With hatred for all….

The political blogs, the political strategists, and the political pundits all see the world in ‘red and blue’ and there is nary a comment to make things ’transparent’.  Once upon a time politics was about the politician, the government, and the people. Today politics is about being Republicans or Democrats and the opinions of those that oppose Republicans and oppose Democrats. It no longer is about America but which political party that will take power. 

On television, there is a semblance of civility on news programs although the partisanship is quite clearly enunciated, broadcast, and even marketed on some channels.

In print,however,  one can choke on the castigation, denigration, fleering, sneering, and smearing that is taking place by the public commentators. I would say that it has now been transported beyond ‘rooting for your team to win’ into something stronger.

There is hatred out there right now. Especially internet blogs, but also in TV pundits.  Hatred for Democrats and hatred for Republicans in equal measure. Each side’s ‘cheerleaders’ are no longer enjoying the game and cheering their side to win. The cheerleaders are mugging the opposition wherever they find them. There is no more civil discourse or gentlemen’s disagreement or policy disputes. It’s a political mugging, a political hatred, and a political assault on the opposition and the opposition’s supporters. “If we can’t win on the field, we will curse them and get them in the parking lot” appears to be the meme.  

TV anchors and news readers (who may or may not be called TV journalists/reporters) can barely keep the tone of their questions civil when addressing their political opposition. Rancor is rampant. AlterNet’s motto is the ‘The Mix is the Message’ and it is true for many of the ‘reporters’ on MSNBC and FOX that the selection of the story and angle taken are increasingly partisan.  When ‘the spin’ is actually in the question, it is obvious the answer will support or refute the question from a partisan point of view.  To update the old joke about how all questions can be answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’, the punch line would now be “Oh, really? Have you Democrats stopped beating your wives?”

Too much hatred. The America I know should not be seen through ‘red and blue’ eyeglasses but it should be viewed clearly by all. It is not ‘balanced reporting’ because you have a Republican AND a Democrat strategist on your program or quoted in your column.

Let’s get back to clarifying events and educating the voter, please.

Wall Street-ers Waiting for Work

The Mex Files has an amusing video of laid-off Wall Street workers waiting for a chance at a job.

While I could have posted the video, I am hoping that you spend some time perusing the blog. I recommend it as an excellent perspective on our southern neighbor.

About the debate commentators

I am not always quick on the uptake, but given enough time, and a lack of distractions, I may actually have an original thought.

I watched the last few minutes of the debate and then the  ’analysis’ that took place afterwards. Then I read a few people’s thoughts about the debate. After sleeping on it, I realized what was so unsettling about the debate commentators: they don’t give the comments any historical foundation or any analysis.

The debate commentators don’t appear to put any flesh on the bones of the topics or place a particular comment in context. I can understand why a presidential candidate may not want to get into specifics but that should not prevent the commentators from doing so.

Take, for example, Pakistan and the belief that Osama bin Laden is hiding in the mountain regions bordering with Afghanistan. Barack Obama says he would go after Bin Laden wherever he was. It would be great if the after-debate commentator would say that there are ramifications in entering a sovereign nation’s land with military forces. It would be even better if the commentator talked about the US military tracking Pancho Villa into Mexico or Gen. Jackson’s forays into Florida when it was still owned by Spain. A comparison and contrast of both those reasons for incursion and the ensuing results  would be excellent.

Another example for the after-debate commentators may be the budget deficit as it stands today and how much it has grown under  Republican and Democrat Presidents and the reasons for that growth. it might also be helpful to point out that Democrats think an economy is strong when it creates jobs and Republicans think it is strong when the Dow Jones goes up and they each are wealthier as a result. Two different ideas on a healthy economy can be discussed without stepping outside of the box of fairness and balance in reporting the debate. 

Listen, these commentators know the positions of both candidates from hundreds of speeches in small towns. How difficult would it be to craft historical analogies or provide context to  educate the American voter?

Must we listen to whether Barack Obama is too condescending and/or John McCain is unable to make eye contact with Obama? Must we hear that Obama has a slight edge over McCain or vice versa? It is all poppycock opinion  without telling the viewers what the criteria are for a good debate. 

I am surprised that we did not hear about their footwear, or the fact that John McCain did not wear an American flag on his lapel last night. But now that I am on the subject, who picked out Mc Cain’s tie that gave us such a moiré pattern on our TV screens? That flicker was certainly annoying.

