religious vote. Whatever that is. And they're not poking, but using Medievil battle gear.

I have to admit that God has never spoken to me directly. By my religious upbringing I hold firm to the belief that I can talk directly to God anytime I want. Governor Huckabee is a Baptist. So am I. Sort of.

Growing up we attended a small church regularly. One day my Old Man and the pastor got into it about a mutual acquantance who was Jewish. The pastor held to the belief that Jews were not white people (???) so that was the end of our attending church. The Old Man and my Mom made it quite clear that as we grew we would encounter people of many different faiths. That to condemn someone different from us was NOT what the Lord had in mind. Mom lost a brother fighting the nazis and held very strong feelings about Jews having had enough mud thrown at them.

So I evolved in the sense that is actually the most accurate description of the difference in faith and denomination:

Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

Protestants don't recognize the Pope as Christ's representative on earth.

And Baptists don't recognize each other in a strip joint or a liquor store.

Now Governor Huckabee is going after Mormons just to drive a wedge into the candidacy of Mitt Romney. Something about Jesus and satan being brothers according to the Latter Day Saints. When I read that I thought "eww boy" here we go again.

Here's what I have to say about Mormonism; something that Mitt Romney should have said himself in his recent speech but dared not to. It is this: Mormonism is a legitimate faith. It addresses that which we cannot see here on earth; that greatest of mysteries as to what lies on the other side of earthly death.

Huckabee seems to be making it clear he will bring HIS faith into the White House, while Romney doing the same poses a dire threat to us all. Huckabee frightens me because to garner support from what is known as the "religious right" he must exclude those who are not.

With all due respect, we've had 7 years of that bullshit. As one who never had much desire to drink alcohol the liquor store issue never arose. As for the strip joints, well that's kind of pointless too since I couldn't see what was on display anyway. Nevertheless, in true Baptist fashion I believe I'm being punished just for WANTING to have all the fun I never did.

A President Huckabee assures voters that he is a pious man who would follow the Lord. I'm not doubting him personally, but as the saying goes, I've seen that movie already. In fact I'm still being forced to watch it.

For a man to swear on the Bible that he would preserve, protect, and defend something that he refers to later as "nothing but a goddamned piece of paper" goes beyond political rhetoric. It is a betrayal of an oath. What words can be used to describe a "compassionate conservative" who is blind to little things like wounded soldiers being charged for meals in a military hospital, or wounded soldiers living in conditions that would shame most decent people?

Preaching one's own piety poses challenges to reality sometimes. With Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swaggart we've had good examples of the preacher falling for the very sins they rail against on Sunday.

With President Bush we've had a man who professes a deep belief in God yet believes in expediency (and the advancement of his economic class) more. So be it. That's political reality, etc.

Just don't turn to Jesus or God at election time and claim that He is in your corner. If you want to preach about something, how about a plan to wean us off oil and finding alternative sources of clean energy? Or how about restoring some semblance of what Lincoln said about a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people?"

After 8 years of one "deeply religious" man the nation is in need of something beyond smoke and mirrors. We want the real McCoy, not some glad-handler walking into the White House, wrapped in the American flag and carrying a Cross.

Just get on with it, boys, and leave God out of this. I can speak for Him as well as you can, and I figure He's getting tired of being dragged into schoolyard brawls.

Oh yeah....and stop offering us goodies. Offer us challenges; it'd be a nice change. The challenges are there awaiting someone with the gumption to actually address them.

The people might be more ready to tackle them than you think.
***************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

CANDIDATE FATIGUE

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES



When I first learned of the term "semantic fatigue" I brought myself to a level of mental fugue after repeating the same word over and over until it had no meaning. It had become just a sound, like "Blah blah blah blah blah, etc." Take any word and try it: you'll be left a little dizzy with the feeling that you've swallowed a pillow or something.

Or......you can follow the presidential go-kart race as closely as you can.

Having just finished David McCollough's TRUMAN, I was hit full-force by the inanities of this so-called race. In fact, in his later years Truman expressed a lot of skepticism about presidential primaries, and more importantly, the effect television would have on future races. Also, he observed that if the Democratic Party ever became the mouthpiece for millionaires only it would be a sad day.

And it IS depressing when you read about Harry Truman while aware of the current plethora of people wanting to be President of the United States. "To err is Truman" someone said during his presidency, and that was a fact. He made blunders, mistakes, you name it.....but overall he did very well. He had, like many people did then, and many do NOW, an internal compass that guided him on most things. Polls he abhored, and ignored.

