“EVERY SILVER LINING HAS A CLOUD”

Or, Don’t Forget How Close We Came To Losing

In all the euphoria of electing the first demonstrably non-Caucasian as President, we would do well to remember that:

• Despite suffering through the most disastrous, despicable, duplicitous President in the history of this country, nearly one out of every two voters tried to return Bush’s party to the White House. One out of TWO! In other words, no matter how destructive, dangerous and divisive Republican rule has been, almost half this country still fervently believes that only Republicans should ever rule. If the stream of internet anguish, anger and polemic was not enough to convince how apparently deep their hate, fear, and intolerance goes and how willing they might be to do anything to achieve their goal, what about the voices shouting out from the McCain and Palin campaign rallies?

• Despite massive money and manpower expended on never before seen levels, only slightly more than every other person marked the ballot for Obama. A win yes and not as thin as 2000, but certainly not a sweeping mandate on a person to person level.

• Despite the present President’s illegal and relentless attacks on the Constitution and its separation of powers, not to mention assaults on every human right enumerated among the Amendments (except unrestricted access to assault weaponry of course) and despite fanatical assaults against open government, public education, public lands, public airwaves, clean air, clean water, clean food, safe products, traffic safety, worker safety, job security, health security, financial security, even genuine national security security, not to mention undermining energy independence, science advancement, troop support and, you name it, he still has about one out of every four or so adults not just voting for a new Republican in office, but thinking Bush is doing a fine job.

• Despite abundant proof to the contrary and universal repetition by all the legitimate news sources, to this day apparently, almost one in four Texans for instance assumes that a Muslim has just been elected President which suggests an intractability that maybe impenetrable until those folks die of old age (or the lack of health care with which their party has saddled them).

• Despite the relatively conciliatory concession speech by McCain after losing, it is noteworthy primarily for its contrast to the earlier vitriol by which he and his running mate elected to demonize Obama. Its tones could be easily dismissed as merely trying to box Obama in so he won’t do what the Republican invariably do when they seize power which is to continue demonizing the Democrats and cutting them out from participation in decisions.

• Despite the media “horse race” hype, the election outcome was a relatively close thing and could easily have gone the other way except for the untimely revelation of just how deep a hole the Republican had dug for us financially.

• Despite what became a significant Electoral College majority, a look at the land map of election results, especially by counties, shows an astonishing ocean of red lapping from shore to shore with but a relative few tiny sized enclaves of blue mostly clustered around the big cities. Even in supposed bastions of liberalism like Oregon, most of the counties voted for McCain. In terms of US land mass as opposed to population, the country is probably 98% red tinged.

• Despite a close to unanimous vote by blacks for Obama and nearly two thirds vote by hispanics, neither is anywhere near a majority of the population or the active voters.

• Despite the Republicans continuous purging from their party over the last three decades whereby they nastily kicked out everyone even half way moderate or capable of showing the slightest mercy, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance or bipartisanship, somehow they not only still find candidates who spend most of their time appealing to the party base, they manage to reap votes of lots of other people, people who are voting against their own interests whenever they vote Republican.

• Despite paradoxically “collapsing their tent” and narrowing their appeal to serve only the religious fundamentalists, only the arrogantly militant, only the xenophobes, only the greedily selfish, only the heterosexual (at least the purportedly straight that is), only the bigoted, and only the pale skinned from European ancestry with but few exceptions, they still came close to winning and probably would have but for the deux ex machina caused by the massiveness of the financial crisis they had created. Even then, they succeeded in convincing far too many people it was really a Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi created problem.

• Despite the unethicalness, unfairness, immorality and even apparent illegality of some of the things he did, encouraged and certainly favored, Karl Rove (to name but one prominent Republican prevaricator) is not only still around and well paid, he has been given a major soapbox on a national news network and is now calling himself a journalist of a sorts further degrading that “profession.” Moreover, all his fellow predators whose tactics were primarily demonization, dissembling, divisiveness and dirty tricks still believe those are not only legitimate methods, but a successful means to their end of reestablishing a theocracy for supposed “Real Americans,” naturally defined to mean just themselves. Doubt it? Think back to the millions and years spent in the Republican’s dogged pursuit of supposed Whitewater crimes. Think back to the salacious and juvenile tone of the Clinton impeachment. That failed, but not by much. And, think back to the Swiftboating of Kerry and the scurrilous slanders of Nobel Laureate Gore which did not fail. It’s only been literally hours since the alleged buddyship of Obama and Ayer has been bandied about.

• Despite abundant evidence that they have been wrong time and time and time again, the corporate media largely continues to only put on the air those guests, reporters and pontificating pundits who missed the big stories entirely. Not only were they dead wrong on facts and predictions, but refuse to admit it. Moreover, the ones who got it right have been fired, demoted, reassigned or not allowed to appear. Some of it could be dismissed as mere incompetence, but for a large number of stories, the ownership of the news outlets clearly has its own agenda disguised as “news,” especially on matters that affect themselves and their profits. Remember that corporate media controls who the reporters will be, how many there are, what they are assigned to cover and what they will say if they want to keep their jobs. Democrats are grossly outnumbered among those asked to sit on network boards of directors. As for the entire Fox Noise channel, it remains the unashamed PR department for the Republican Party and nothing else. “Fair and balanced,” as they claim? Not a chance. Unfortunately, it still has huge viewership.

• Even as to the portion of the press whose conscience mandates an occasional effort at something approximating real journalism, despite an eternity of “false balance” where the whopper outright lies of Republicans were compared to minnow exaggerations of Democrats, the corporate media continues to act even after the election as if reciting inconvenient facts about Republican disasters is somehow “liberal bias.”

• Despite almost daily evidence that the words in the press releases, the green room spin and even in the titles of Republican legislation are intended to produce the polar opposite of their customary meaning, the press and the public has come to accept the re-definitions of almost everything. The new definition of what is a “patriot” for example would horrify Patrick Henry. The new concept that there are a select few of “Real Americans” and that those from some particular states and cities are apparently fake Americans would horrify Abraham Lincoln.

• Despite nearly universal antipathy developed against this county throughout the world including from our allies, the Republican Party nominated candidates who campaigned on being tougher and more aggressive than Bush, going it alone and that did not deter voters. No doubt the slightest dispute with anyone over anything or the slightest incident will be declared to be proof Obama is clueless, inexperienced, weak, a “surrender monkey,” a friend of terrorists, a traitor or a secret Muslim. No doubt even if he successfully obtained a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians, it would be viewed as a betrayal of Israel.