Well, in any case, we will have the vice-presidential candidates debate soon. I am looking forward to this. Biden will say the wrong things by mistake and we all will laugh. Palin will say incomplete things and things that she cannot defend from her lack of knowledge. It should be a hoot for all bloggers whatever hue they belong to.

But those commentators can do a little homework and help educate the voter on the context of the candidates remarks and the positions. They can vette their remarks with each other prior to the show and then share them with viewers in the post debate analysis.

Let’s have some substance from the commentators as well as from the candidates.

National Goals of America, perhaps?

Dry Humor Alert!

Sometimes the solution is ‘Full Speed Ahead’! As we all know from experience, once you have had enough of something you don’t want it anymore, OR if you cannot get enough of it you will soon use it all up and there will be none left. In both cases, your pre-occupation will be extinguished and your attention will be directed to other objects of desire. 

With that thought in mind, perhaps we should go ‘Full Speed Ahead’. We should establishthese National Goals of America in order to end our current pre-occupation and get onto new issues:

Goal #1: Bankrupt the US Treasury. There are several advantages to this: 1. We end the fights about entitlements, defense spending, and the size of the government, 2. We end illegal immigration as people will not want to come here anymore, 3. We will stick to our own knitting and not interfere in other parts of the world, 4. People will learn how to do things for themselves instead of depending upon the government to save their bony butts, and 5. In order to bankrupt the US Treasury we will stop collecting taxes and that will make everyone happy .

Goal #2: Extract all oil from the ground.Leave no piece of the Earth un-drilled. Let’s get it all out so that none remains. The advantages to this are: 1. It ends all petro wars in our lifetime, 2. It forces us to find alternatives, 3. We can use those empty oil wells to put toxic waste into and thereby saving future generations from DNA destruction and cancer.

Goal #3: Engage in continual war. This is a brilliant move to ensure that we can accomplish goals 1and 2 above.  Isn’t it obvious that it gives warmongers something to do, it gives newsmedia something to talk about, it engages our industries in full employment, and it ensures that our enemies know we mean business? And we can actually have a full-time warrior President, eliminate those pesky Bill of Rights,  ban Congress, and reduce the Executive Branch to three cabinet officials: War, Intelligence, and Procurement.   

I know what you are thinking. You are thinking that this is the way to certain ruin. My friend, you are missing the greater good. If we do all the things above, we will rid ourselves of politicians. If there is no money, no oil in the ground, and we have only war waged by one man what then can politicians advocate? 

Please join the movement and push forward these National Goals within all political parties until they merge into a single party run by the Commander-in-Chief. Then the C-n-C can ban political parties altogether. With no elections, and these focused goals, we will change America forever and end all of this ‘politics as usual’ stuff.

Full Speed Ahead!

An Independent Voter says: No more warriors as President

For decades the US has waged war covertly with many nations. These low level conflicts were a denial of goals rather than the destruction of the enemy. It was an effort to control events, instead of creating conflict.  Under President Bush those wars became overt. Visible for the world to see, our foreign policy became obvious, arrogant, and deadly not only for our declared enemies but also for the civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I have had enough warring for the past 8 years and now would like 8 years of peace and low level conflicts.

 Sen. McCain sees the world as ‘us vs them’. I see the world as friends, foes, opponents, and spectators. Foes are those that come against us. Opponents are those with whom we compete. The others are obvious.

When Sen. McCain says he has experience, I believe he means he has the experience to fight wars and challenge those we thinkare our enemies. I don’t want a warrior who knows how to fight wars, I want an adult who knows not to fight wars and, instead, knows how to achieve our aims without war, without overt conflict.

I want a President. Not a warrior chieftain. I want  ‘Commander-in-Chief’ to be a sometime thing, not an everyday occurrence.

30 years of Senate experience and McCain wants to fight all comers. I want to hear that we choose our fights for the improvement of America. I want to hear that we are smart enough to know when fighting is wrong. Has Sen. McCain met a war he does not like? I am not sure.

Brick # 20: NSS: Warrantless seizure of personal effects

The National Security System continues to grow, control, and intervene in your civil liberties. 

Customs agents are no longer required to have probable cause to take copies of your personal papers. It does not matter if you are an American on American soil. The Bush Administration has set new guidelines contrary to the Constitution that permits government agents access to your personal effects without seeking a warrant. Why? Because they can, because they want to, and because Congress won’t protect your rights any more.

