|
Pokeys
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Birthday: 7/4/1958
Gender: Male
Interests: Stop the NeoCon Death Machine. Bring truth back to America.
"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality." George Washington
Our Heroic Republican Leaders Military Records:
George W. Bush (unaccounted for in 2/6 years air national guard duty)
Dick Cheney (5 deferrments, "other priorities")
Tom DeLay: Didn't serve
Dennis Hastert: Didn't serve
Bill Frist: Didn't serve
Rick Santorum: Didn't serve
Saxby Chambliss: Didn't serve
George Pataki: Didn't serve
Rudolph Giuliani: Didn't serve
Richard Perle: Didn't serve
Alberto Gonzalez: Didn't serve
George Allen: Didn't serve
Trent Lott: Didn
Expertise: Current terror alert status!!!
Cheney Alert Status: Red
There is a high probablity Dick Cheney will accidentally shoot you.
Message: message me
Member Since:
1/17/2004
|
|
| Lon McCainy
Scary Presidential Politics
Well, it's been months since I updated the blog, and it's uncharacteristic of me to pretty much drop out of sight when the final weeks of elections are upon us. But, after seeing some really incredible McCain rallies it just seems time to comment on what's happening in Electionland.
First off, the John McCain Creep Show shows no signs of abating. Since his nomination of Pit Bull Mom Sarah, his campaign has became less about HIM or even Obama, but about how Sarah and her henchmen could and have ramped up the political violence.
It comes as no surprise McCain had to - at least temporarily - take back his campaign when some little old lady decided Obama couldn't be trusted "because he was an Arab" in front of live TV no less. McCain snatched the microphone away from the confused woman who uttered a meek, "No?" with him lecturing her on being "American". Suddenly McCain finally realized he was speaking to the local KKK branch. At the same time, the Secret Service was wondering where they put the tear gas as McCain was booed for his "liberal" defense of Obama. Would they pull out their guns and sheets and hunt down the Democratic candidate? It sure looked that way - and McCain knew it.
After the potential riot, the McCain campaign retooled and introduced the new and improved McCain 4.0 the following Monday - this time the "fighter". In case you were wondering, here are the other three, "The Maverick", "The War Hero", and "The Uniter - er Arbitrator" But it doesn't really matter. In this debate on Thursday night, he still came off as the "cranky old man" who tells your kids to stay off his grass. In spite of "positive spin" from all the Republican "experts" on all the news stations, he still appeared unable to connect with the American people.
 Interestingly, McCain doesn't have much control over his own campaign. Attack - the main staple of Bush and Co. can't work for a "maverick". That guy is supposed to stand on his own. Isn't he supposed to explain and demonstrate what he can do to make the world and America a better place. That didn't happen. I didn't even see any pearl handled revolvers, riding crop and helmet to give the pleasing and comforting "commander and chief" look. Instead we see shots of him hunched over in the "Straight off the Cliff Express" wondering who he'll be at the next campaign rally - and - who will show up to "support" him like some broken down old rock band.
With times as bad as they are now, and no real comforting words from McCain, Americans are panicking, many "conservatives" are defecting the Republican Party and Wall Street - both of which are under-performing these days. Even McCain's finger pointing at Obama implying that somehow the junior Senator had something to do with the meltdown while Keating Five McCain preaches an "ethics" lesson is absurd.
If Obama can make it to election day without some "political fallout" in the form or a bullet, the Republicans can retool and win in 2012 - since "Democratic fixing" all the damage will take decades, they'll figure out a way to blame Democrats for their own mismanagement of the United States. Needless to say, McCain will never recover politically from this. His "bipartisan" stance just four years ago has been blown apart from his own self-inflicting, destructive campaign. Democrats slammed the door shut on him quite forcibly and will never forgive him for his actions.
With political victories on the horizon for Democrats, perhaps they can shove Joe Lieberman down McCains big mouth and send them both home without their football.
Well, it's been a spooky summer for McCain. I wonder he'll be wearing for Halloween. McCain 5.0?
| | |
| Obama and McCain/Bush
The Heat is On!
It was an interesting week for the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party and his General Election Republican opponent, John McCain and “Henchman in Europe (tm)” George Bush. Obama has shown some strategic muster in this election which, I think, should help him in seizing the Presidential reins of power.
My thoughts on this come after several potentially devastating revelations involving Obama's crazed pastor, comments from his wife, and even the term “sweetie” when referring to a Michigan reporter while on the campaign trail. Any of these issues, in elections past, would potentially derail a presidential candidates race. Not this year – not this time. Simply put, the American people are more serious about their own circumstances in an economy which is falling apart. They know they cannot expect our current “president” to come to their aid – and they can't help notice he's off in Europe this week and his regular trips to Crawford haven't missed a beat. So any comments coming from the current commander-in-grief won't uplift Neocons nor discourage “flaming liberals” (that's everyone else) from soldering on.