Today, polls are everything. Candidates are so aware of the camera, and the pseudo-message it sends, that they are not what they appear to be. So we seek the real person, the one who would be president, and come up short-handed. Those with that "internal compass" don't seem to bother to run.

Too many people bank heavily on what are referred to as "policies" of the candidates. Policy positions are nothing more than vague promises, totally useless if the core character of the candidate is not known. We are sold packages of images, which is a far cry from what we get AFTER an election.

This may be an old refrain, but it does not serve the republic well when the greater good of the nation is forsaken in order to provide relief for numerous complaints. Said complaints having been institutionalized through organizations whose focus is extremely narrow. And in many cases damaging to the republic, and what is stands for. Or used to, anyway.

Back in the days when Lyndon Johnson promised that he would not send "our boys ten thousand miles to do the fighting that Asian boys should be doing".....back when American boys were dying doing exactly THAT....the nightly news itself became semantic fatigue. If memory serves correctly, every Thursday evening Walter Cronkite would list the number of helicopters shot down that week. And of course the numbers of men killed.

After several years of this people lost sight of any real goals; they just wanted it to end. I mustn't forget the thousands of young men at the time who were all for the war but just couldn't get around to enlisting because of deferments of various sorts. Such types are always in favor of war....it's the image they cherish of hardbitten warriors bound helplessly to a chair somewhere.

Indeed, President Bush is passing on a mess to his successor. In 2008 any candidate running against Bush is a total waste of a vote. We all KNOW what Bush is leaving us; we need to see clarity in direction, not a re-arranging of chairs at the exclusive "club of rulers."

Having done away with the "evil" of old-timed "city bosses" who controlled conventions and greatly influenced elections, the election system has devolved into a contest for the attention of those with the advertising money. Nothing beats that "image thing."

The number of people who actually call the shots in presidential elections can be fit into the end zone seats of a small high school stadium, with room to spare. The candidates are not debating each other, but rather jumping for the attention of that end zone.

All us peons are asked to do is crown the king/queen on election day.

It's quite fatiguing.
*********************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

Is America Ready For A Black President?

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

My first reaction to such a question is, looking back over the last 16 years.....can we afford any more white ones? The political system has become so institutionally corrupt that those who control events in the now smoke-free rooms have no concept of how transparent their hubris is.

For the first time in American history, a man stands forth as a candidate for the presidency who is black. Barack Obama is not exactly a child of privilege, but his success in education and politics puts him firmly in the elite class.

Senator Joe Biden got blasted for commenting on the fact that Senator Obama is "clean, educated, etc." Poor choice of words maybe, but another way of putting it is that Obama is unique in that he is addressing ALL Americans, not just one particular ethnic group. With all due respect, the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton cannot do this without "betraying" their traditional base.

Obama may be that fluke, that rarity that Jackson and Sharpton will tell us happens despite the ingrained racism of American society. Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy were flukes also in that they carried certain convictions about the wealth of a nation being more than Wall Street and its boosters. In fact, FDR was castigated as a "traitor to his class."

Perhaps Obama may be cast as a "traitor to his race" since that is how he is supposed to run for office. Not as an American, but as a victim. But this man is not. He is an inspiration in many ways, and God only knows how his abilities and accomplishments might make his ego swell to planet-sized proportions. We always pray that no matter how far a person goes in life, they maintain a sense of equilibrium.....that they remember where they came from.

This is not an endorsement of Senator Obama. There are some points upon which I am uncomfortable such as immigration policy and gun control. The title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope" bothers me. It seems to me that if in the America we now live the word "hope" can be tied to "audacity" then we've lost something as a people.

Of course, we already feel that way. No matter one's political persuasion, there seems to be much out of kilter in how the nation's business is done. It is way past time for someone to offer the people as a whole something beyond platitudes. Platitudes, by the way, is a fancy way of saying "bald-faced lies."

Be prepared, however, for some racial slandering if Senator Obama attains success in Iowa. It will be subtle, of course, with enough innuendo to protect the slinger from charges of outright racism while at the same time doing just that. And, ironically, the first such use of such tactics will not come from Republicans, but Democrats. I won't say who, but if it takes a village (whatever that means) then said village should not be walled and gated.