• Despite a financial meltdown of epic proportions caused primarily by greed, misrepresentation, stupidity and a lack of oversight and regulation, almost all the CEOs of the banks and other financial institutions are not only still in charge of those entities, but are steadfastly Republican and unrepentant. The same old mantra of no taxes/no regulation otherwise the economy will be “strangled” is still offered by almost all the players as the only route.

• Despite the debacle in Florida with the butterfly ballots and hanging chads, despite the conclusive proof that Diabold electronic voting machines (owned by a Republican acolyte) and even the optical scanners can be hacked, those machines are still in use and low income voter intimidation is still in vogue.

• Despite the Obama presidency win, the Republicans have had 8 years, YEARS, to purge everyone from the bureaucracy, its regulatory agencies and military command who had the slightest bit progressive, liberal, democrat or even non-partisan tendencies. If you recall from the evidence of what occurred in the Justice Department, even registered Republicans were fired if they weren’t zealous enough in imposing Republican ideology. It will be years before that mind set is reduced sufficiently by attrition of adherents.

• Worse, the Republican Supreme Court that put Bush in power and his own additions to the Court cannot be removed at all and most of the Bush appointees are relatively young. They have show their true colors and it is red indeed under their black robes.

• Worse still, the richest few percent still control three quarters or more of all the wealth in this country. Almost all of them are devout Republicans who not only want to protect that massive hoarding for themselves alone, they want to increase the amount. Greedy though they might be, they will use those resources to protect their assets. It might delay them buying this years’ newest yacht model or scale down its size, but they have been merely inconvenienced in the financial debacle in comparison to Obama supporters who have lots homes, jobs, insurance and savings. The deep pocket books and determination of the uber rich is or should be cause for concern on how the battle for the hearts and minds of voters will be fought.

So, if you are feeling pollyannish, the next time you are in line at the airport, just remember that nearly every other person voted to continue the Republican domination of government, no matter what it costs the county. Their campaign slogan of “County First” rightly should have been “Neocons First and Only.” The result was close to flipping a coin in the outcome.

The next time you are thinking about how tolerant America has become, just remember that the religious right won on all anti gay initiatives in the latest election and the segregationists won on all measures to end affirmative action.

The next time you are thinking of all the things that the Democrats can achieve now that they have control (unlike the shaky one vote majority they had in the Senate the last couple years), just remember not all Democrats are liberal or progressive. They want to be re-elected. Much of the Democrat leadership is the same craven herd that cowered, cringed, stumbled and bumbled with little effect throughout the entire Bush Administration. They were easily intimidated by their own shadows. On top of that, some are not even real Democrats as “Toyko Rose” Lieberman has proven. The Democrats still can’t even cut off a filibuster threatening to deadlock legislation. Their single vote majority in the Senate was only increased by seven at last count and that counts pseudo-Democrats.

The moral of this little tale is that for those who believe in the Golden Rule, who believe that compassionate conservatism is not just a slogan, who believe that facts and fairness should be foremost, who believe politicians and public service should actually obey their oath of office which is almost exclusively to defend the Constitution, vigilance must be even greater than before the election. The progressives and liberals who spent the last many years howling in the wilderness ever since the days of Jimmy Carter cannot rest. Sadly, having the superior candidate never guarantees success. A single victory doesn’t count for much (even assuming President Obama truly is progressive and liberal.)

Hope and Change. He convinced me there will be change. I hope he is right and that the change is what we need. Nevertheless, let’s keep reminding the public, the press and Brother Obama himself of all the “despites” that are bothering us.

“THE CONUNDRUM CONCERNING CLINTONITES”

Or, Why Do So Many Hillary Supporters Still Seem to Want to Elect McCain?

At one point it was reported that apparently as many as half of the 18 million who voted for Hillary Clinton were saying they won’t vote for Barack Obama. Since most who enthusiastically embraced the concept of a woman in the White House also still presumably embrace the bedrock concepts behind the Democratic Party, the Constitution, not to mention the Biblical Golden Rule, it is hard to understand what they have against Obama or in favor of McCain. Is it petulance, covert racism, or simple misinformation?

Let’s be generous and assume the latter. Misinformation is certainly a possible explanation. After all, a whole herd of gross distortions and deliberate lies thunder in daily to our tvs, radios and computers, loudly trumpeted in the what are known as “swift boat-style” ads and spam. Nevertheless, no matter how many times rumor mongers repeat it, Obama is NOT Muslim, NEVER was, and it shouldn’t matter anyway if freedom of religion actually means anything anymore in America.

There is abundant evidence to conclusively rebut the wild claims and thankfully Hillary herself never suggested otherwise. So, why then do many of her supporters keep mentioning Obama’s supposed Muslim roots or, even if they acknowledge he may “now” be a Christian, cite him for supposedly abandoning his “original” faith? Let us hope the die hard Clintonites recognize such baseless canards for what they are and note where such falsehoods are originating from before they endanger us all by continuing putting another disastrous Republican administration in power.

Other things being recited as reasons to disapprove Obama are not outright slander. They fall in the category of misleading half truths. It is true for instance that Obama, like almost everyone else who ever made it to the Senate, is significantly richer than you and I and has a somewhat more expensive house, which is apparently something that bothers the low and middle class voters who preferred Clinton over Obama. Fair enough, but why switch all the way over to favor McCain? After all, not only is Hillary and her hubby significantly richer than Obama, Obama was not born to privilege as an Admiral’s son like McCain. Anyone who has spent time in the military understands what that sort of privilege usually means in the way of special assistance and perks for family members of high ranking officers.

Moreover, Obama did not abandon an ill first wife like McCain did to trade up to a prettier one with such enormous inherited wealth that he can’t even seem to keep track of how many mansions they own these days outright. Is there any likelihood that you or I would not know instantly how many houses we owned? Better yet, any money Obama has seems to have been earned largely by his own efforts. In other words, Obama’s working class roots are far closer to Clinton’s than McCain’s is. Which is the better role model? Consequently, which candidate, Obama or McCain, would be more likely to better understand the legitimate concerns of the lower and middle class who are having aggressive war waged against them continuously by the uber rich like McCain? Is McCain going to champion the less fortunate? Hah. Surely you jest. McCain may occasionally look and dress like a high school football coach, but given that he proposes enacting a tax cut that would result in a permanent yearly benefit to his family approaching half a million dollars speaks for itself. Obama is proposing a tax cut too, but it is mainly for you and I, not the uber rich.

Look at the voting records. Except for the ineffective campaign finance law passed, McCain is against almost anything that would curtail the current voluminous transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the top 1%. While it is theoretically possible to be inheritance rich like Kennedy was and still act as an advocate for the poor, does any Clintonite seriously expect newly rich McCain to act like Kennedy? If not, then why do disgruntled Clintonites keeping naysaying Obama for being somewhat rich? By the way, have the Clintonites check out the bank balance of the Clintons lately?

