Indigent A-hole
- Last build:
- Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:17:50 +0000
- Language:
- Feed URL:
- http://indigentahole.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
RSS FEED IDEMS: Indigent A-hole
- Kirk/Anti-Kirk
Anyone notice a similarity between these two sets of photos?
Is it just me or does Bill seem a little more anti-Bill since he dropped out? Perhaps they'll meet and battle it out for the fate of two parallel universes or something...
Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:02:00 +0000 - Barack Obama is Disingenuous
Something has been bothering me about the spectacular rise of freshmen Illinois Senator Barack Obama for a while, and I just couldn't put my finger on it. It might have something to do with the sycophantic fawning of the media, perhaps; it may also have had something to do with how so many of my friends and fellow Democrats were jumping on the bandwagon, seemingly without any critical thought.
I finally figured it out when this story about Obama's position on NAFTA broke;Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser privately told Canadian officials to view the debate in Ohio over trade as "political positioning," according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press that was rejected by the adviser and held up Monday as evidence of doublespeak by rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.
So either the adviser is telling the truth, and he misled our Canadian neighbors over Obama's position on perhaps the single most important current treaty between our nations, or he's lying and the campaign really did represent to another nation that they were bullshitting the American public to score points off of Hillary Clinton. The only other option is that the Canadians in this meeting are lying in the memo in an attempt to discredit Obama, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense considering they may very well have to deal with this guy as President of the United States before too long.
The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.
"Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign," the memo said. "He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plan.
This is, of course, going on while the Senator is representing his position on NAFTA like this during the Ohio debates (warning, long quote... emphasis mine);MR. WILLIAMS: Senator, thank you.
Before we turn the questioning over to Tim Russert, Senator Obama.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think that it is inaccurate for Senator Clinton to say that she's always opposed NAFTA. In her campaign for Senate, she said that NAFTA, on balance, had been good for New York and good for America. I disagree with that. I think that it did not have the labor standards and environmental standards that were required in order to not just be good for Wall Street but also be good for Main Street. And if you travel through Youngstown and you travel through communities in my home state of Illinois, you will see entire cities that have been devastated as a consequence of trade agreements that were not adequately structured to make sure that U.S. workers had a fair deal.
Now, I think that Senator Clinton has shifted positions on this and believes that we should have strong environmental standards and labor standards, and I think that's a good thing. But you know, when I first moved to Chicago in the early '80s and I saw steelworkers who had been laid off of their plants -- black, white, and Hispanic -- and I worked on the streets of Chicago to try to help them find jobs, I saw then that the net costs of many of these trade agreements, if they're not properly structured, can be devastating.
And as president of the United States, I intend to make certain that every agreement that we sign has the labor standards, the environmental standards and the safety standards that are going to protect not just workers, but also consumers. We can't have toys with lead paint in them that our children are playing with. We can't have medicines that are actually making people more sick instead of better because they're produced overseas. We have to stop providing tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that are investing here in the United States of America.
And if we do those things, then I believe that we can actually get Ohio back on the path of growth and jobs and prosperity. If we don't, then we're going to continue to see the kind of deterioration that we've seen economically here in this state.
So if the Canadians aren't lying, and I really don't see any reason why they would, then all this was just fluff intended to endear Obama with those that stand against NAFTA, all the while scoring dishonest points against Senator Clinton. This really disturbed me when I went back and read Obama's comments- the last thing I want is a another disingenuous president, regardless what party they come from.
This incident alone wouldn't make me feel that perhaps Obama is not nearly as honest and forthright as he and his surrogates make out. There was also this from NBC's Meet the Press November 7th, 2004, shortly after winning his freshmen Senate seat;MR. RUSSERT: Before you go, you know there's been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your full six-year term as U.S. senator from Illinois?
I watch all the Sunday shows, and I distinctly remember this- I also remember Obama coming back on the show to try and un-say these words less than two years later on October 22nd, 2006;SEN.-ELECT OBAMA: Absolutely. You know, a little--some of this hype's been a little overblown. It's flattering, but I have to remind people that I haven't been sworn in yet. I don't know where the rest rooms are in the Senate. I'm going to have to figure out how to work the phones, answer constituent mail. I expect to be in the Senate for quite some time, and hopefully I'll build up my seniority from my current position, which I believe is 99th out of 100.
MR. RUSSERT: But, but—so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?
And then there was Obama's confusing statements on public financing;SEN. OBAMA: I will not.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: You will not.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, the—that was how I was thinking at that time. And, and, you know, I don’t want to be coy about this, given the responses that I’ve been getting over the last several months, I have thought about the possibility. But I have not thought it—about it with the seriousness and depth that I think is required. My main focus right now is in the ‘06 and making sure that we retake the Congress. After oh—after November 7, I’ll sit down and, and consider, and if at some point, I change my mind, I will make a public announcement and everybody will be able to go at me.
MR. RUSSERT: But it’s fair to say you’re thinking about running for president in 2008?
SEN. OBAMA: It’s fair, yes.
MR. RUSSERT: And so when you said to me in January, “I will not,” that statement is no longer operative.
SEN. OBAMA: The—I would say that I am still at the point where I have not made a decision to, to pursue higher office, but it is true that I have thought about it over the last several months.
