Blogs

Being tired of the rhetoric that is spewed from those who think U.S.A Today is a good source for information about what really matters has spurred me to try to tell the truth as I see it. I regret the year 1982 for little, except for the birth of that publication and its "factoids". They seem to me to have fed the soundbite, cliche, easy answer world we live in now.

www.gitell.com - today he wrote about BHO and his Ahminijad previous statements, and recent "clarifications". I commented on his (Seth’s) musings with a pithy remark concerning open toed sandals a.k.a. "flip-flops".

So that is the backstory - obviously nothing about Bush/McCain there... here is where me blog really starts... a subsequent comment refers to Bush/McCain and goes on to admit "that Obama obviously has his faults but c,mon do we really want more of our kids dying (sic)".

That statement was obviously written by someone who if they were allowed to vote in 2000 paid little attention to how the primaries played out especially in South Carolina. In 2000, I lived in San Francisco CA and wanted to vote for Senator McCain but never had the chance. For those of us who do remember the vile smears that ended McCains run in SC; the thought that he does anymore than USE the W for what he is worth, and judiciously at that is absurd. The concept that we will see "Four more years of the same failed policy" because John McCain is a carbon copy of GWB is only believable to those with either a short enough attention span or no need to believe anything other than what you want to. I have said it before and will repeat it now, if Senator McCain was our president we would not have invade Iraq under the pretext that we did and therefore would not have more that 4,000 dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead Iraqi’s plus the others who went to 'rid Iraq of the infidels' (who very probably the world is better off without).

A man who has lived through a real war as opposed to one whom has avoided it though sporadic National Guard - Reserve attendance/avoidance can have no taste for it. He would (in this former Marines opinion) only commit to the loss of life and limb of persons other than him/herself; when there was much, much more than a desire to make daddy's errors right. That is not to say I believe war is unnecessary in our enlightened age; but placating a tyrant does not work either. Just ask Neville Chamberlain.

It also needs to be said that GWB has done amazing things, and SAVED millions of lives through his establishment of PEPFAR (the Presidents Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief; As well as PMI (the Presidents Malaria initiative). And the establishment of the MCC (the Millenium Challenge Corporation) and its MCA (the Millenium Challenge Account. Like others I have only WIDELY read of the war in Iraq and the lives lost there, but am proud of the MILLIONS of lives saved because of our sitting presidents (and the congess' that have authorized the funding) actions.

It is much too easy to find the worst parts of a person and then ascribe all their actions to fall under the same umbrella. It is also to easy for me to remember the silly things I said when I was younger. I still say silly things but have also come to appreciate the fact that I have learned from my errors, and hope I am making fewer serious one as time has gone by.

In some ways I am sure McCain will follow GWB’s lead, but to say that they are one and the same is ignorant and only shows how little the person making that claim cares for facts. I know if elected that Senator McCain will continue and expand the life saving plans that GWB has started.

I will rant about the "no blood for oil B.S." soon. (Would you prefer that China had unfettered access to the oil in the Mideast?) (I mean they have done such great things in Somalia and elsewhere with their oil contracts and development plans…) To that same 'poster' et al: I am sure your town would function fine without any electricity and your life would not change a bit if we did not protect the source of our power (energy) as if it was our own. LOL.

Promoted. Who the heck are you people anyway? -Patrick

First off a confession - I'm an Independent and a McCain supporter, I work online but have not been politically active until this election. That being said I'm fascinated by the role of the internet in politics in its current use and its potential for the future, and have many more questions than answers. The basic question being what makes the difference between the left and the right online? 

I don’t work in politics, I work in Information Technology. As in all project-related pursuits, planning a victorious, successful implementation of an information system is a lot like going to war. Many campaigns are waged in this process, but the bloodshed is usually virtual.  Adaptations and workarounds must be made to accommodate the “facts on the ground”.  There are many ways to do it right, and many ways not to do it. We call the collected consciousness about these ways to do and not do it “lessons learned”. 

Nothing to say today...just posting a first post.

I'm a Conservative from way back.