Speaking of war, it is undeniably true that Obama did not serve in a war zone, although giving up cushy jobs in law firms to serve as a community organizer goes at least part of the distance. Besides, neither Hillary or her husband earned any combat infantry badges dodging bullets (except for that one supposed Bosnian incident). And of course, neither did any of today’s other leading Republicans except McCain.

Moreover, even as to war record, being a fighter jock who managed to get shot down instead of completing the mission is probably not what should recommend someone to run a huge bureaucracy like the federal government. While McCain does deserve some kudos for putting himself in harm’s way (unlike the current fearful leader in the White House who just likes to dress up in flight suits), the best military experienced Presidents tended to be administrators while serving their country in wartime, not those leading charges. Have the die hard Clintonites, who are now neo-McCainiacs, forgotten the greatest leaders of Democratic Party such as Franklin Roosevelt or, for that matter, Bill Clinton did not wear uniforms? Even if McCain has an arguable factual edge over Obama on this single issue of war record, why is that one issue outweighing everything else that once mattered to Clintonites?

The rest of the “complaints” cited by angry Clinton followers are even less viable as genuine reasons to harm Obama by favoring McCain. Take the “pointy headed intellectual” label being bandied about. Smart? Yeah okay. Unquestionably, Obama has more native brainpower than you or I, lots more apparently. Harvard is one of the two or three toughest law schools in the country to even get into. To be selected as editor of the Law Review while there is proof positive that he was one of the two or three brightest students in a class representing the best of the best of that generation. It is recognized that might seem intimidating to anyone who struggled in school. Still, wouldn’t it be nice though to finally have a President again who could speak English and would not embarrass us? To be fair, McCain seems brighter than the current occupant of that office. On the other hand, the comparable academic record between McCain and Obama is not even close. The undisputed fact is McCain was among the bottom of his class. He likely only got in and allowed to graduate because he was an Admiral’s son.

Rock star celebrity-ism? Arrogance for being filmed in front of phenomenally large crowds? Sort of an anti causecleb concept for which Obama should be knocked? Least we forget, nothing is more rock star centered than a carrier based jet pilot as evidenced by their Iceman, Ghost, Maverick monikers and jock demeanors. To be fair with five thousand men and a billion dollar ship there just to support a few dozen macho types like McCain during the Vietnam fighting could hardly produce anything else. So, why is that a reason to demean Obama when he shows some of the same signs. As for arrogance being a disqualification for the job, that would be nice in a perfect world, but it is almost a threshold criteria for running for the job. The job description is entitled these days: LEADER of the ENTIRE FREE WORLD. The latest claim seems to come down to Obama being more successful at it abroad and at home. Good grief. This particular excuse for choosing McCain is so silly, it does not bear further examination.

Similarly, should choice of leafy green veggies be the test for President? Should choice of booze? Should bowling ability? Haven’t we learned that selecting a President by who we would like to have a night out or party with is not a good idea? Besides, you have more chance of being eaten by a shark in Kansas than the possibility that McCain would want to spend anytime with you. And, what have you got against Arugula? They sell it at Safeway. It is a little tart and somewhat like eating weeds to my personal taste. On the other hand, I have never thought my personal taste in food should have any bearing on who deserves to be elected President. I can understand why the Clinton supporters might be disappointed, maybe even angrily and bitterly so. Yet, how can that possibly translate into Obama should not be President if the only other choice is McCain?

Of course, none of those issues just mentioned above, all ones so dear to frivolous Mainstream Media, are really what we should be using to select a President. Hillary fans would do themselves well to look instead at real issues, ones that matter or should matter to even white, beer drinking, bowling night, church going, workers, female or otherwise.

● Obama is the best and only chance we have to put some justices on the courts who believe Rowe v. Wade and female right of choice is the best choice. In light of the recent revelations the Republicans want to allow health workers to refuse even birth control assistance, four more years of any Republican whatsoever in the White House almost guarantees the death of any choice whatsoever, let alone abortion rights.

● Female rights and the distinction between Obama and McCain is not limited to just birth issues. McCain wants to give us glass slipper fairy tales or at least mukluk ones. Obama in contrast seems to worry about glass ceilings in the workplace. Have the Clintonites forgotten how McCain’s favorite Supreme Court Justice, the ones he wants to duplicate if President, just recently torpedoed a woman’s right to sue for equal pay for equal work? They said that if her unequal pay is successfully hidden from her for long enough, she loses the right to complain about it. Expect more of the same with McCain.

● As for saving those jobs in the first place (not to mention the accumulated pensions and bank deposits they earned) and keeping good paying jobs here in this county, Obama is the best and only chance we have to put some restraint on the rapaciousness of Republicans, lobbyists, CEOs and Wall Street by reimposing some regulations and rehiring honest regulators and by putting limits on sending it offshore. Will the Clitonites’ children be able to get any credit? Will they be able to get a home? The financial disasters of the Republican consistently uniform platforms have dumped the burden on Clintonites’ children and grandchildren, the ones who are not and never will be uber rich. Is that fairness? McCain thinks so.

● Doesn’t McCain think about the future generations at all? His campaign’s catchy slogan regarding our eternal oil addiction is a simplistic “Drill, Baby, Drill” which unfortunately translates simply into “Drain America’s Today” and save nothing. So what if consuming our pitiful 3% of the oil reserves we have puts us at the mercy of those with oil tomorrow? So what if burning hydrocarbons increases global warming and drowns some cities? Why bother to stop to think about consequences? Why bother to apply some long term common sense cost/benefit analysis?

● Obama is also the best and only chance we have to recapture some of the respect and trust the world once had in America and its ideals. That has already been shown in the reaction of the world populace, the world press and the world leaders to Obama’s travels. Surely that has value if a future presidency of Hillary is to be worth anything. Electing another old white guy is not going to do it. Why squander the chance and how does it help Hillary to not have a minority elected for the first time ever?

● War? Well, that is a disappointment about Obama, but at least he is not the one saying we must be there for 100 years at whatever cost to our troops, our treasury, our future, our credibility. Maybe Obama will move us out before we are told to leave with our tails between our legs. What an interesting irony that Bush cannot seem to get his force extension agreement signed by the “democratically elected” government he newly put in power.

● Supporting the troops? McCain says he likes the sound of that. It sounds “patriotic,” but despite all the sound and fury, when it comes to adequate equipment for those troops, adequate care for the wounded, living up to the education and other benefits promised as inducements, he is pretty quiet. And the record of his party is abysmal over the past several years on those things. Since Clintonites have sons, daughters, and spouses going into the “danger zone,” we need a loud fighter for those things.