 The Bush administration has overturned a 22-year-old policy and now allows customs agents to seize, read and copy documents from travelers at airports and borders without suspicion of wrongdoing, civil rights lawyers in San Francisco said Tuesday in releasing records obtained in a lawsuit.
The records also indicate that the government gives customs agents unlimited authority to question travelers about their religious beliefs and political opinions, said lawyers from the Asian Law Caucus and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Yes, I agree that customs agents should be able to seize contraband material and to look for it. Countries have a right to protect their borders and I support that. However, when the people are Americans and customs is just being nosy, I think this has gone too far. 

How do we stop this?  

     

Throwdown: McCain vs Bush?

After about an hour of thinking on last night’s Republican betrayal of Big Finance, it occurred to me that John McCain may be throwing down George Bush. This may be about power in the Republican Party.

John McCain suspended his campaign to go to Washington where he has not been since April 8th. Before he gets there, his advisors work with House Republicans to advocate McCain’s insurance plan. They dutifully line up with him while negotiating with the Administration and Congress. And when McCain gets his meeting with everyone in the White House, he  de-rails the perceived consensus publicly. Then McCain says:

“There never was a deal, but I do believe the meeting was important to move the process along,” McCain said. “It gave us a renewed sense of urgency and I’m confident we will move forward, and I’m confident that we will reach a conclusion.”

So after 8 years of being behind Bush is John McCain telling the Republican Party that he ( John McCain) is in charge and if the President does not play ball with him there will be consequences?

John McCain has made this bailout a political problem with both candidates now squarely in the public eye. John is using this event to separate himself from George Bush and Barack Obama. Is the message  ”I do not accept this bailout plan”  directed to his base or to swing voters?

Brinksmanship may be the a characteristic that separates him from Obama but it makes McCain look more like Bush and that will not help him with thinking Republicans.

In the meantime, Rome may be burning.

Republicans Betray Big Finance Bailout?

Color me plaid for not understanding the Republican betrayal of Big Business, Big Finance, and Big Bailout. From Obsidian Wings quoting the New York Times :

“The day began with an agreement that Washington hoped would end the financial crisis that has gripped the nation. It dissolved into a verbal brawl in the Cabinet Room of the White House, urgent warnings from the president and pleas from a Treasury secretary who knelt before the House speaker and appealed for her support.”

And Hilzoy describes McCain’s participation  this way:

David Kurtz notes that McCain had spoken to the House Republicans before they staged their revolt, and that a number of them reported that he seemed sympathetic to their ideas. McCain’s campaign, however, issued a statement saying that he “did not attack any proposal, or endorse any plan.”

That’s what I call real leadership: parachute in after other people have been in complicated negotiations for days, trailing the entire national press corps behind you, on the grounds that you are urgently needed, in person — and then undermine the deal behind the scenes without being willing to publicly take any position at all.

Is this a political stunt to defer the debate or to have McCain ride to the rescue? There would be some mighty upset people if that occurred.

Yet how to explain Boehner’s actions?

But once the doors closed, the smooth-talking House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, surprised many in the room by declaring that his caucus could not support the plan to allow the government to buy distressed mortgage assets from ailing financial companies.

What is happening that we do not know?

Perhaps the question is: Will John McCain’s tepid leadership as Republican Party leader sink the world financial markets today?

Or is John McCain playing brinksmanship?

Ralph Nader, Obama girl, and Jesse Ventura

McCain snoozes and almost loses

John McCain is fun. He can be counted upon to do the one thing that will surely get him bollixed up.

He suspended his campaign in order to play John Wayne and save America from its financial crisis including a request to defer the debate on Friday. After Obama’s reply that President’s can do more than one thing at a time, the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr, leaped into the breach left by McCain and offered to take McCain’s place at the Friday night debate.

 The Bob Barr campaign sent letters to both the Commission on Presidential Debates and the Obama campaign requesting inclusion in Friday night’s debate in Mississippi after John McCain said he would not attend due to the importance of “fixing” the economic problems we face.

You can read a Libertarian comment here:

Most of you have probably heard that Sen. John McCain is temporarily suspending his campaign and calling for a postponement of Friday night’s presidential debate so that he and Sen. Barack Obama can go to Washington and cast a vote to spend $1 trillion of your money bailing out Wall Street.

Ouch! A little prickly isn’t it? Yet it is true.