What's happening is what the Neocons are completely incapable of handling, or even manipulating – real debate. Obama has characterized the “flag pin” debacle, as an example, as “silly politics” - also – when Bush came back this week and said “we shouldn't talk to our enemies” Obama shot back, “so how come you negotiate with Gadafi, Iraq war lords, and North Korea?” - A very good question indeed. Obama has learned some very important political lessons from Republican and Democratic strategists alike:
From the Republican side of the house, Karl Rove taught his boys to “shine a light on the problem” - talk about exactly what people fear and make whatever the problem is, a non-issue. That's worked effectively. In some cases, as revelations about improprieties within the Bush administration came out the comments were, “this is nothing new, it's been discussed many times before and nothing ever came of it.” It didn't matter whether “things were discussed before, or not” the lackadaisical media took it at face value. In any case, Obama confronts allegations directly and discusses them. His issues with problematical pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and eventual divorce from the guy came in a two step process. In both cases Obama handled the issue in a very public spotlight. This is in direct contrast to what other politicians have done in the past, and have had their campaigns smited early in the process. One only needs to look at George Romney (Mitt's daddy), Gary Hart, or George McGovern to see how “one false move” and no “damage control” after the fact will kill your campaign. I believe it was an episode of “The West Wing” and a comment from that show which cemented this strategy for me, “Dont' let your enemies frame the debate for you – you'll lose in the end.”
From the Democratic side of the house, Bill Clinton has always run an exciting campaign. During his run for his first term he created “The War Room”. A fascinating documentary came out of that time with James Carvelle in charge and how it was immensely important to get your opinion back to news outlets after your opponent points an accusing finger at you, your campaign, or your ideas. Mission One: Get the response message back within minutes. This is obvious from the minutia and obsessive 24 hour news shows. After all, where do you think cash strapped networks and local stations get all THEIR news? From their “news bureaus”? Hardly, they get it from CNN, MSNBC, and (gasp) Fox News. That's where, and by the time the nightly news starts its broadcast at 5:30 PM, the candidates comments have already been dissected into a million pieces. Interestingly Hillary Clinton has been slow to respond to this type of response, and many followers felt she was treated “unfairly” - in politics EVERYTHING is unfair and it's up to you, as a candidate, to “take the bull by the horns” and shoot back – QUICKLY – and accurately. You need the “sound bite” that trumps your opponents comments. Obama has done exceptionally well in this regard and shown more political muster than Clinton, and, hopefully, when dealing with McCain. 
Of course the question becomes, can Obama pull blue collar workers back into the Democratic fold – or women who naturally were attacked to Clinton. Well, considering Clinton's blue collar voters originally belonged to John Edwards, it's a question of how you respond to these people. McCain is already wooing these voters, Reagan Democrats in hopes he can pull them away, but considering the Republicans have pretty much sold off this group of people as “idiots” through the years, it's going to be a hard fought battle to get them to run to his camp. For Obama his comments about the bitter, gun toting and newly minted “underclass” may seem insurmountable – the problem with his statement is they are true. These people are disenfranchised and very unhappy with their situation.
The one part which I've not mentioned and is critical here is; Are they racist?
Yes, they are racist. But that's also been perpetrated and maintained by the Wrights of the world. Obama is rightly campaigning in Michigan and other rust belt states to repair this damage. It's very possible he can – at lease partially - and he's got the time to do it. Will he sway SOME – yes. Others, never. But many of these folks wouldn't vote for a black man (½ black) no matter what. But he needs these “swing” states because this is where the presidency will be won or lost. In the end it's up to him to engage as many of these voters as possible and offer them “hope” – just like Clinton did in 1992.
I'd thought, in this blog, I'd say more in the primary season. However, what I find is there's a quite a bit of posturing and “false debate”. In this campaign season, it's most interesting when a candidate falters and what they do to fix the problems created by their own candidacy and following. It's more “rough and tumble” in this sense and gives a peek at who and what these people will do when that phone really does ring at 3AM in the morning.
It's gonna be an interesting General Election.
| | |
| Obama For Change?"Clinton For...
Boy, it took me a while to navigate the new menu system on Xanga. I liked it better when you used to just WRITE about what you wanted to. Now there's so much "junk" you can add to your blog it kind of defeats the purpose of the thing in the first place. Well enough of that.