● With the many other wars McCain wants to continue also comes a war on our Constitution. US sponsored torture, abandonment of the Geneva Conventions that protect our own troops as well, abandonment of bed rock principles such as spying without warrants, arrest without counsel or confrontation of supposed witnesses, jail forever without trial, human rights violations galore, both at home and abroad. Is that really what recalcitrant Clintonites really want to support?

● Moreover, death and destruction is not limited to that brought by bullets, bombs and waterboarding, there is death and disabilities from our environmental degradation for profit, our oil addiction, , housing, savings, and most certainly an almost broken health care system.

● Divisiveness has been the central theme of the McCain campaign. Wedge issues as usual. The list is long.

Between the minority voter intimidation, the deliberate voter misinformation being sent, the electronic vote machine hacking, and the Republican Supreme Court standing by to overturn the results again, the nation desperately needs the Hillary supporters to recognize their own future best interests and support the one candidate who believes what she does.

"THE WOULD HAVE BEENS, COULD HAVE BEENS, SHOULD HAVE BEENS OF TAXES"

Or, It's Not the Fact We Are Taxed, It's How the Conservatives Waste Our Taxes

Oh yeah. The eternal drum beat by so-called "Conservatives" of no new taxes makes soooooooo much sense. Especially when they are the ones spending taxes faster than the Treasury can count the revenue. Judging by what Conservatives do as opposed to what they say, they apparently want to try and show government can't possibly work. They're right. . . at least as to a government run by what passes for Conservatives these days.

After all, we could be providing health care for all children like most civilized nations do. But, apparently why do that when we can pay trillions instead wasting our troops killing and maiming foreigners so we can occupy their country in a pointless war commenced on admitted false justifications?

And, if we must send our troops to fight in wrongheaded wars, we could provide them with adequate armor, sufficient supplies, enough reinforcements, treatment for wounds, and the post service education they were promised. But, apparently why do that when we can pay trillions instead for wasteful, too often unworkable, pork barrel "Star Wars" projects benefitting only the CEOs of the military/industrial complex?

We could be providing for regulators to insure that stupidity, greed and duplicity does not occur in our financial institutions. But, apparently why do that when we can pay trillions instead to reimburse wall street bankers and stockbrokers for their stupidity, greed, and duplicity?

We could be providing a small amount for inspectors to insure that we are not poisoned, killed, maimed and cheated by manufacturers, suppliers, importers, retailers and advertisers. But, apparently why do that when we can pay trillions instead due to illness, death, lost productivity and fraud?

We could be providing a sound education of our young and funding basic scientific research. But, apparently why do that when we can lose trillions instead making ourselves uncompetitive at home and abroad.

We could be providing for upkeep on roads, bridges, parks, schools, and other critical infrastructure before the too long deferred maintenance costs us trillions to replace them. But, apparently why do that when we can pay trillions instead for more tax cuts primarily for the already unspeakable rich?

We could be providing a small amount for alternative energy sources which will wean us from oil addiction. But, apparently why do that when we can continue instead to pay trillions filling the treasuries of countries that hate our guts?

We could be seeking better ways to prevent or minimize global warming, pandemics, air pollution, water pollution, soil loss, fishery destruction and the like. But, apparently why do that when we can risk instead trillions in property damage and lives lost?

We could be seeking better protection for cargo ports and points of entry to insure fewer terrorism risks. But, apparently why do that when we can risk instead trillions in losses from just a single well placed terrorist bomb?

Taxes are what get things done which only government can do. But, they can't be done when self-styled Conservatives get a chance to spend them instead on foolishness or lining their own pockets.

Why is it that apparently no Conservative politician or pundit has ever heard of the concept of cost/benefit analysis? Did they all flunk math in grade school? Are they just incompetent or deliberate deceivers or both? Least we forget, alleged "Conservatives" have cost us more money in the past few weeks than all the welfare cheats in all of history put together.

So, the next time a Conservative, whether a Republican or for that matter a pandering Democrat, hysterically tries to shout the usual knee jerk mantra of "NO TAXES!" or wants to peddle you hatred of government bureaucrats for trying to do their job, keep in mind the following counter mantra:

If you truly want to be conservative, you need to oppose the Conservatives.

“A FEW QUESTIONS FOR THE UNDECIDED”

Or, Debate Yourself

Polls indicate there are many undecided voters even at this late date. That’s understandable. Far too much of the information received from party partisans, the internet, talk shows and even the Main Stream Media tends to be unsupported, distorted, misleading, downright contradictory or even outright wrong. (Examples of complete falsehoods amazingly still circulating include claims that Obama is or was a Muslim and McCain is or was a racist.)

So, for those still puzzling, perhaps they should forget what they have heard or read over the last 20 months from others. Perhaps they should forget the questions deliberately evaded by the candidates on the so-called “debates.” Perhaps instead they should ask themselves a number of common sense questions which are good in any election and which only they themselves can truly answer.

Here are a Joe-the-Baker's Dozen to start.

1. Are you better off today than at the last change of administrations?

2. If not, which individuals, industries, institutions or agencies do you see as having contributed the most toward causing that unfortunate situation? And, which party or party members own, dominate or most strongly control most of those problem entities?

3. Certainly if there was a problem, it must then be asked next who hires, fires, funds and directs policy for any regulators of such entities?

4. Which party seems to you most likely to not only generate or attract new jobs and business for the country, but good wage jobs and business which create things? Perhaps more importantly, which party seems most likely in this era to keep them in this country once created or attracted?

5. Which party seems most genuinely interested overall in protecting your own job and your family’s investments, home, safety, education, and health?

6. Pick an issue to which general knowledge and common sense can apply. Take oil for instance. We all know petroleum is not only a fossil fuel (which means once it’s burnt and dumped in the atmosphere, it’s gone forever), most reserves of it are in countries that seem to prefer to do us harm. If so and those are deemed undesirable, which party is most likely to want to wean us from oil dependence?

7. Are you embarrassed, angered or frightened by any of the recent decisions of the two parties and are they likely to continue those policies if put or kept in office? An example of a major decision, to mention but one of several possibilities, would be going to war. If that is a decision that you feel deserves close consideration, then you ought to then ask were the justifications for the most recent war both good enough and credible, how was the war conducted and what were the results? Other examples of major decisions where such self analysis might be applied include trade, environment, food inspection, social issues or anything else you deem critical to your well being and/or the country’s future. On average, how to those comparative decisions stack up between the parties?