MR. RUSSERT: So, it sounds as if the door has opened a bit.
SEN. OBAMA: A bit.
A year ago, both McCain and Obama indicated that they would accept public financing for the general election if the other party's nominee did as well.
Now I know saying these kinds of things is going to rile a lot of folks up- most of the Obama supporters I know are deeply emotional about their chosen candidate. So emotional, it seems perhaps they are making their decisions based on how they feel about the guy rather than substantial policy positions. I saw similar behavior out of the supporters of another couple of candidates in recent history- Ron Paulites and Bush supporters also get very agitated when their political "faith" is questioned. Either way it disturbs me that so many people are getting romanced right out of their reasoning.But Obama, whose fundraising has brought in record amounts of primary money, has hedged that position over the past week, giving McCain openings to pounce.
Last week, Obama said it would be "presumptuous of me to say now that I'm locking myself into something when I don't even know if the other side is going to agree to it."
McCain gave Clinton a pass on the issue, given that she never indicated she would forgo public financing.
The long and short here is we Democrats feel that taking the White House in 2008 is essential to the health and prosperity of our nation. Is it really the best idea to nominate an unknown quantity like Barack Obama, especially when he is continually dropping contradictory statements like those above? I've never declared any serious support on this blog for Hillary Clinton per se, but at least she is a known quantity with years of fulfilling promises under her belt.
As a hardcore Democrat, I just can't offer my support for Senator Barack Obama. We have to much to lose to bet all our chips on an unsure thing, especially if the only reason the party is swooning for the guy is his pretty speeches and inspirational rhetoric, which as we saw above can occasionally be described by any rational person as disingenuous.
I come down on Hillary's side on this one- actions do speak louder than words. So for those voting tomorrow in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, or Vermont, support Hillary Clinton for President, and ensure a Democratic victory in 2008!
UPDATE: As is suspected this post is not being received very well.
So be it.
I hate to be the naysayer or devil's advocate here, especially if Obama gets the nomination (and I will wholeheartedly support the nominee, regardless who wins), but when everybody starts acting like cattle it's up to the "unique" (read: fucked up) amongst us to point it out and try to shake us all out of herdlike group-think.
That's just my two cents.
UPDATED AGAIN: Here's another point; regardless who you believe or who may have misrepresented whose positions, before he even assumes the Presidency Obama is causing trade snafu's with our northern neighbors. This was even discussed in the Canadian parliament!! There were calls for the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff to lose his job- come on, people!
Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:33:00 +0000 - Republicans Would Kill Americans for Profit
It's an extraordinary headline, but what other conclusion can be drawn considering the GOP's current FISA talking points?
Let me explain...
Republicans say that if the massive data mining operatio- ahem, I mean Protect America Act expires, then Americans could be killed. The President himself started the ball rolling during his recent hissy fits over the expiration of the Protect America Act;The House's failure to pass the bipartisan Senate bill would jeopardize the security of our citizens. As Director McConnell has told me, without this law, our ability to prevent new attacks will be weakened. And it will become harder for us to uncover terrorist plots. We must not allow this to happen. It is time for Congress to ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted. It is time for Congress to pass a law that provides a long-term foundation to protect our country. And they must do so immediately.
Indeed, Glenn Beck said it plainly on his show a couple of nights ago, as Think Progress recently noted. It was actually that piece that prompted this line of thought, to give credit where it is clearly due.
The House declined to take up a bill that would continue the program, while giving telecommunication companies extra-legal protections for their clearly illegal acts (courtesy the President and his finger-puppets in the Senate.) According to the GOP this endangers Americans. Yet when offered an extension sans immunity Bush turned up his nose. The House Minority Leader offers up the reasoning;
So let me get this straight- not passing the bill will kill Americans, yet the President was happy to forgo an extension to ensure big American corporations wouldn't be liable for damages due to warrantless searches.After Friday's meeting, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, defended Republicans' desire to give the telecommunication companies immunity.
"This issue of the carriers that work with our government are increasingly concerned about their liability and increasingly concerned about whether they are going to continue to work with our intelligence officials," Boehner said.
Thus, as stated in the spectacular headline above, Republicans will allow American deaths to save big conglomerates some legal bills.
Regardless your political persuasion, the argument is flawed. Kevin Drum put it perfectly;Look, if it's that important, there's a simple answer: pass the bill without telecom immunity. Then come back and introduce immunity in a separate bill. If you've got the votes for it, fine. If not, too bad.
'Nuff said.
So to those out scaring the bejesus out of folks with the ridiculous "American deaths" pitch, please shut up. Not only will the expiration of this bill start to heal the wounds to our civil liberties suffered under the Bush administration, it won't really even affect ongoing investigations. Just to belabor the point, here's the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, defiantly and meticulously laying out the point in a letter to the President;Because I care so deeply about protecting our country, I take strong offense to your suggestion in recent days that the country will be vulnerable to terrorist attack unless Congress immediately enacts legislation giving you broader powers to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans' communications and provides legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the Administration's warrantless surveillance program.
Can we all get past the fear-driven politics and try to use a little reason in our national discourse? Please?