Before George W. Bush, I always felt that Lyndon Johnson was the worst president in my lifetime. But he wasn't all bad...I do admire Johnson appealing to a Southern audience in the 60's with a plea for a "real" election, one that wasn't the usual chant of "nigra, nigra, nigra." It brought applause and in truth was a gutsy thing to say. Racism in the South was the most easily discernable in those days, although it wasn't until his march on Marquette Park in Chicago that Martin Luther King got belted with a thrown rock.

Racism exists everywhere, and is such a useful catalyst for the selling of fear and hatred. I grew up in Florida during the Jim Crow days; my parents hated it and were rather radical for their time in refusing to acknowledge the inherent goodness of segregation. It didn't make them many friends, but my Old Man always said that people liking you was nice but respecting you was necessary first.

Agree with Barack Obama or not, try to ignore the clouds of racial chaff that will be thrown into the wind. Even if just for the novelty of the experience, try to judge him by the content of his character.

If any candidate in 2008 appeals to the better Angels of our nature rather than the poisonous veins of suspicion and resentment, then we might actually be getting a little slice of our nation back.

And I don't think it matters a damn what his skin color is.
********************************
Cross-posted at Michael Linn Jones.com

Oil Markets out of Control

Once more the nation is facing $3 gasoline and home heating oil over speculation and what some would think is market manipulation. While the market and its volatility are soaring out of control you can almost here the cash registers ringing non stop for all of the friends of President Bush. With his lack of action on behalf of the lower classes of America he is proving the point made by thousands of political writers like yours truly that he is a puppet President.

This man that claims to be a great listener is tone deaf when it comes to the people that can least afford the greatest inflationary market driven product in the world. Oil and the price of it effects practically every product made in the United States. From your vegetables getting from the fields in California to the local supermarket in New England, to anything made with plastics. Take a break, look around you computer desk or just around your living room. The wires insulated with PVC that burn the lamps that you read or watch television by are oil based. The cabinet to your television, the keyboard of your computer and most of the parts inside of it, stereo, DVD player, surround sound speakers, the sneakers on your feet, the bottled water container that you drink because it supposed to be good for you. Just for giggles make a list, when you get over one hundred items in your living room, move to the kitchen. Take a deep breath and get ready for writers cramp. All of them are oil based products in one form or another. Everything in our society is linked to oil and the higher the price goes it seems the wider the smirk on W gets.

Along comes the favored Democrat Senator from New York that is also running for W’s office. She calls out for the tapping of our nations Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to let the markets know that the situation is out of control and releasing millions of barrels onto the open market will impact prices by negating the rumor that there is a supply problem. By the way, there is no supply problem. There is a free for all market problem where investors and Wall Street are manipulating the price of oil to make yet another killing. Line up for the firing squad because you are the one facing the bullets from W’s buddies. Just empty your checking account and insert it at the nearest gas pump and you will not be harmed. You will be damned cold this winter but frost bite never killed anyone. I may be wrong on that last fact so don’t quote me. Over at Reuters they have this to say on what the political beat is on tapping the SPR…

Clinton urges Bush to tap oil reserves
Thu Nov 8, 2007 4:11pm EST

By Tom Doggett

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton called on the Bush administration to tap into the government's emergency crude oil and heating oil reserves to boost supplies and lower prices.

"I urge the President to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve to send a signal to the market and ease concerns about low crude oil stocks that are driving prices higher," Clinton said in a statement posted on Wednesday on her campaign Web site.

The price of U.S. crude oil hit a record $98.62 per barrel on Wednesday at the New York Mercantile Exchange and the average price consumers paid for home heating oil reached a record $3.11 per gallon this week, partly from concerns about tight petroleum supplies this winter.

Energy Department data also showed this week was the first time that the retail prices for heating oil, gasoline and diesel fuel all topped $3 per gallon at the same time.

The Bush administration has repeatedly said that the crude oil and heating oil reserves should only be used to offset major supply disruptions and not to manage energy prices. - Reuters

I’m thinking this is more of the same political crap shoot that both parties play but one side is looking out for the people that will set the thermostat this winter at 62 and hope the oil tank lasts ten or eleven days longer. The other side of the aisle is shoveling cash so fast into the bank that the blizzard of 78’ in New England looked like a flurry.

President Bush will never interfere with the oil industry because that is his background and his monetary base for being elected twice. If you asked yourself what was the greatest way to increase the price of oil seven years ago it would be total unrest in the Middle East. BINGO!