8. Do you perceive there to be competing countries outside the Middle East to which Washington ought to be paying more attention such as China, India, Russia, or South American ones? Assuming you believe other international interests have been neglected, ask yourself if we are really in a position today to do anything about those if they fester and swell up? If not, which party has the most responsibility for that condition? You don’t need to have a master’s degree in foreign policy to ask yourself these questions. At a minimum, you at least know whether or not you feel comfortable about whether those in charge are asking the right questions themselves.

9. A corollary is if you believe we need any allies in today’s world, who do our most important ones seem to prefer head this country? Which party has a candidate most likely to ease their concerns and obtain their full cooperation when and if needed?

10. Although perhaps not as important as some other questions, since it remains these days a distinct possibility that the President could die or be killed, what do you think of the abilities of the Vice Presidential choices of each party?

11. Probably more revealing than politicians and pundits endorsing their own party’s candidate would be whether there are any high profile defectors from the parties endorsing the other candidate? If so, who are they, what are they saying, why have they done so and do you respect their opinions?

12. You’ve seen rallies of each party on tv and listened to the crowds. Which crowd and which attitudes of such crowds would make you most proud and happy to be identified as a member? Who in those audiences is the candidate appealing most to and why? Whatever his or her talents in firing up a crowd of loyalists, is he or she genuinely a uniter or a divider of this whole country after being elected assuming you believe that matters in the long run?

13. Maybe most important of all, what will your children and their grandchildren think of your choice?

“MY HOBBESIAN CHOICE”

Or, Who’s Circle is Filled In On My Ballot

If you have read much of this blog, there is probably little doubt who I have voted for. A friend asked if I would vote for Obama because he’s black. I told him no, although I strongly suspect that aspect would (1) go far toward restoring the trust and confidence of the rest of the world in the US which has been so badly lost and squandered and (2) finally offer indisputable proof this country actually means what it says in the Declaration of Independence (certain opening words anyway) and in the Constitution (certain amendments anyway).

Actually, my first choices for President might surprise you. Early on, I wrote to Bill Moyer, a former Republican speech writer and currently PBS journalist, trying to persuade him to consider running. His insight and apparent honesty has always attracted me. My second choice, someone I tried to encourage back more than a year ago was New York Mayor Bloomberg, a former Republican, now officially an independent. My next fallback hoped for candidate was among those who initially announced, the very experienced New Mexico Governor Richardson. And, fourth was former VP candidate Edwards (although he like too many politicians subsequently let his testicles fry his brain). Still, I liked what he had to say. And, at least his was hetro-stupidity rather than what several across the aisle seem to want to indulge in.

I might even have considered the McCain if he was still the vintage 2000 McCain. Sadly he isn't. His choice of Palin really bothered me, but that was long after he had seemed to abandon most of his early principles. Wanna know why that particular decision rather irrevocably turned me against McCain, even if I had not already been so disappointed in him over the last year?

Most Americans and most of our allies in the World would welcome a female US Vice President or even President. Many would prefer it after what has gone before in the past few decades. Me too. Female Heads of State have been quite successful elsewhere (although no panacea) in both war and peace.

And, there are probably hundreds of thousands of very talented, exceedingly bright, highly educated, well experienced, extremely strong American women McCain could have selected. They include judges, attorneys, professors, CEOs, diplomats, politicians, career administrators and bureaucrats. Most are mothers. Most are married with socially acceptable spouses (read: males). A huge number of the possible choices no doubt are registered Republican. Many are fiscally and/or culturally conservative. Some believe intensely in preventing or restricting most abortions.

Yet, McCain chose Palin. Palin of all people. Palin despite the incredibly long list other females he could have chosen. Worse, despite months of opportunity to search, he appears to have insultingly pulled her out of his (hat) after mere days or maybe just hours of “vetting” her supposedly “qualifications.” Was that mere impulsiveness? Was it crankiness, reckless indifference, outright stupidity or a more sinister disregard for the risk to this country which Palin and her “First Dude” hubby may present?

Why did McCain force us voters into such a questionable choice, even for those of us who have supported McCain in the past? Unfortunately, it makes us think of “Heckofajob Brownie” that Bush picked to head FEMA thereby seriously exacerbating the Katrina disaster. Choosing Palin sure speaks ill of McCain’s decision making capabilities as far as I am concerned given the myriad of alternative choices so much better. Who will he select for all the other critical jobs?

We can disagree how good or bad Obama might be, and maybe if Obama is elected we will have to turn him out in 4 years. Frankly, given how badly the Republicans have hamstrung us with debt and sunk us in the Middle East quicksand, a reincarnated Thomas Jefferson himself probably could do little. Nevertheless, of the two Hobbesian choices we have in November, the combination of McCain picking Palin, plus his tar baby adherence to continuing the Iraq War, plus his being a member of the particular party that must be held primarily responsible for the astronomical financial mess we are in, makes me want to insure that there is at least a change of which parties get to appoint people to the regulatory agencies for the next election cycle. And, as a matter of general principal, I firmly feel there needs to be some penalty for what went wrong, something along the lines that the Captain of the ship always ought to take responsibility whether he personally caused the wreck or not. It might make future Captains more careful.

Unfortunately, we no longer have the useful Custer Concept where the leader in charge bears the burden of the bad decision along with all the others he harmed in the process. Now sadly, the person who screws up is the one least likely to suffer.

There is one opportunity available in this fiasco to do something really helpful if we are smart enough to seize it. Let’s use this opportunity to enact new laws that would put on the ballot for each office a choice of “None of the Above” so that if that button/oval/chad is pressed/darkened/punched winning the most votes, a new election is held shortly thereafter. In that new election, the only people ineligible to run again would be those who wasted our time the first time. It might cost more, but maybe there would be savings in the long run since maybe the parties would start giving us better first choices.

“I’M CONFUSED”

Maybe you can help me?

I'm a little confused by some of the news reports. Let me see if I have this straight.....

• If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you’re “exotic, different.”
• Grow up in Alaska eating moose meat, you’re a quintessential American story.

• If your name is Barack, you must secretly be a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
• If you name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, aah, how cute.

• If you graduated from Harvard Law School, you are elitist.
• If you were third from the bottom in your class, you're well grounded.

• If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veterans' Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
• If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.

• If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
• If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a paragon of virtue and honor.

• If you advocate womens’ choice, you are a murder.
• If you favor the death penalty, pre-emptive attacks, extensive bombings and shrug off hundreds of thousand of civilian casualties as inconsequential, you are a realist.

• If you insist all the Constitution be defended as required by oaths of office, you want to endanger the country.
• If you support spying without warrants, imprisonment without counsel or trial, and that torture is just a word easily redefined, you are a man of honor.