Democrats have rallied behind state senator and former physician Parker Griffith. He is generally well thought of in Huntsville (the district’s largest city) and has previously run for mayor there before being elected to the state senate. He will be well funded and he’s not spending much because he’s not being strongly opposed in the primary. I could not find the TV a he's running online but I’ll post it when it goes up. Anyway, I’ve seen it and it’s pretty good.

The Republican side is not as clean-cut. There are at least six candidates but probably only two that have a legitimate chances to win. The consensus frontrunner is insurance executive Wayne Parker. He nearly defeated retiring Congressman Bud Cramer in 1994 and had a pretty good campaign structure quickly  fall into place that was in part left over from that effort. Huntsville attorney Cheryl Baswell Guthrie is the other candidate with a reasonable chance to win. She has previously run for the state senate but was defeated by Griffith in 2006. 

[Parker ad]

[Guthrie ad]

Some have said that AL CD-5 is the best GOP pickup opportunity in the country this year and it’s not difficult to make that case. There's a lot of GOP votes and money in the district and it went for Bush twice. The district has been held by the same Democrat (Cramer) since before the Republican Revolution and this will be the first legitimate shot at winning it since Wayne Parker’s  ’94 effort. It will mainly depend on whether the GOP winner can unify everyone and raise the money, but Griffith's message of "party doesn't matter, solutions matter" will be hard to beat either way (my paraphrase). 

WHNT out of Huntsville hosted a debate among all the candidates that’s posted online for anyone that's interested. 

Like many self-proclaimed conservatives I know, the grating, wily “Queen of Tusla” is actually warming the icy layers of my libertarian heart.  There are lots of things to admire in her tenacity, but the Terminator is tenacious too. 

The reason I find myself in stunned admiration is that she is actually striking the professional, principled position in terms of navigating the DNC process governing the Navigation.

I reach this conclusion through my intercept of a dialogue between a representatives of Hillary’s campaign (a “Hillarite”) and a concerned Super Delegate (“Super D”).

Super D:       Cut the BS, why is Hillary still in this race?

Hillarite:      No one has won enough Delegate votes to win the nomination and she’s kicking Obama’s backside by unprecedented margins.  Who quits a race when they are winning states by 35% and 41%?  More importantly, Hillary is FAR more electable in November.

Super D:       But cut the BS.  You know Hillary CAN’T win

Hillarite:      Why not?

Super D:       She’s 200 Delegates down and there aren’t enough Pledged Delegates left to win.  Obama only needs a handful more.

Hillarite:      Not true.  Obama only needs a handful more until Michigan and Florida are seated, because the current counts of what constitutes the “majority” of Delegates doesn’t include these two states.   That issue is getting addressed this weekend, so we’ll all know what is happening soon enough.  But everyone expects MI and FL to have some of their Delegates seated at the Dem National Convention.  When that happens Obama will actually need more Delegates than what he’s likely to win in the 3 remaining contests.  Thus, when all the popular voting is completed, neither of us will have won enough Delegates.

On Michigan and Florida:

Super D:       Cut the BS.  All this pushing on MI and FL is a bit unseemly.  You agreed that those states shouldn’t be counted.  You agreed not to campaign in them.

Hillarite:      Yes, we did agree.  Yes, we did obey the rules and did not campaign in either state.  But, we also stated publically that neither state should be cut out of our process.  They both held legal votes.  In fact, all names were on the ballot in FL and the FL Secretary of State has officially confirmed the popular vote there.  Are you saying a fair, legal election shouldn’t be counted?

Super D:       Well, ok.  Maybe FL.  But Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in MI.  He obeyed the rules.  Hillary did not.

Hillarite:      Wrong.  No DNC rule required candidates to remove their names from the ballot.  Obama jumped the gun and limited his options by removing his name.  Hillary showed more political judgment by leaving her options open.  No one has filed an accusation that she broke ANY rules.  In fact, watching how the two campaigns handled this issue provides another excellent insight as to why Obama won’t make a good national leader.

On Obama as Frontrunner:

Super D:       OK, I’ll grant you MI and FL, but we Super D’s HAVE to vote for him.

Hillarite:      Why?

Super D:       Cut the BS.  Obama has won more states.

Hillarite:      Number of states won is not a criterion for success under ANY measurement system.  North Dakota is just not that important. 

Super D:       Cut the BS.  Obama has won more popular votes.  The voice of the voters must be heard.