Personally, I’m not a fan of Hillary Clinton but if she is the only one asking the President to release the SPR then that is one form of leadership that those of us in the middle and lower classes are glad to hear. How much more are we to do without for Exxon Mobil, Shell and Chevron to rake in another multi billion dollar quarter of profits? If it gets her some votes for doing so, then it was a smart political move on her part. If you vote your wallet then you have to think twice this election because one party will be raping it and the other will be trying to stop the crime before it happens.

Thirty years from now when the records of what this President did to this nation on behalf of his friends in big oil will be revealed and President Warren G. Harding will no longer be known as the most corrupt President ever. Insert a W plaque at the hall of shame. Right next to him will be Marie Antoinette.

Papamoka

Cross posted at Bring IT ON!

Café Standards latest arguments …
The Auto Lobby Doesn't Speak For Us

Feel free to link to this post and we will respond in kind…

***** The Krile Files has linked to this post...

*****Alternative Energy Biofuels has linked to this post...

*****Wall Street Journal online has linked to this post...

*****I'm From Worcester has linked to this post...

Technorati Tags:
Bush, Cheney, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, Getty, BP, Oil Speculation, Oil Futures, Home Heating, Conserving Oil, SPR Louisiana, Energy Policy, MPG, Hybrid Cars, Wind Power, Solar Power, Alternative Energy, Switch Grass, Ethanol, Bio Fuel, Hillary Clinton, Presidential Politics, Democrats, Republicans, Robber Barron, Corruption in Politics, Special Interest, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Alaskan Oil Fields, Gulf of Mexico, Oil Rigs, Oil Drilling, Gas Prices, Home Heating Fuel, Wood Pellet Stoves

GOODBYE DEMOCRATIC PARTY: "IS THAT ALL THERE IS?" YOUR NEW CAMPAIGN SONG

Picture courtesy of the FEC

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Is that all there is?
Is that all there is?
If that's all there is my friend,
then let's keep dancing...
Let's break out the booze
And have a ball..
If that's all....there is

So goes the refrain from Peggy Lee's song from the 60's. The 60's were my formative years, with a lot going on to raise the political awareness of anyone. In those days there really was a distinct difference between Republicans and Democrats on many issues.

Not any more. I once wrote that as far as the so-called "two party system" is concerned, it is for voters much like buying a meal at a fast-food restaurant. You can go inside and order, or use the drive-through. It doesn't really matter....you THINK you're getting something different by choosing the way in which you make your purchase. But the fact is, it's the same restaurant with the same nutritionless food.

I had hopes that the Democratic Party would start to swing back towards some of its basics. That is, liberal on economic and social issues yet libertarian enough to acknowledge that people had the right to be people. If there was one hallmark of the Democrats, dating back to Franklin Roosevelt, was its concern for the "working man" (and woman).

Lincoln once said that God must love common-looking people since He made so many of them. That got a little twist over the years to become "God must love common people since He made so many of them." Using the term in the latter sense, the common people, while without money and power, were afforded consideration by the Democrats.

This has has been the case for a long time. Everyone has the right to interpret things as they wish. For me, that means looking at the "initiatives" of the Democrats as generally applying the power of government in an authoritarian manner. It's for the common good as they say, yet is the end result any different than what Republicans offer? Eat in or Take Out; it's all up to you.

There comes that time when one is faced with the proverbial cherry on top; the straw on the camel's back that leads one to say "enough." There are two recent events that illustrate how far the Democratic Party has gone downhill.

Recently, the GUN TOTING LIBERAL had a piece about the SCHIP veto by President Bush, with a subtitle RIGHT MOVE, WRONG REASON. He makes a good point; one that I wish to expand upon. In the manner of pointing out hypocrisy any debate about tobacco is a red herring. What must be acknowledged is that the funding for the SCHIP will be through a $6.10 additional tax on cigarettes. Any demographer will tell you that those paying said tax are not exactly in the wealthiest quintile.

What the Democrats are saying is: we want money for something and are targeting those who are the less well off. Then, wrapping themselves in self-righteousness they proclaim it's "for the children." That is not the point. The point is, DEMOCRATS ARE PROVING THEY COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THOSE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LADDER.

Then, this "DREAM ACT." Comprehensive Invasion Reform was rejected several months ago. But, like the proverbial bad penny, legislation keeps showing up to achieve piecemeal what could not be acquired as a whole. What the Democratic Party is saying with this is that while obeying the law is fine, garnering votes to perpetuate the party's power is a lot more important.