This weekend I had some interesting arguments with friends and family over the Democratic primaries. This week Texans and Ohioans (is that a word?) will vote for their choice for President. I seem the only person in my immediate circle interested in Obama as a viable candidate. But, here's the thing, I never really got to explain why I voted for the guy. Instead I was met with a barrage of comments about how he "can't" be president and really not a hell of a lot about what Hillary can do - placed in the same Oval Office. "Experience" as defined by my Democratic brethren include much of what are in her ads: knowing all the world leaders, and having already spend 8 years in the White House.
This may sound all well and good, but we have to look at what that means. Yes, she's a senator and voted more with the Republicans on major pieces of legislation than with her Democratic counterparts. She actively seeks out "undecideds" and "talks tough" about what she would do in the White House.
But none of that actually influenced me. Last week, someone on the Sunday morning talk shows made a very simple observation. I found it enlightening and perhaps the one, single thing that pushed me to the Obama side of the Democratic equation. The comment, paraphrased, was this, "Whenever Barack Obama speaks he always phrases his comments with the pronoun 'we', whenever Hillary Clinton speaks, she always uses the work 'I'".
That really resonated with me. You see, we've had an awful lot of "I" over the past 7 years and it's been from a guy who "thinks he knows what we want - and frequently gets his advice from Jesus." Now, yes, I know, it's not fair to compare anyone to George Bush - with the exception of his "advisers" who created some of the worst policy in the universe, but I digress.
I found it interesting that one of my Texas Republican friends voted in the Democratic primary. I had expected him to vote for Hillary and make the General Election more of a contest. However he said he didn't, instead voting for Obama. Now the one thing about Republicans these days is they really aren't "for" anything - they are always "against" something. In this case, they are against Hillary.
For Democrats, folks like me are for something relatively "new". I'm sure she would do a great job - maybe even a better job than Obama, but after the healthcare issues which were jettisoned by a Democratic Congress when Bill went into office, it suggested there's some real problems with getting "people" to do the right thing. Hillary has tried various "slants" to get the edge on Obama but in each case, he's come out looking pretty good.
In a recent ad reminiscent of Johnson's "Daisy" and Mondale's "Red Phone" ad the Hillary spot shows a family asleep and a ringing phone, late at night. A voice over talks about who answers the phone in the White House and who has the experience to make the right decisions (I won't say "from day one" - I'm pretty tired of that tag line). It was a "scare tactic" and was relatively successful in those prior campaigns. Interestingly, the Obama people came back with virtually the same ad and giving Clinton's "voting record" in regards to Iraq - principal - and giving Bush the "green light" to do all the things we've come to regret, ever since. Whether you consider the ad "fair" or not, it was Clinton who brought up the issue. This leaves her in a real bind, the record which she though would give her the moderates and perhaps a few Republicans along the way. I believe she gets neither and is beginning to alienate some of her base.
The problem with the Clinton campaign is they cannot offer a fresh face or even a fresh perspective. Experience is important, but at the same time, it can be a hindrance when you consider all the "experience" Bush brought to the White House. People who his father had trusted in. They were supposabley ready on "Day One" when W. came into office. As it turns out, they simply put their neo-con "white paper" into motion and ignored all the facts while doing so. They let terrorists attack us, involved us in two wars, created new enemies, tripled our gas prices, created huge debt, and alienated 1/2 of the country. Now that's what I call EXPERIENCE at its best. Perhaps that's why her message isn't getting much traction. Rightly or wrongly she's associated with that kind of group think.
I think we, as Americans, are over that kind of experience and for Hillary, she's not quite distanced herself from "poor judgement" - some of which has been echoed in debates and soundbytes which don't resonate. As an example, I could care less about who's been quoted and the appropriate copyright wasn't added to the bottom of the speech in a recent debate where "we don't want change that can be Xeroxed" - yawn.
It's dumb, simply because we know all those quotes from the history books and personal experience. There we go - now I'm being treated like an idiot again. I'm too stupid to know who said "I have a dream." That offends me. I'm more concerned she's not offered a visionary approach for America. I get the impression she's instead tossed a resume in my lap and says, "I'm your woman!" Sorry, been there and done that with the Cheerleader from Texas. Sure she's smart and capable, and I will support her if she's the nominee, but I'd rather have someone who spends time thinking about what they will do for American and work out the details rather than someone who obsessed with tweaking their resume.
That's where we are at with all of this - in my eyes. Let's go forward. What Obama brings to the table is a hope for America. It's what the "sagging" economy is suggesting and what the poll takers are discovering. People are weary of "negatism" they are tired of "fear mongering" or "saber rattling" - they want someone who will unite America. Can Obama do this? It's a good question, but I'm willing to give the guy a try. As we get closer to the election, I'm sure many things will be vetted. And you can depend on the Republicans to bring out everything they can on the guy (or her).