Today, the National Security Agency (NSA) has authority to conduct surveillance in at least three different ways, all of which provide strong capability to monitor the communications of possible terrorists.
First, NSA can use its authority under Executive Order 12333 to conduct surveillance abroad of any known or suspected terrorist. There is no requirement for a warrant. There is no requirement for probable cause. Most of NSA's collection occurs under this authority.
Second, NSA can use its authority under the Protect America Act, enacted last August, to conduct surveillance here in the U.S of any foreign target. This authority does not "expire" on Saturday, as you have stated. Under the PAA, orders authorizing surveillance may last for one year – until at least August 2008. These orders may cover every terrorist group without limitation. If a new member of the group is identified, or if a new phone number or email address is identified, the NSA may add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately. We will not "go dark."
Third, in the remote possibility that a new terrorist organization emerges that we have never previously identified, the NSA could use existing authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor those communications. Since its establishment nearly 30 years ago, the FISA Court has approved nearly every application for a warrant from the Department of Justice. In an emergency, NSA or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may begin surveillance immediately, and a FISA Court order does not have to be obtained for three days. The former head of FISA operations for the Department of Justice has testified publicly that emergency authorization may be granted in a matter of minutes.
Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:12:00 +0000 - My Rundown of the Presidential Races
I must admit I have been flummoxed on this blog lately. I previously endorsed John Edwards as the best candidate for the Democratic nomination and ultimately the presidency, and because of that I found myself with a form of writer's block. On one hand I wanted to forcefully advocate for Edwards, and on the other I not only wanted to maintain a bit of objectivity on the blog, but also did not feel it was right for me, as a Democrat, to try and sandbag the other candidates.
I decided instead to discuss how I feel about the race and avoid the news chasing and commentary that clogs the mind and, in my view, destroys any possibility of making one's mind up without floods of remembered media slogans and the prevailing meme of the moment of the vapid cable news talk shows.
Indeed, although the mainstream media seems to have learned some lessons from its gullibility with the Bush administration, it still maintains the destructive habit of trying to "profitize" the news. Since profits and ratings are more important on a business level than objectivity, it seems the latter gets tossed out of the boat when the going gets rough. As Ted Turner wrote on the matter in 2004;But without the proper rules, healthy capitalist markets turn into sluggish oligopolies, and that is what's happening in media today. Large corporations are more profit-focused and risk-averse. They often kill local programming because it's expensive, and they push national programming because it's cheap--even if their decisions run counter to local interests and community values. Their managers are more averse to innovation because they're afraid of being fired for an idea that fails. They prefer to sit on the sidelines, waiting to buy the businesses of the risk-takers who succeed.
Instead of solid candidates like Bill Richardson fleshing out their experienced views on the issues in an open forum, the less viscerally exciting candidates (and thus less well-financed) are extricated by this media concentration on form and not substance. If CNN thought it could get away with it, stories about the future of our democracy would be interspersed with fluff pieces on shoes, or some celebrity gossip nonsense best left to networks with lighter fare. Indeed this happens more and more often nowadays- even politically-charged commentators like Keith Olbermann, who styles himself after legendary journalist Edward R. Murrow, frequently dwell on paltry celebrity pieces such as who is divorcing whom, or which rich heiress is getting thrown in jail, or the pornographic profusion of missing or dead pretty, white, and seemingly always blonde American girls (to the exclusion of the massive death tolls in Iraq or Darfur, so it doesn't seem like I don't feel for the families affected.)
An example of this is the overall theme in the media that Hillary's emotional response to a questioner in New Hampshire contributed to her poll-derailing surprise win, despite plenty of evidence the primacy effect of her name being first on the ballot may very well have contributed the few percentages points needed to edge out Obama.
That's not to say I think the win was only that, the Clinton machine should never be underestimated. I do think the media narrative obscures the real story at times, unless some of us go a little deeper for the truth.
Anyhow, here's my opinion on the state of the race for the Democrats. I'll be covering the Republicans in a later post, that is if I find the energy to do so. It gets hard to keep throwing stones when it is so clear the GOP is on the run and not likely to win any seats, much less the big one on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Hillary Clinton
The positives for me about Hillary revolve around two concepts; I'm excited at the prospect of the first credible female candidate for president, and pleased at the idea of Bill being back in the White House doing what he does best. I have to admit, I am completely neutral when it comes to Hillary herself. Without Bubba I doubt I would have any interest in another Clinton presidency. Though she is well spoken and dedicated to the issues, I sense some kind of an emotional void in her that bothers me. That is totally irrational, and shouldn't affect the way I view her as a candidate, but it does. The person with The Football needs a big heart, in my opinion. Bigger than the ambition for the office, that is.
As for negatives, again I have two main issues; one is the enormous amount of money Hillary has taken from lobbyists, especially the defense industry. It makes me wonder; are defense companies being pragmatic and betting with their dollars on the most probable next Chief Executive of the United States, or really gambling that Hillary will be the candidate most likely to reward the industry with more acquisitions, as in more war? If the latter, I am seriously disturbed by the concept, and in my opinion Hillary's campaign loses far more votes for the worry than the money brings in.