Doug Thompson of CAPITOL HILL BLUE wrote a column recently, A COMPLETE DEMOCRATIC FAILURE.

Americans enter the excesses of a Presidential election year with no real choices among the frontrunners of either party. Any chance for change remains mired in the muck of the second and third tier of candidates and they have no chance of breaking out.

Yes, Nancy Pelosi is a failure. The Democratic Party is a failure. But the real failure is a political system that has allowed Democrats and Republicans to become the only choices. In the end, a victory by either party is a failure of the system and the real losers are the American people and a once-great nation called the United States.

Couldn't have said it better myself. For a little triangulation I refer to Robert Reich's recent post at SALON.COM, WHY DEMOCRATS ARE AFRAID TO RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH.

Oct. 25, 2007 New data from the Internal Revenue Service show that income inequality continues to widen. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earn more than 21 percent of all income. That's a postwar record. The bottom 50 percent of all Americans, when all their wages are combined, earn just 12.8 percent of the nation's income.

SNIP,

If the rich and super-rich don't pay their fair share, the middle class will get socked with the bill. But the middle class can't possibly pay it. America's middle class is under intense financial pressure. Median wages and benefits, adjusted for inflation, have been going nowhere for 30 years; health costs are soaring (employers are quickly shifting co-payments, deductibles and premiums to their employees), fuel costs are out of sight, the prices of the houses occupied by the middle class are in the doldrums.

SNIP,

If the Democrats stand for anything, it's a fair allocation of the responsibility for paying the costs of maintaining this nation. So far, neither the Democratic candidates for president nor the Senate Democrats have shown much eagerness to advocate this fundamental principle. It seems the rich have bought them out.

It appears reasonably safe to assume that the Democrats are going to do very well next year. In the past someone like myself might find that synonymous with the country doing well also. My opinion has evolved to echo what Mr. Thompson said: a victory for either party is a loss for the nation.

Sure, it's easy to campaign against George W. Bush. ANYBODY could do that. What a voter must do, however, is look beyond the obvious (that President Bush has served poorly) and take a careful and considerate look at what the Democrats are going to do starting in 2009.

Mainly, they will be congratulating each other at exclusive parties about how well the party is doing, to the exclusion of the vast number of people in this country.

I stand corrected in advance if I am inaccurate in this quote from Mark 8:34:

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

The Democrats might start asking themselves the same question.

In the meantime....if that's all there is.....then I'll break out the diabetic booze and just keep dancing. And pray, as only a dyed-in-the-wool sinner like me can, that God does indeed save this republic.

I think about those who, in "service" to this republic swear upon a Holy Book that they will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of The United States.....so help me God. For one to say those words yet ignore the oath is a clear indication that God does not exist to them.

But I am a simpleton. I take such things seriously and find the price of my soul is too high to be purchased by a lobbyist or hedge fund manager.....or a quest for political power.
******************
This post kindly featured at MemeOrandum

Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com & The Gun Toting Liberal

Technorati Tags:
Bush, Democracy, Two Party System, Elections, President 08, Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Independant, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Founding Fathers, Election Games, Politics 2008, Running For President, Voter Disenfranchisement, Party Politics, Political Base, Real Life Politics, Switching Parties, Party Affiliation, Political Lies, Political Liars, Congress, Senate, Presidential Oath of Office, Defending the Constitution, Voter Boredom, Political Faith, Lost Political Faith, Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, Romney, Edwards, Obama, McCain, Kucinich, Ron Paul, Dodd, Biden, Must Read Politics

Running for President

America is putting up the best that she has to offer for President of this great land and the money needed to do so is disgusting. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be raised and spent to get somebody behind the desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Every main stream media site is telling the voters who are the front runner while they ignore the candidates that don’t have the big bucks that will pay for air time on their network.

It isn’t the greatest job in the world but it supposedly is the most powerful job in the world. The pay as an executive isn’t anything to brag about when you have to rub elbows with the likes of other CEO’s and corporate America executives. There is no stock to cash out, there are no golden parachutes to bail you out if you screw up and end up being kicked out. Matter of fact the downside if you totally screw up is taught in your nations schools on who you should not grow up to be.