The one, single things I can tell you about the guy is this - he's smarter than Bush and he has much more charisma. He's creating an optimism which I've not seen in quite a long time. You see if we as Americans start caring about what we, as a nation, can do, that's half the battle. I don't see Hillary as that uniting force, and judging from the dread I'm hearing on the Republican side of the house, McCain isn't the guy to unite the Republicans - much less the rest of the country.
Let's see where this goes. I'm willing to give it, and him, a chance.
| | |
| Who Would Jesus Vote For This Time?And Will He Support "The Next President?"
Maybe the biggest problem confronting the next president won't be so much about "which party" and "who cares the most about 'America'" or "who can most adeptly grab the persidential steering wheel" and move the country forward.
In actuality, it's going to be a lot harder than that. As Republicans drag out their full size Reagan Crash Test Dummy from their political closet and put it on display for all to see, Democrats must decide which "minority" they want to represent their own party. The final choice, however, will be less about either - conservatism or pragmatic idealisim.
Whomever it will be it'll have everything to do with - not only leading a country for four years - it'll be about reconstruction and "re-leading" the country after 8 years of dim-witted incompetence and greed. It'll mean fixing out-of-control global warming, quelling unrest and destabilization in global politics thanks to our dunderhead foreign policy, and crash landing an economy where investors (American and Chinese) have lost all confidence.
In any case, unlike King George - who spent the last 8 years in a presidential sonobolistic state ignoring the country's and the world's problems and acting as though there's "no problems Jesus can't solve" the alarming reports of "non-leadership" are abundant on the world stage. The final "winner" for president can't invoke the "The New Deal" or "Tax Cuts for All" and expect the "sheepish public" to buy it this time around. Both rest on the laurals of what's "worked" in the past - but the world has changed SO much those pedestriation promises ring hollow to a much more connected and informed, electorate.
Just today there's articles on the failing economy, high military suicide rate, unpreparded police/fire for next terrorist attack, first baby boomers retiring and Social Security's insolvency, Pakistans continued, shaky goverment, and accellerated deforestation throughout the world and global warming. It's enough to cause a president to go to drinking - or hiding in their Texas ranch for the weekend.
We deserve better than that - and both Republicans and Democrats are starting to see that as "not doing the people's business".
In the end - these lingering questions MUST be addressed. Ignoring the problem will not make the problem go away. I'm sure this time next year, the newly installed president will be deeply engrossed in finding solutions. That's my hope, but we'll see where that eventually goes.
Neo-Conservatism tried and it failed. "New Deal - New Frontier" politics also failed. It's not "single issue" politics and it's not about "dumbed down" simplistic quotes which no longer make sense like "tax and spend" - which now applies more to Republicans than Democrats - or "flip flopping" which describes the Republican nominee more succinctly than either Democrat. It's beyond that - way beyond that.
As I sit here watching Mike Huckabee and listen to him waffle and distance himself from James Dobson, the nutjob from "Focus on the Family" - who likes to affectionately blame everyone one who isn't a good "born-again Republican" for the world state of affairs. In that comes the rub: Can we trust Jesus to get the right Republican into office (this time)?
The answer to that is self evident: Of course not. And we have way too many people who have come to that conclusion. We aren't going to let "Jesus" or anyone else to tell us what we are to think - or vote for. That's why John McCain why is back "in the race". Jesus isn't the "political co-pilot" since he did so badly, helping George over the last 7 years.
Can the Republican recover? Sure. But it's up to them just how much "Jesus" they want in their politics this time around. My suggestion is, NONE! But that's just me.
Talk about current affairs and issues - you'll get elected. With or without Jesus' help.
| | |
| Election "Central"Electing People We Don't Even Like
Since I have close to 6 months to catch up on let's begin with some rather telling signs about the political landscape.
First off, it amazes me the presidential candidate makeup for both the Republicans and the Democrats. As it stands right now, on the Republican side our so-called religious candidates all have something wrong with them. Obsessed by illegal immigration and whether they can get Jesus as their vice-presidential candidate has made most Americans weary of the "social conservatives" who - among laking any interest in politics beyond the big bad twin issues of abortion and "gay rights" have left behind mainstream Americans who are more worried about global warming, health care, and other topics of real interest "to the rest of us". Unfortunately for the Republicans they can only offer up two "religious types" of which only one is of any merit since, as well all know - and let me whisper this in your ear, "Mormons aren't real Christians." Over. That one has to rank up there as a strong number three in social faux pas along with associating with Catholics. At least they don't go writing sequels to the Bible and claiming Jesus' post-death vacationing in North America. What is a candidate to do?