• If you dare to question a policy or ask for less secrecy or accountability, you have committed treason and probably support al Quida.
• If you oppose dissent and are afraid to talk to the press, you are tough.

• If you seek to find out what went wrong in order to correct the problem, you are stuck in the past.
• If you insist that despite what your opponent says about cutting taxes for all except the uber rich he must be lying because his party always raises taxes, then you merely drawing appropriate inferences from what has gone before.

• If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control and warnings about sexual predators, you are eroding the fiber of society.
• If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.

• If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
• If your husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

• If you change your mind on how to fund your campaign, you are a foppish Flip-Flopper.
• If you abandon all your previous stated principles from the prior decade in order to solidify your base, you are a pragmatist.

• If you long ago was on a large committee with someone who once advocated bombing to protest war but never actually harmed anyone or did jail time, you nevertheless consort with terrorists who can never ever change.
• If you share the same stage in the last year with someone who advocated assassination or on a radio program with someone who illegally ran guns to terrorists and welcome their endorsement, well . . . people should be forgiven.

• If you make any observation you are black, you’re a militant, black power racist.
• If you remind everyone your opponent is black and allow buttons to be sold at your rallies saying that if a black man is elected we can no longer refer to it as the “White House,” you are merely being fair and pointing out the obvious.

• If you favor getting allies to support positions and seek international accord before invading, you are a wussy.
• If you have a nasty temper and threaten Russia despite having no military resources to back up the empty threat, you are macho.

• If you favor getting out of a war that has lasted longer than any other except the Vietnam one based on a timetable that your allies and the President agree on, you are a surrender monkey.
• If you chose to ignore all your allies including those you placed in power, you are an independent thinker.

• If you pack stadiums both home and abroad, you are a worthless celebrity.
• If you are a female Republican doing so, you are merely interesting.

OK, much clearer now.

(Note: Normally, everything in this blog is my own musing, but thanks are due and a tip of the hat for some of the above bullet points to an anonymous internet item in circulation.)

“ANOTHER MICKEY MOUSE THEORY”

Or, Why Are Republicans Really Attacking Non-Profit ACORN?

John McCain insists that ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and it’s efforts to register low income and other under represented residents encouraging them to turn out for the vote will somehow be the biggest voter fraud in history. An astonishing claim.

As supposed “evidence,” Republicans like Senator McCain and the pundits in their pocket cite that some petitioners have signed voter registration cards with names of non-existent people such as “Mickey Mouse,” conveniently forgetting of course that anyone actually showing up on November 4 claiming he is Mickey Mouse will have to produce ID to that effect. As usual though, little in the way of genuine hard evidence to support the Republican’s theory and wild speculations is ever produced as to any actual voter fraud that resulted from such silly false names. And if any is trotted forth, it typically is exaggerated and anecdotal at best. In other words, there are never any verifiable totals provided which even remotely hint this really is any sort of a significant problem.

Ignored entirely is the efforts of ACORN itself to prevent fraud from occurring and the fact that many such instances were only exposed because it was ACORN, not Republicans, who revealed them so they could be deleted. It is even possible in light of prior dirty tricks by Republicans that some of the false names may even have been submitted covertly by Republicans hoping to discredit ACORN. In any event, false signings may be a fraud against ACORN, but it is not vote fraud against the state unless and until it is attempted to be used by someone to actually vote in an election. There are already laws against that.

And, have you ever noticed how it is almost exclusively Republicans, who mantra is usually to loudly assert their party is the one supposedly all for “freedom” and “democracy” When was the last time you heard about anyone other than Republicans attempt to prevent others from voting? Yet, the mere suggestion of the remote possibility that Mr. Mickey Mouse might show up to ask for a ballot is sufficient for Republican legislatures to quiver and pass laws making it increasing difficult for poor, new, elderly, disabled and/or minority voters (i.e. those who would likely vote Democrat), and only such potential voters, to exercise their rights.

In contrast, the far greater possibility, in fact the proven opportunity, of hackable electronic voting machines with their secret “proprietary” software built and often serviced exclusively by Republican zealot owned companies like Diebold is completely dismissed. Dismissed despite tests showing again and again how quickly and easy it is to do so with such no-paper-ballot generating machines. Also, largely dismissed by the same Republican legislators and pontificating pundits is the unquestionably large number of legitimate votes by low income groups almost routinely blocked or thwarted by misinformation given to prospective voters either deliberately or inadvertently, by purging of rolls without timely alerting the voters purged, by direct and indirect nuisance intimidation of such groups though use of police or press or partisans, or by unequal treatment of voting stations regarding maintaining a convenient number of voting machines and polling staff available which adversely affects length of time and stress on voters election day. And, have we forgotten difficult ballot formatting (remember the Florida “butterfly ballots”)? All of these tactics tend to punish or totally disenfranchise primarily the poor, new, elderly, disabled and/or minority voters who tend to vote for anyone other than Republicans.

All the sound and fury sure on this subject looks like nothing more than Republicans attempting once again to divert attention from their own propensities for potential voter fraud. In psychology, the trait exhibited by the Republicans touting this latest anti-ACORN theory would be known as "projection." In litigation, when you have the facts or the law in your favor, pound them. If not, then as used here by the Republicans, the tactic becomes just pounding the table. Loudly. Accuse others and maybe they will neglect to investigate you.

Over time, it is becoming increasingly clear that Republicans would apparently secretly prefer that the only people who should get to vote in America are white, elderly, males who are registered Republican . . . and sit on the US Supreme Court.

“WHO’D YA SAY WAS A TERRORIST???”

Or, If Obama Is a “Terrorist” or Has Terrorist Leanings, Then McCain, Palin and Their Boss, Bush, Surely Must Be Too

Let’s see if I correctly understand the Palin/McCain theory about Obama’s minor association with William Ayers (who admitted once upon a time having maliciously damaged some buildings with explosives back in the turbulent 60s era but is now a respected professor and certainly not in jail or under indictment). The Republican theory, fed as raw meat to engage (enrage?) supporters at rallies, is apparently that:

(a) once a “terrorist,” always a terrorist since no one can ever ever ever possibly change and

(b) anyone whoever has ever had contact with a “terrorist” is probably a terrorist too or at least a supporter of terrorism.

I don’t understand the Palin/McCain obsession with the subject because if the theory is valid, then it would seem to follow that McCain, who all his extremely long political life (except for the past few weeks) loudly supported deregulation of the Wall Street must be LYING to voters when he says he now wants to re-regulate them and throw the bums out. The same for all his other numerous what-could-only-be-called 180 degree “flip-flops” on abortion, fundamentalists, etc., which he only started to espouse since he announced his latest bid to run the US? If Ayers cannot be trusted to ever change on anything, then how are we expected to believe McCain can or has?