Although I voted for Mitt Romney for Governor, I could not vote for him for President. Mitt Romney has more or less bought Senator John Kerry’s flip flops in a yard sale after the last election. Pick and issue and he has either flipped or flopped. I’ll wait while you Google Search it. Waiting, waiting, waiting… Glad you are back.

Although Rudi Giuliani was the Mayor of New York City, and he did get the city through the horror that was 9/11, that does not make him Presidential material. Rudi just has to fade away and do his corporate security thingy that he has made millions off of telling people who to be scared of and how to defeat them. Doesn’t that ring a bell to the current occupant of the White House?

Hillary Clinton is running as if she is the Queen of the Democrats and you had better not vote against the Clinton machine. With a political campaign war chest that would choke a Wall Street banker she is running like she owns the majority of Democrats that vote already. Excuse me Hillary?

LAS VEGAS - Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson said Saturday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is "acting as if she's won" the nomination. – Yahoo News

Money does not buy votes in New Hampshire and Iowa. For that matter when you state that you will not campaign in Michigan because the state moved up the primary vote and yet you will not remove your name from the ballot is two faced and spineless. Double speak is the Clinton campaign. Play to the middle and play it till you win it. She might want to visit Mitt and see if he has a couple of flip flops he can spare.

If the election of our President is equal to a set amount of money in the bank then our election process is broken. Our election process should not be decided on who has the most money to spend on advertising on the MSM networks. With our nation so heavily divided on so many issues the election could be tossed out the window once more and decided by the Supreme Court. Who voted for them to serve?

Maybe, just maybe, it is time to have publicly funded elections instead of special interest funded elections through political campaigns. Maybe, just maybe, then the voters will elect a President that deserves the job.

Then again Fox News or MSNBC has Rudi or Hillary as the next President. Have you voted yet? I know that I haven’t.

Papamoka

Technorati Tags:bush, cheney, dnc, rnc, conservative, liberal, running for president, president, yahoo news, democrats, republicans, elections 08, military, usmc, us army, us navy, usn, bill clinton, george bush, president bush, obama, richardson, edwards, giuliani, mccain, romney, mitt, new hampshire, iowa, caucasus, voting, main stream media, msnbc, new york times, white house, ron paul, denis kucinich, voters opinion, youtube, my space, popular politicians
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Barack Obama’s Wealth is a Problem?

Picture courtesy of Sentaor Obama's Senate office

Why does the main stream media have a problem with an African American politician having wealth? Barack Obama and his wife have worked their asses off and in return they benefited from it monetarily. He and his wife are very highly educated people and with that knowledge behind them they both have outstanding careers and paychecks. With that paycheck they bought a home that suited their means. What is the problem with that?

Here in Massachusettes we saw the same bashing and questioning of Governor Deval Patrick’s personal wealth during his run for Governor. Governor Patrick and his wife are both highly educated people that benefited from their educations and they earned every single penny they made. Why does the main stream media look at their wealth and Obama’s as if they do not deserve it? It pisses me off!

Over at the Washington Post they have this article highlighting Obama’s wealth…

Political Stardom Profitable for Obama
By CHRISTOPHER WILLS
The Associated Press
Saturday, September 29, 2007; 6:15 PM

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. -- Barack Obama has two best-selling books, a nice salary as a senator and a wife with a handsome income. Earlier this year he reported assets of up to $1.14 million in addition to his Chicago home.

That's small change to some of his presidential rivals, but more than enough to create entanglements and controversies for Obama, a Democrat who has been positioning himself as a friend of the little guy on financial matters. - Washington Post

Of all the political candidates running for President Barack Obama is amongst the poorest. With assets and personal investments over one million dollars he is in fact the poorest of the millionaires in the election of 2008. I for one envy his and his wife’s hard work to get where they are financially. By no means do I feel that they never earned it. Somehow the MSM tries to give you an impression that they did not earn it when looking at his financial status and that is wrong. You almost get the feeling that the MSM is shocked to see that an African American politician is doing so well!

Are we voting based on politicians personal wealth? Why don’t we look at how the candidates made their millions instead of what their net worth is? Better yet, let’s look at what is coming out of their campaigns for ideas to make a better America.

It just ticks me off when the MSM looks at an African American candidates wealth and then blurbs the means of other mega rich candidates as if their money is superior.

My personal advice to Barack Obama is to answer all questions regarding his families wealth is this. “We earned it! Next question?”.

Papamoka

Feel free to steal this post…

*****Zimbio has cross posted this piece...