The other issue is the energy Hillary-hate will instill in the Republicans. The Democrats have the upper hand on every issue heading into 2008; most Americans don't want to criminalize abortion, most Americans think Iraq was a mistake and a majority want us out within a year, a majority have no problem with civil unions for same-sex couples, and on and on. Every poll shows the GOP on the wrong side of the issues, and with the historical trouncing in 2006, now is the wrong time to hand the opposition any kind of an advantage, be it the candidate they love to hate or anything else. The Republicans need to be disciplined soundly by the American people, if not eradicated as some of us would prefer, for the abuses encouraged by their ideological movement.
As to the state of the race, with the polls showing a statistical dead heat in Nevada between Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama, and Edwards still showing in the low teens as either a late-breaking dark horse or possible kingmaker, the future of this race is truly anyone's guess.
Barack Obama
Seizing the "change" mantle, Barack has energized the race kept all the other candidates, even some Republicans (read: Mitt's new campaign slogan) emphasizing their bona fides when it comes to upsetting the balance of power in Washington. His credentials are impressive mostly because of his mastery of Constitutional law- if anything, the Bush Debacle has shown what happens when we stray to far from that hallowed document. His ability to raise huge amounts of cash from small donors shows his appeal to the average American, and in my opinion is the decisive factor in his continued success.
Think about it- despite his hopeful talk, without the army of supporters and millions in contributions he would likely be written off by the media as a pie-in-the-sky academic lacking the resume for the most powerful job in the world.
Because in the end, my opinion of Obama's candidacy rests on just that- his ability to handle the current morass of big government bureaucracy. I am not a believer, especially when it comes to politics. A candidate needs to prove his or her ability to handle what is essentially the largest company in the world, not just act confident and ask us to trust them. We all know what resulted from that decision in 2000. Obama's answers in the Nevada debate about not being a paper person, and that his executive accomplishments were his campaign and running a tight ship in his Senate office, do not even approach the complexity of the US government, not to mention the immense challenge of reforming such a bloated system.
In the end Obama's hopeful talk sounds great, but this country needs more than just inspiration to solve the issues we face.
John Edwards
That leads us to former Senator Edwards. I won't break down the reasons I support him again. I will say that his campaign seems to be a step away from ruin- if he doesn't act in a big way, and soon, he will be lost in the media sensation of the Obama-Clinton struggle and never claw his way out of the teens. His race hinges on performing in Nevada and South Carolina. Without a first or second place showing in either or both states, no amount of fiery populism will be able to salvage his presidential aspirations.
I'm forced to emphasize, as I'm sure I have many times on this blog, that I would be happy with any of the current Democratic candidates. I'd prefer a few you never see over any Republican... hell, I'd even be happy with some who've already dropped out (or never even ran!) We Democrats and progressives should always remember the election when there were no "bad" candidates.
We may never get the same opportunity again!
Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:57:00 +0000 - Shame On Us
I have been on a hiatus of a kind, but this story about the United States trying to assist Cambodia in the trials of Khmer Rouge murderers perked up my ears;The United States wants an advisory role in Cambodia's Khmer Rouge tribunal and would consider helping fund the cash-strapped court if given the post, a Cambodian official said Thursday.
Hmm, let's see, what could be prompting Cambodia to forgo our helping trying torturers? Could it be we seem to have our own troubles with political interference in our legal system? How about the fact that the United States itself condones torture? Right below this story was one about Canada placing America (as well as Israel) on their torture watch list.The offer was made during talks with the US State Department's Assistant Secretary of State Scot Marciel, said Kao Kim Huorn, a secretary of state with the foreign ministry.
"The US requested that Cambodia create another post -- a special advisor to help the Khmer Rouge tribunal," Kao Kim Huorn said after meeting with top US officials.
"This is a condition if Cambodia wants the US to provide funds for the tribunal. Cambodia is considering the request," he added, saying the advisor's role was under discussion.
The United States is a key Cambodian donor but has not pledged funding for the 56.3 million-dollar tribunal established to try senior Khmer Rouge leaders.
"The US is worried about the independence and standards of the court," Kao Kim Huorn said.
US Embassy spokesman Jeff Daigle could not be reached for comment on the offer. Marciel is in Cambodia through Friday to meet top government officials.
The UN-backed tribunal has come under fire amid allegations of political interference, corruption and fiscal mismanagement.
The fact is America's reputation has been permanently harmed by the Bush administration. Torture, spying on citizens, manipulating the justice system, all these and more have helped convince the world that the United States has lost its moral compass.
The sooner America gets back to its roots, forbidding cruel and unusual punishment and providing accountability to reduce the political interference in our justice system, the sooner we can regain our place as the world's champions of freedom and justice. Until then we should not be surprised if other countries look askance at our fumbling attempts to fill the shoes of our forefathers.
Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:42:00 +0000 - Edwards Takes Early Iowa Lead
Tighten your sphincters, folks, the race is on, and with 118 out of 1781 counties reporting, John Edwards leads with 36.15%, Clinton is in second with 30.85%, and Obama is third with 30.01% (numbers via IowaCaucusResults.com.)
Keep your eyes open, and cross your fingers for your favorite- once again I'd like to point out that though I fervently hope for a clear Edwards win here, I'd be happy with any of the current slate of candidates, even the little guys with fractions of a percent.