As to supporting or consorting with those advocating terrorist ideas, which is the other half of the Palin/McCain charge against Obama, how about McCain’s new buddy, the self-declared “man of God,” Pat Robertson? Robertson, the man who openly called for assassination, yes, assassination of foreign leaders? Robertson has appeared on stage with McCain, yet McCain doesn’t seem to be branding him as terrorist or asserting he can never ever change? I guess the difference is that Robertson is Republican and, by definition, Republicans are supposedly incapable of either terrorism or torture.

Maybe the Palin/McCain ticket was only referring to terrorist acts against Americans, not foreigners. (Say, I wonder if Timothy McVey was a Republican?) But, using the Republican definition, isn’t that precisely what some of the things G. Gordon Liddy was doing and more recently than Ayers was last doing things? Least we forget, Liddy, unlike Ayers, was convicted and did jail time. Liddy is as equally unrepentant as Ayers, but a court formally confirmed Liddy’s guilt. Ayers merely made an “admission against interest” as it is now in the rules of evidence. No prosecutor choose to indict him for his “confession” those. If McCain truly believes his mantra he is claiming, why then has McCain, unlike Obama, never thoroughly repudiated that acquaintanceship with Liddy?

Interestingly, if the Republicans want to assert that the supposedly criminally inclined can never change their (prison) stripes, then Liddy, not Ayers, would actually be a better argument for that theory. After all, Liddy in his radio program and in print seems to still be advocating from time to time various reprehensible acts of murder and mayhem on fellow Americans.

Perhaps Palin and McCain were only referring to doing harm to American property. Well then, how about the Alaskan Secessionist Movement that the “First Dude” was in until his wife got crowned the GOP VP nominee? Loss of Alaska would certainly diminish the assets of the US. We haven’t heard if that group (which Palin welcomed in a speech while serving as Alaska’s Governor) advocated domestic violence to serve their cause, but Republican Lincoln certainly considered advocates of such secessionist causes to be dangerous to the United States. Did Palin perhaps forget her oath of office to defend the Constitution which doesn’t have an escape clause for states? No one (at least no Democrat) is saying the Alaskan’s First group doesn’t have a right to exercise free speech, but it sure sounds like consorting and aiding at least. Why then for consistency isn’t McCain denouncing his partner’s actions? Why isn’t she denouncing the sessessionist group her husband was in? Oh yeah, that’s right. No one can ever change if McCain is right.

Moreover, what is to be made of President Bush’s decision recently (while Palin and McCain were loudly ranting about terrorists never changing) to proclaim that North Korea, a supposed charter member of “Axis of Evil” club, has changed and is not conducting state sponsored terrorism anymore? Remember exactly what recent act it was by North Korea which prompted Bush to hurriedly lift the ban on North Korea? It was North Korea’s decision to reopen it’s potential nuclear bomb making facilities. So apparently, Bush has decided a terrorist country gets declared a non-terrorist country only if does something truly terrifying. Does that mean Bush favors terrorists? Shouldn’t then McCain be advocating Bush be immediately impeached as a traitor?

Well actually, maybe that last thing would be a good idea.

"WHO Really DESTROYED THE ECONOMY?"

Or, It Must Have Been That Evil Clinton Again (Bill, that is)

I have been trying to figure out how the Republicans would finally manage to blame the last thirty years of Republican financial irresponsibility on Bill Clinton. After all, they have blamed everything else on earth on him. At last, the answer.

According to the latest explanations by Republican shills, apparently he “pressured” the poor defenseless Republican CEOs of the Republican owned banks to assist more low income people get into home ownership. Supposedly, they instantly capitulated and made loans to everyone who walked through the door no matter how risky it was in doing so. Yes, they made obscenely huge profits in doing so, but it was practically entrapment. They had no choice except to line their pockets and endanger the nation.

Yes, the Republican dominated stock market seeing the huge profits wanted some of it and made stock and insurance bets disguised by a bunch a phony names, but that only magnifies Clinton’s guilt for putting the idea in their heads. The fact that the Republicans making all the critical decisions were deciding in essence either (a) nothing could ever possibly go wrong or (b) they could stick the Treasury with the bill for the bet. . . . Well, that was irrelevant.

Shame on that nasty old Clinton for tempting them that way. Didn’t he know the Republican CEOs weren’t capable of resisting the greed? Didn’t he know they would over react and take his literally without restriction or restraint? Didn’t he know those heads of the big corps weren’t sufficiently educated or experienced in financial or security matters to see the danger or where it might lead? Didn’t he know they didn’t have the smarts, the tools or the guts to obstruct, let alone effectively resist a man whose guts they so thoroughly hated? Didn’t he know the Republicans had dismantled or controlled any regulatory agencies and laws that might have spotted or prevented the problems? Shame shame shame on Clinton for taking such terrible advantage of the Republicans’ weaknesses and utter ineptitude.

Is it too late to impeach Clinton in absentia for his high crime and misdemeanor of giving those poor innocent Republicans an excuse to rape our economy? If it’s too late, then maybe every Republican CEO, banker, lender, stockbroker, pundit and“regulator” at least ought to start wearing blue dresses to subtlety remind the rest of us how Clinton forced all those thousands of Republicans to their knees in service of his favor for subprime borrowers.

“PHONY FINANCIALS AND OTHER FOLLIES”

Or, Some Questions to Ask About the Bailout

NEWS FLASH: Republican leaders and their PR department announced the sun rose in the West yesterday. The Main Stream Media, in their daily effort to prove they are not now and never were the slightest bit scientific oriented (since that might be construed as liberal or elitist), promptly publicized the announcement about the sudden new direction the sun has supposedly taken. Republican voters and many independents who depend on letting others do their thinking for them immediately looked West waiting for the sunrise. Textbook publishers revise astronomical charts rather than risk loss of sales.

Apparently, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and the Democrats are to blame for the economic meltdown we are facing, at least according to the latest Republican press conferences. Perhaps before accepting that at face value, blaming what will ultimately be a multi-trillion dollar debacle solely on the gullible Democrats in Congress, I would recommend voters review some pretty unquestionable history and ask themselves some simple, relatively common sense questions. That way we can find out who to debit and who to credit, or at least who has less credibility.

Start with asking what party was in control of both the House and the Senate over most of the last 30 or so years? What party had the strongest or actual control over most of the period? For instance, wasn’t the latest switch in supposed “control” of the Senate close to a single vote in favor of the Democrats (i.e. little real “control” at all) and wasn’t one of those supposed votes giving Democrats finally control someone who was also a keynote speaker at the Republican convention? In a criminal court case, that would be who had Opportunity?