Hillarite:      No he hasn’t.  Hillary has won the popular vote if MI and FL are added.  As we already discussed, there is really no argument that FL shouldn’t be added and it isn’t Hillary’s fault that Obama mistakenly removed his name from the MI ballot.  Besides, forecasts of the remaining contests show that Hillary will further increase her popular vote lead.  It is very, very likely that Obama will NOT have won the majority of the popular vote when everything’s done.

Super D:       Ok, but cut the BS.  Delegates are what matter and Obama is WAY ahead in Delegates.

Hillarite:      Yes, Obama is ahead in Pledged Delegate count, but we don’t know that he will be ahead once Super Delegates cast their votes in August.

On the Popular Will:

Super D:       Cut the BS.  Super D’s are mostly elected officials.  They have to vote according to the will of their constituents.

Hillarite:      Wrong on 2 counts.  First, if this were true, why are Senators Kennedy and Kerry supporting Obama?  Hillary soundly won Massachusetts.  If what you are saying is true they MUST support me.  Second, if what you state was true, why would we even have a Super Delegate system?  The ENTIRE purpose of having Super Delegates is to allow consideration beyond the foundational proportional distribution of Pledged Delegates.

Super D:       Ok.  I’ll grant you this in concept.  But come on.  Cut the BS.  Super Delegates must follow the popular will.

Hillarite:      What popular will?  Hillary has won, is winning and will win the popular vote!  The only “popular will” Obama is winning is the will of the Media.  Are you suggesting the Media should select our candidate?  Not the voters?  And not other considerations?

Super D:       There you go again, mentioning “other considerations”.  What “other considerations” would justify overturning a major lead in Delegates?

Hillarite:      What “major lead”.  If you remove the Super Delegates, wait for the MI and FL decision and forecast the final 3 primaries – then Obama is still ahead in Pledged Delegates, but not by more than 2 or 3%.  At that point, Hillary may be ahead by 2 or 3% in the popular vote.

Super D:       Cut the BS.  You know Super D’s have already stated their support for Obama.  So you can’t just separate them when you look at Obama’s Delegate total.

Hillarite:      There are several more months until the Convention.  No Super Delegate votes until then.  Until the Convention, they are free to change their mind.  After all, there are several Super D’s who changed their stated support from me to Obama.  Why isn’t it ok for Super D’s to switch their votes from Obama to me?

On “Other Considerations”:

Super D:       Ok, but you haven’t answered, what “other considerations” would justify such a switch.

Hillarite:      I’ll tell you, but first, please remember, there isn’t some MAJOR justification needed for a Super D to support someone who is winning the popular vote.  Now, that being said, this cycle is compressed to an unprecedented degree.  We’ve never seen this before and will be studying it when all is done to learn from mistakes made.  Voters may already be doing this.  Consider, since March 4^th, Hillary has massively won the popular vote and in Pledged Delegates.  So, the longer voters have to think, study and assess their options, the more they vote for Hillary.  We even saw this in early primary states.  Late deciders nearly always broke for Hillary by a huge percentage.

Super D:       Is that all?  Hillary’s done a better job of campaigning, finally, so she’s performing better.  That’s your argument?  Vote for Hillary because she finally fixed her campaign?

Hillarite:      No, there’s much more.  Hillary is winning all the states Democrats must win in November.  She is polling ahead of McCain while Obama polls behind or even with him.  And she has the larger, more stable coalition of supporters.  Obama’s is very narrow in terms of the general election.  If it wasn’t for Hillary’s admitted mistake not to contest the primaries in a few small states (most of which McCain is guaranteed to win anyway), she would be even or ahead in Pledged Delegates as well.

Super D:       Interesting.  But cut the BS.  Super D’s can’t go against the will of the people. . .

Hillarite:      Have you listened to anything here?  The ENTIRE purpose of Super D’s is to make decisions on the larger parameters of what will help the Dem Party win in the General Election.  The ENTIRE purpose.  Hillary is the best candidate on all of these parameters.  Obama’s Delegate lead only seems large because of Super D’s which could change their votes.  Hillary is ahead in popular votes by about the same margin as Obama is ahead in Pledged Delegates – Delegates from states which won’t decide the election.