Stay tuned for updates...
UPDATE: The lead has tightened as the bargaining begins- with 433 reporting, the top 3 are below;SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS : 33.06%
UPDATED AGAIN: Obama takes slim lead as the race is now officially a dead heat, 607 of 1781 reporting;
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA : 32.20%
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON : 32.14%SENATOR BARACK OBAMA : 32.98%
UPDATED AT 2010:It just occurred to me that Blogger doesn't provide times, so I'll start that now for my readers relying on my simple blog for updates. As of now it's showing a little over half the precincts reporting (933) and Obama is pulling ahead;
SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS : 32.29%
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON : 31.88%SENATOR BARACK OBAMA : 34.06%
UPDATED AT 2027: With 1316 reporting, Obama is cementing his lead;
SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS : 31.71%
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON : 31.45%SENATOR BARACK OBAMA : 35.25%
UPDATED AT 2029: CNN is officially calling it for Obama...
SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS : 31.02%
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON : 30.78%
FINAL UPDATE: The Chairman just called it, as far as I'm concerned- Howard Dean just congratulated Barack Obama for winning the Iowa Democratic Caucus.
My congratulations, but for this blogger, the question now is what will John Edwards do to keep the momentum his likely second place showing has produced. Will he mimic 2004 and swing in second in New Hampshire too, leading to a possible Obama/Edwards ticket? Would John really take the second chair if such an offer were to occur?
The real answer here is this race is far from over. One candidate may peel away in New Hampshire, and to be realistic it's likely to be Edwards, but Obama and Clinton will apparently get to continue their slugfest across the country. Who will win this, after tonight, is truly anyone's guess. Edwards is limited by his fundraising, but it remains to be seen if Number Two will be able to swing a bump in cash to propel my favorite candidate to a better showing in the Granite State.
Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:32:00 +0000 - John Edwards for President
I'm sure most of my regular readers have known I have had a bias for John Edwards in the Democratic presidential primaries for quite a while. While privately I decided who I will vote for, I have yet to formally endorse a candidate, primarily because I like to keep a modicum of objectivity on my blog. So much for that- the time has come to make my case and explain exactly why I think Edwards is the best choice for America.I'd like to take a minute and try to convince those progressives out there who are still wobbly and looking for the right candidate to attempt to clean up the mess George Bush will be leaving behind. Of all the Democratic candidates, John Edwards is the best choice to reform our broken system and bring ordinary folks back into the political process.To illustrate my point we'll take a look at the government reform pages on the websites of the top three candidates. In my opinion, the biggest problem since Bush took office (and the biggest change needed to right our wayward system) is the oppressive influence of corporations and the wealthy top 1% of America on our political process. Until the scales can be balanced, with better lobbyist controls, campaign reform, and other measures, the system will always tilt in favor of the very rich, and leave regular Americans out in the cold. Let's start with the supposed national front-runner, Hillary Clinton. I'll list her points on reform, then Obama's, thenn try to contrast them with John Edwards's substantive and complex plans.Hillary's Government Reform PlanOn Hillary's site is a bulleted list detailing her plan to curtail a system bloated with money-driven politics;- Banning Cabinet officials from lobbying a Hillary Clinton administration.
- Strengthening whistleblower protections.
- Creating a public service academy.
- Ending abuse of no-bid government contracts and posting all contracts online.
- Cutting 500,000 government contractors.
- Restoring the Office of Technology Assessment.
- Publishing budgets for every government agency.
- Implementing Results America Initiative to track government effectiveness.
- Tracking and eliminating corporate welfare.
- Expanding voting access and safeguarding voting machines.
Looks good so far, I guess. It seems like a good plan to eliminate excess in any organization. These points don't convince me this plan will be able to overcome the enormous built-in governmental advantages gained by big business during the Bush years, however. Let's see if Boama can one-up her.
Obama's Government Reform ("Ethics") Plan
Obama's page is called Ethics, and to be fair is far more detailed than Hillary's- I've included just the bulleted points to save space, but there's far more on his page, so go check it out. Anyhow;
This list goes a lot farther on issues such as open White House records, but still seems to primarily skirt the big issues. There's a lot of good ideas, but in my opinion nothing really stands out except the "fireside chats," which are a great idea but lack the punch needed to extricate corporate influence from government. On to John Edwards's plan...- Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters
- Require Independent Monitoring of Lobbying Laws and Ethics Rules
- Support Campaign Finance Reform
- Create a Public “Contracts and Influence” Database
- End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts
- Sunlight Before Signing
- Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending
- Hold 21st Century Fireside Chats
- Make White House Communications Public
- Conduct Regulatory Agency Business in Public
- Release Presidential Records
- Close the Revolving Door on Former and Future Employers
- Free Career Officials from the Influence of Politics
- Reform the Political Appointee Process
John Edwards's Government Reform Plan
I won't preface it, let's see the list- edited as above to just the main points;
There's a great deal more to it- John's plan is quite complex, so go see the page for details on the more vague points above. But right off the bat I see a strong populist influence. Lots of good progressive measures such as full public financing for all candidates, not mentioned on the other candidates sites, and reforming election laws, amongst quite a few singular ideas (at least amongst the top tier candidates.)- Create a Citizen Congress
- Reform Election Laws
- Promote Open and Democratic Media
- Reform Presidential Campaign Finance Laws to Empower Small Donors
- Provide Full Public Financing in Congressional Campaigns
- Make Corporations Accountable
- Take on the Lobbyists' Power with a Constitutional Line-Item Veto
- Prohibit Lobbyists from Giving or Raising Campaign Cash
- Close the Lobbyist Revolving Door
- Expose Lobbyist Contacts to Sunlight
- Prohibit Executive Branch Employees from Accepting Corporate Gifts
My point here is that one person in this race is truly ready with an effective plan to possibly end, or at the least limit, corporate influence on government for the first time in decades by attacking the source of the problem- money. It starts in the fundraising process every elected official must endure, and continues through their careers, with George Bush as the clear evidence of why such reforms are vital to our democracy.