The only candidate who's credentials seem palatable to Republicans is either Rudi or the nut-case Texan (which could be superfluous) Ron Paul. Rudi has a serious case of "marriage-i-tist" having lined up 3 wives at last count, and then  Bernie K., his closest buddy in NYC for getting caught for not reporting monies (read bribes) to remodel his swanky sex pad near "Ground Zero." But, fortunately for Bernie - Rudi's been more loyal to his former police commissioner than his last two wives or his disenchanted kids - who think "dad is a creep". Also, Rudi's continuous need to wrap his campaign in the remains of "The World Trade Center" every time someone questions his policies or actions. Yawn. Outside of making obscene profits from his security firm with Bernie K. he hasn't done anything for NYC in a very long time.
Meanwhile Ron Paul is running around acting as the "radical right" guy he is. Barely a Republican and not much of patriot, Paul needs only the moustache and a cool looking uniform to complete his run for president. Is it too early to order that Mercedes Command Staff car? Never. Perhaps he can repaper Bernie K's apartment for practice (inside joke - for those of you who don't bother with history). In any case, some things sound reasonable and then, all of a sudden, his Libertarian views come out and we see him unwilling to sign up for any humanitarian missions, jettison the Civil Rights Act of 1964, abolish most governmental agencies, and other crazy notions involving "government". He seems to believe the "best government" is the one that doesn't govern at all. Of course George W. has disproved that theory over the last 7 years.
Lastly, we've got the "Ghost of Republican Past" John McCain. Sigh. His time has come and gone and ever since he tied his Radio Flyer Wagon to the Bush funeral procession everyone just dropped all the optimism and realized they would have another four years of Bush like rule. Even Republicans, who don't talk about Junior much these days are tired of Boy King politics.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, the choices don't seem much better. Hillary, whom many people have a visceral reaction the likes of ragweed, don't see her as a palatable candidate. She too, runs around talking about her credentials - which, before her ascent to Senator, included "ribbon cutting ceremonies" and locking her "swinger" husband out of the executive bedroom. Not only wasn't she conferring with her old man - she wasn't offering advice to him sans - "lock that thing up and don't come looking for 'whoopee' the rest of your term." Her campaign reads like a resume. And as anyone looking for a job knows, people aren't hired for their "resume" - they are hired because they offer real assets to the company and look like they can work with fellow employees. She's never been a "team player" and many people can't stand working with her. So, I think, she fails that test. Oh, and her problem is what many Democratic candidates have in the general election - she's a woman - and we all know - only men look good in a red tie.
Then there's the Obama factor. He keeps running up in the polls, and while I find his "presidential" look convincing, he still suffers from a few things which would hurt him for president, one is "campaigning while black" - our gun-toting NRA members will never vote for an uppity black trying to bring Beltway property values down. So write them off. His performance in the endless debates doesn't seem to really improve. Everything he does seems over rehearsed and his statements "pat." I'm sure there's something to be said for that - but again - I've finding less to be enthused about concerning this guy.
Personally, other candidates have more going for them, but lack the thick bankroll to get above the fray. I personally like Bill Richardson, who appears to not only have the experience, but handles himself well in debates, Q/A's and speeches. John Edwards - whom I really liked four years ago - I cannot even watch anymore. While I understand his personal tragic are compelling "human interest stories" he, like Guliani, takes it all to new level and I head for the TV channel selector before I get another dose of "As the Edward's Family Turns".
At any rate, here is my prediction for President: It won't be a Democrat. Why? Simple - not a single candidate - will stand up to the Republican "mud machine" and they will stand there bumbling, dropping all the falsehoods and wild stories like a bad juggler. The Spin Doctors have a complete list to use against the three frontrunners and I doubt any of them have a defensive plan to combat the fodder. Remember it was John Kerry who couldn't shed the "anti-war" image even though he himself, was a war hero. Instead, George W., who couldn't even show up for National Guard service "got off" unscathed and unquestioned on his so called "war experience". Expect Republican lightning to strike twice.
So who will the Republican president be? Don't know. And it doesn't really matter. It's all fodder with them. The issues don't matter - it's how far and how much they can enrich themselves. Their personal fortune is all that really matters to these patriots. That's evident by their superficial "stands" on issues and the frayed Ronald Reagan Play Book they carry with them - 25 year old concepts and ideas which have proven themselves as unusuable - particularly in the 21st century. But, Republicans can put their cowboy chaps on, talk "tough" and stay as far from issues and details, Rooster Cogburn style.
Too bad - I was hoping we might become a nation again. Silly me.
| | |
|