Super D:       Interesting argument, but cut the BS.  Obama is black. This is historic.  We Super D’s can’t deny such a historic moment.

Hillarite:      So, the first female President isn’t historic?  Being “Black” is more important than being “Female”?

Super D:       Well, the media would crush us if we Super D’s reversed the popular will and voted for Hillary.

Hillarite:      WHAT POPULAR WILL??????  Hillary will win the popular vote.  Arghhh!  Cut the BS. As an elected official, you are going to “lead” according to the media’s vote.  Doesn't that make the media unelected  "Supder Delegates" of the Dem Party?

Thus, the feckless Dem’s will nominate Obama because the media won’t “let” them do otherwise. Mainstream Corporate Media - the real Supder Delegates. . . Welcome to the Democrat's version of  democracy.

On Principle,

CBass

As also found here.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Puerto Rico's teachers union seems to have been aced out of their position as the union organizing the teachers of that Island nation by a hostile takeover. It seems that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) cozied up to the embattled Puerto Rican Governor and was able to convince him to simply hand over all the teachers on the Island to the SEIU -- quite regardless of the fact that they already belonged to the existing teachers union, the Federacion de Maestros de Puerto Rico (FMPR).

This reminds me of 1920's Chicago as various Mob bosses battled for control of the Windy City. Seriously, who isn't shocked by the fact that one union (the SEIU) can just roll in the back door of government and steal the members of another union (the FMPR) by arm-twisting a pliant politician? The only thing we lack here is the tommy guns in the streets!

For their part the FMPR is trying to fight this hostile take over of their union by organizing a coalition to oppose this presumptuous attack by the SEIU on their position as the union of Puerto Rico's teachers.

The FMPR has been trying to work out a new contract for three years with the government of Puerto Rico and it appears that the government is using the SEIU to break the FMPR. And, here we have the SEIU stepping in to assist the government to break the union.

According to the New York Daily News, the Governor told Rivera (Dennis Rivera of the SEIU) that the teachers' union is "yours to take." Previously El Diaro-La Prensa reported that Rivera had discussed the teachers union with Acevedo in addition to possible SEIU monetary support for the Governor, who has recently been indicted on corruption charges.

The Puerto Rican government declared the teachers' strike illegal, based on the vote alone -- the actual strike was not called until late February 2008 -- and moved to decertify FMPR. Almost simultaneously, SEIU announced that the Island's union of school principals and supervisors was affiliating with SEIU -- and would attempt to take over the teachers' union.

This shows the rather unethical lengths that the SEIU will go to gather power unto itself. The SEIU is willing to trample on fellow unionists, make sweetheart deals with governments in closed door, back rooms, and steal members from other unions.

With this hostile take over of the Pureto Rican teachers union, it seems as if Andy Stern, president of the SEIU, has seen "The Untouchables" far too many times.

When Republicans began their campaign for the presidency in early 2007, I remember thinking that George W. Bush had thrown the party under the bus by choosing a running mate he knew would not run to succeed him in 2008, robbing us of a strong candidate and giving us the first election since 1928 where neither party had an incumbent president nor vice president seeking his or her party's nomination.

In retrospect, however, I realize that George W. Bush did the Republican party a favor by not saddling us with a candidate inextricably linked to a president with a 28% approval rating.  Even with Bush's low approval, there would have been enormous pressure to nominate an incumbent VP, and the party base, still largely loyal to GWB and the most reliable voters in the primaries, would likely have nominated a candidate much more vulnerable to the charge of being "Bush's Third Term."

Given all the talk about how Bush has weakened Republicans going into the 2008 election, I thought it worth pointing out that if we manage to win the presidency for another four years, it will be thanks in part to a decision made by none other than Bush himself.  The irony never ends.

I'm really interested in knowing the opinions of other conservatives.  Should we effectively kick out the isolationists and the neoconfederates?

I'm of the opinion that as the Democrats swing farther left, we have three options: absorbing the excluded middle (and risking diluting the overall character of the party), seeing a third party filled with Blue Dog Democrats, or else merely winning elections by being the lesser of two evils (hardly an enviable position).

Discuss.

-bishop

Check out my blog: Army of Principles