John Edwards has proven his ability to lead for those less fortunate amongst us throughout his life. He showed his political skills by winning the caucuses before, and displayed his electability, despite the loss, by being a major part in one of the biggest election turnouts in American history in 2004. With his detailed plans for meaningful government reform alone it's clear he aims to truly change the system in a fundamental way that his opponents' plans don't come close to matching.
For this reason I wholeheartedly endorse John Edwards for President of the United States of America, for what it's worth. I wish all the candidates the best of luck tomorrow- I know no matter who wins I will be proud to have been a progressive Democrat, and pleased as punch to see the last of George W. Bush.
Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:24:00 +0000 - Down, But Not Out!
Hello faithful readers! My apologies for being down so long. The numerous family dinners, icy driving, competing family functions- you've just got to love the holidays!I have been out for a "winter break" but now I'm back, rip-roaring and ready to go. It's one more day until the Iowa caucuses, and as soon as the Democrats have chosen a leader the real race will begin in earnest. Soon the epic battle of our lifetime, the true struggle between a progressive, people-oriented democracy and the corporate oligarchy we have endured these last 7 years will be upon us.Make no mistake- the 2008 elections will decide the future of our country for decades to come. The next president will likely resolve the Iraq War, be heavily involved in any possible Israeli-Palestinian solution that may come along, and very possibly install at least 2 or more Supreme Court justices, to name just a few of the momentous decisions coming up. With anti-Bush sentiment still red-hot, and GOP recruiting and fundraising at an all-time low, the democrats have an opportunity to change the country in a fundamental way not seen since FDR.Gird up your loins and get ready, folks. The battle is about to begin!
Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:07:00 +0000 - Ron Paul Won't Return White Supremacist's Money
The fringe groups supporting longshot GOP candidate Ron Paul don't seem to be helping his campaign much- first it was folks trying to make their own Ron Paul money, and now the campaign won't return a donation admitted white supremacist Don Black. From USA Today;Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist, and the Texas congressman doesn't plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday.
Here's the campaign's weak excuse for taking money from someone espousing racial hatred;
Don Black, of West Palm Beach, recently made the donation, according to campaign filings. He runs a website called Stormfront with the motto, "White Pride World Wide." The site welcomes postings to the "Stormfront White Nationalist Community.""Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom.
If average Americans needed any more reasons to be against Dr. Paul and what he stands for, this latest gaffe should do it. This also serves as a good illustration of the classic GOP political paranoid style in action, and exactly why candidates who tacitly endorse bigots should be actively and zealously opposed.
"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.
Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:42:00 +0000 - Iraq Casualty Update
With Iraq essentially dropping off the radar due to drastically lower coalition casualty rates, I thought it would be a good time to reiterate the continuing true human cost of what America has unleashed with Bush's illegal, immoral, supposedly-preemptive war.
Iraqis are still dying in droves as the ethnic cleansing continues, albeit at a reduced rate, across the country. Here's a list compiled by iCasualties showing just the atrocities reported over just the last seven days;
The surge was supposed to allow Iraqi tribal factions breathing room to find a political solution. Instead, the Iraqi parliament decided the peace purchased by thousands of gallons of American and Iraqi blood was a perfect time to take a break from legislating and take a pilgrimage to Mecca.
If Bush were intent on establishing a lasting Iraqi peace rather than increasing the already nearly inconceivable profits of corporate stockholders, he could act decisively, using the power of the Presidency to force the disparate interests of Iraq back to the bargaining table. Instead the president is busily vetoing every Democratic proposal in a misguided attempt to improve Republicans margins in the Congress in 2008.
The war must be wound down, the troops must be brought home. In order for this to happen the US must pressure Iraqi factions to compromise. Until this is done our troops will continue to die, and the stability afforded by a strong central Iraqi government will continue to be a pipe dream.
Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:14:00 +0000 - Good quote
Here's a little quote for my new little buddy out there. He can't help but read my blog, even though he calls me an asshole (anyone who has read me at all knows I typically admit to this freely.)"Your true self can be known only by systematic experimentation, and controlled only by being known."
-Francis Bacon
Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:55:00 +0000 - A Note to My Loyal Readers
I thought I'd take a second to use my blog to bitch about my job. Hey! It's my blog!
Well, actually, non-job. Now that my corporate overlords are no longer part of the picture, I can freely say the hated company I slaved for was Sprint. Some of you old-timers may remember me complaining in the past about these assholes. Well, the other shoe finally dropped and yours truly is now officially on the dole.
Sprint in Kansas City has a horrible reputation. This isn't the first time they have reorganized and laid people off. In fact, they have quite a history of such shady, heartless moves. As such, folks who work there are called the Borg, ala Star Trek, due to the listless, head-down demeanor of the average Sprint employee. Not to mention the corporate philosophy seems to mirror the Borg credo;We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
Since I never intend to work there again, even under pain of death, let me take this time to say a fond "Go fuck yourself!" to Sprint, the corporation that has made my life difficult for the last couple of years. Also, I'd like to give a shout out to some of my poor coworkers still stuck behind the iron curtain- keep your heads up! Don't let them suck out your soul! Better yet, get out now before they pull the carpet out from underneath you!
And a special shout to Dave, the only person from my old job who was also a reader/fan. Hey Dave, they should have kept you on as manager! Good luck in the future, my friend. Know you can always get a hold of me via the blog. Write me sometime, if you get the odd compulsion!
So if you're looking for a good online marketing/blogger/writer/publicist, give me a shout! If you work in a Democratic campaign and need a rabid A-hole to sick on the opposition, definitely drop me a line. I am sick to death of the heinous crap Bush has been pulling on my nation, and one way or the other, paid or unpaid, I'll be grinding it out until a Democratic majority can be assured.
UPDATE: Did I say assholes before? Boy did I mean it! Give it a rest, folks, nobody here cares what you think.
Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:30:00 +0000 - Why I'm Not Voting for Hillary
I do my best on my blog to maintain a modicum of objectivity- anyone who reads for a few minutes quickly discovers my progressive bias, but otherwise I try to be as fair as I can.
I have avoided naming a horse in this race for that reason, amongst others. The ridiculous media obsession with polling and image in the Democratic primaries drives me nuts. I mean, who really cares about Senatorial cleavage and haircut prices after all? This election is so critical we cannot afford to lose it, so I'm still trying to evaluate the best candidate for the general election, regardless of their religion, grooming fees, or any other trivial detail.
To be honest, I favor John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich, but as of yet I have not decided on who I'll vote for in the primaries. Mainly because my state (I live in Kansas City, but vote Missouri) has little or no effect on the overall contest. The nomination will be decided in Iowa and New Hampshire this year, so by Super Tuesday it will already be wrapped up.
That being said, this story has decided me against Hillary Clinton permanently;A top adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said that Democrats should give more thought to Sen. Barack Obama's admissions of illegal drug use before they pick a presidential candidate.
Not only does such a move smack of desperation, it also shows a continued pattern of Hillary not being able to control her staffers (or possibly deliberately setting them loose!) It's a cheap shot, and don't let the apologies fool you. It's likely some demographic somewhere needed a nudge, and Bill Shaheen was chosen to take the bullet and drop this garbage on the press. The apology only covers up the hit to absolve Senator Clinton of direct blame, while the effect of the move will still tweak her numbers. It's similar to the race-baiting tactics of the Right in that way, though admittedly not as harsh and immoral.
Obama's campaign said the Clinton people were getting desperate. Clinton's campaign tried to distance itself from the remarks Wednesday, and the adviser said later he regretted making them.
Bill Shaheen, a national co-chairman of Clinton's front-runner campaign, raised the issue during an interview with The Washington Post, posted on washingtonpost.com.
Shaheen, an attorney and veteran organizer, said much of Obama's background is unknown and could be a problem in November 2008 if he is the Democratic nominee. He said Republicans would work hard to discover new aspects of Obama's admittedly spotty youth.
"It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" said Shaheen, whose wife, Jeanne, is the state's former governor and is running for the U.S. Senate next year.
"There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome," Shaheen said.
Clinton's campaign said it had nothing to do with his comments, and Shaheen said later he regretted them.
"I deeply regret the comments I made today and they were not authorized by the campaign in any way," Bill Shaheen said in an e-mail released by the campaign.
My point is America doesn't need another political machine at the wheel. The Clinton campaign's gaffes have shown that, at least in some small way here before the primaries, Hillary's organization can trump her leadership at times. Not to mention the political calculus of it; Bush set the precedent for handling past sins by avoiding all questions and casting aspersions on the questioners, so it's not like Obama doesn't have a hundred ways to offset this skeleton if he wins the nomination.
Leadership, morality, and great ideas should drive this contest, not political machinations and skullduggery. If the leader doesn't or won't eclipse the organization, we end up with a similar situation to the Bush debacle; disparate interests held together by political pressure from the machine and individual ambitions, rather than a true movement led from the front by someone with deep, progressive convictions.
Hillary's move here either showed her inability to reign in particularly vicious staffers, or worse, an underhanded play for a few more percentage points somewhere. Either way the politics trumped the morality, and I, for one, do not think we need more of that at 1600 Pennsylvania.
UPDATE: It seems the mainstream media is finally picking up on the above angle on the story (emphasis mine);However, Ned Helms, an Obama co-chairman in New Hampshire, said he saw a pattern after the recent resignations of two Clinton volunteer coordinators in Iowa who had forwarded e-mails raising questions about Obama's religion.
"When you see a pattern of people making statements and the follow-up statement, 'Oh, that wasn't authorized,' it doesn't take a genius to see that there's a thread going on here," Helms said.
And the Obama campaign sent a fundraising e-mail to supporters asking for donations to help fight such tactics.
"The only way to stop these kinds of tired, desperate attacks is to demonstrate very clearly that they have a real cost to Senator Clinton's campaign," campaign manager David Plouffe wrote. "Make no mistake — this kind of attack is becoming a pattern as Clinton's support declines."
UPDATED AGAIN: Peggy Noonan, a not-quite-neocon right-wing talking head from the Wall Street Journal, put it pretty well- just filter out the GOP hatred to get the jist;This thought occurs that Hillary Clinton's entire campaign is, and always was, a Potemkin village, a giant head fake, a haughty facade hollow at the core. That she is disorganized on the ground in Iowa, taken aback by a challenge to her invincibility, that she doesn't actually have an A team, that her advisers have always been chosen more for proven loyalty than talent, that her supporters don't feel deep affection for her. That she's scrambling chaotically to catch up, with surrogates saying scuzzy things about Barack Obama and drug use, and her following up with apologies that will, as always, keep the story alive. That her guru-pollster, the almost universally disliked Mark Penn, has, according to Newsday, become the focus of charges that he has "mistakenly run Clinton as a de facto incumbent" and that the top officials on the campaign have never had a real understanding of Iowa.
Mike Huckabee is using the same tactic on Mitt Romney; asking if Jesus and Satan are brothers in the Mormon faith, and then apologizing profusely for it for days afterward to keep it at the top of the news cycle. He and Hillary both have enough of a lead that losing a few points because of negative campaigning, all the while reinforcing the chink in their opponents' armor, seems to be a good strategy.
This is true of Mrs. Clinton and her Iowa campaign: They thought it was a queenly procession, not a brawl. Now they're reduced to spinning the idea that expectations are on Mr. Obama, that he'd better win big or it's a loss. They've been reduced too to worrying about the weather. If there's a blizzard on caucus day, her supporters, who skew old, may not turn out. The defining picture of the caucuses may be a 78-year-old woman being dragged from her home by young volunteers in a tinted-window SUV.
This is, still, an amazing thing to see. It is a delight of democracy that now and then assumptions are confounded, that all the conventional wisdom of the past year is compressed and about to blow. It takes a Potemkin village.
That is, unless these moves are widely seen as the dirty political tricks they truly are.
Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:45:00 +0000 - McCain Archaeology
I just thought of a great way to remember which John McCain one is referring to in any given conversation;Pre-eyebrow (or Proto-brow)
This was the reasonable, "Maverick" McCain of the 2000 election.Or Post-eyebrow (aka "Old Man McGee"-brow)
This is the hard-right McCain as he chases the blessing of the establishment
This is the quickest way to refer to the correct version of John McCain. The difference is easy to pick out, even at a distance.
Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:16:00 +0000 - Russia Withdraws from Cold War NATO Treaty
Vladimir Putin's cowboy foreign policy has recently had Russia flying Cold War-era bomber sorties and making bold moves in the Arctic. Now Russia's low-level saber rattling is starting to get less subtle- they pulled out of the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty Wednesday;Russia has formally suspended its participation in a key arms control agreement dating from the Cold War.
I count this as a major foreign policy blunder for President Bush. By forcing the missile defense and Iran WMD issues they have empowered Russia to act aggressively as a counter to the near-hegemony the United States has enjoyed since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty sets limits on troops and weaponry across Europe.
The suspension means Russia can move troops without notifying Nato. The bloc voiced "deep regret" over the move.
Russia is unhappy with Nato expansion and US plans for missile defences in central Europe and says the treaty no longer serves its interests.
The CFE treaty was signed by Western and former Warsaw Pact states in 1990, but was revised in 1999 to take account of former Soviet satellites joining Nato.
However the alliance - unlike Russia - has refused to approve the updates until Moscow pulls its remaining troops out of Georgia and Moldova.
[...]
Russia suspended its participation in the CFE at midnight on Wednesday (2100 GMT Tuesday).
The foreign ministry in Moscow said Russia had stopped exchanging information stipulated by the treaty and had stopped receiving foreign inspectors.
"At the same time we do not have plans in the current circumstances for a massive build-up or concentration of forces of the borders with neighbours," it said in a statement.
UPDATE: Congress may stymie Bush's missile defense plans after all, possibly leading to a lot less stress between the US and Russia;The bill, which passed the House 370-49, is expected soon to be approved by the Senate and go to President George W. Bush for his signature.
Legislators removed or softened some provisions of the bill that Bush had objected to, including a nonmilitary measure to expand protections against hate crimes in the United States.
The legislation stipulates that Poland and the Czech Republic must give "final approval" to any deal negotiated with the United States to build missile defenses there, before the project can go ahead.
It also bars funds from being spent on the missile shield until the secretary of defense certifies to Congress that the system would actually work. And, it requires an independent study of the plan, and alternatives to it.
Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:28:00 +0000