Meanwhile, who controlled the White House over most of that same period and not only proposed new laws, but controlled submission of both the budgets of the regulatory agencies and appointment power dictating who is hired and fired at regulatory agencies and what their philosophy of enforcement or non-enforcement will be? Have voters read the report out in the past few days regarding the Justice Department in the Bush Administration and see what such appointment power can do? Those are only the first questions. In a criminal court case, that would be who had Means?

During that same period of the last three decades or so, which party had as its platform the free and unrestricted market place, especially in financial and trade matters? Which party had and still has as its platform a goal of small government and massive deregulation? Which party sought the most deregulation and proudly announced each success in doing so? What party appointed all the current federal regulatory commissions and agencies? In a criminal court case, that would be who had Motive?

How many years have they been on the job? Wasn’t seven years long enough to spot something like that? If the party that did the present regulatory agency appointments and gave directional control to such agencies wins the election, isn’t it likely that will continue for additional years? Who will they likely appoint to the federal regulatory commissions and agencies if they are given the chance? In a criminal court case, that would be who had the Last Clear Chance?

Maybe the question should be, how many such debacles can we afford?

Certainly ask, what party do the CEOs and senior officers and directors of most of the financial institutions, public and private, especially those that have had either bailouts given them or sought bankruptcy law protection, belonged to? What party demanded that lobbying agencies hire Republicans as lobbyists? Who is it contemplated that will receive all or almost all the “bailout” funds? How long have they been in their positions? Were any indicted or jailed for fraud? What party did most of them belong to? Who did they give the most campaign contributions to? Democrats or Republicans?

Were they at least on the job while the supposed chicaneries of the bare majority Democrats was going on? Why didn’t they object over the years if that was true about the bare majority Democrats? Did they not see it (in which case they are effectively incompetent and should be replaced)? Or, were they gleefully in favor (in which case they are essentially co-conspirators and should be replaced)? Who pocketed the most profits that was obtained by the supposed chicaneries? If they were pocketing money knowing what was happening, what happened to the concept of Country First? Has that really been applied over the last several years if greed was an easy alternative? What party do you suppose most of the investors, speculators and shareholders of such companies belonged to when the money was flowing in during the go-go days? In a criminal court case, these would be cross examination Weight of Evidence and Credibility questions.

Didn’t they stop to wonder whether the Adam Smith’s Law of Supply and Demand had actually been magically repealed? Why didn’t they speak out or go to the press if debt was being given to homeowners with little means to repay the amounts? For that matter, why didn’t they notice or report debtor banks taking debt with little or doubtful security? Who devised the complicated financing schemes and the bundling that has lead to much of the unfettered disaster? Who was basing their action on an apparent assumption the bubble could not bust and housing prices would always go up? In a criminal court case, that would be more credibility or Veracity questions.

Yet, what party has always declared for public consumption at least it was the supposedly conservative party while simultaneously insisting it is always a good time to lower taxes, especially for the rich, no matter what the economy happens to be doing? In a criminal court case, that would be Admissions Against Interest.

Weren’t there any signs this could happen as a result of such policies? Were they truly that ignorant? Weren’t there some Democrats arguing for more and closer scrutiny? Who shouted them down as ignorant claiming nothing could go wrong? Where there any Republicans arguing for more and closer scrutiny?

What Administration was in power during the similar, albeit smaller scale, destruction of the Savings and Loan Administration? That only cost billions. Wasn’t the tactics back during that crisis, such as inflated appraisals, poorly secured debt, etc. much the same as has been going on now? Didn’t the bill for that implosion get stuck with the taxpayers too? Does the word “Enron” ring any bells?

Weren’t any lessons learned? Doesn’t anyone remember or at least read history and economic textbooks?

What Administration and party took away the power of the bankruptcy court to adjust mortgages of individuals to real market value and interest, but refused to restrict credit agencies in any way, shape or form? What Administration thought that it was a good idea to send manufacturing and jobs overseas?

What Administration proposed the initial “bailout” plan unveiled a few days ago? How long has that Administration been in office? Why didn’t they see this coming so such a bailout would not be needed? If it was not their job, then who?

Did the bailout first proposed by the Republican Administration have a single restriction on the Treasury Secretary’s powers or even freedom from prosecution? Why not? Did the bare majority Democrats draft that proposal?

What industry did the Treasury Secretary come from? Does he strike you as credible when you listen to him and watch his face? What college degrees does he hold? What degrees does the President hold? MBA and business degrees, right? But, somehow it was the bare majority Democrats cleverly conning them all? Do the bare majority Democrats strike you as genius that way?

Where did the $700,000,000,000.00 bailout figure come from? Wasn’t it admitted that was pulled out of the air? Are anyone convinced more won’t be needed? Do anyone have confidence in those in charge in the Administration who will administer whatever bailout plan is approved? Remember when we were told that the billions on the bailout of AIG and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac probably wouldn’t be needed just days before they were bailed out using all the money set aside? Who told us that? Who is now claiming we must act immediately and without question?

Feel free to question the bare majority Democrats. Use “enhanced interrogation techniques” so favored by the White House. Use them on all residing in Congress if you want so long as the same techniques are used on those in the Administration. But, for the moment voters should ask themselves who is trying to divert attention by claiming even asking any questions about the plan specifics will somehow destroy the nation? Who is trying to say we must not look at blame before acting even though finding out the cause might be important to deciding what to do for a cure? Why would they not want us to know such information? Who would benefit the most if there was no inquiry into blame?

Has this Administration proven itself credible on most other warnings and predictions it has made? Come to think of it, has this Administration proven itself credible on any major warning or prediction it has made on any subject?

Why wasn’t anything other than the “nuclear option” of the huge bailout even seriously discussed by the Administration? Has the Administration been persuasive in their evidence? Is it sufficient for such a price tag? Do you feel there has been adequate debate allowed? Even with the cosmetic changes the Democrats and some Republicans have added to the bailout of the subprime lenders, do you believe it affects any systemic changes so this won’t happen again?

So.......voters should ask themselves those questions. Most of them truly are just common sense, gut credibility, elementary math, and basic history questions. They should be asked no matter what their party affiliation is. Voters should think of themselves as a jury. Was it crimes of passion or just greed? In any event, did those in charge honor their oath of office?

Then, voters should ask themselves if it really was just the bare majority Democrats as alluded to by those who want the Republicans to continue as the sole appointers and suppliers of the regulators. If it was not just the bare majority Democrats as the excusers would like us to believe, then in light of all the circumstances does the Republican Party genuinely deserve a kiss and four more years? Like the captain of a ship, shouldn’t there be some consequence to being in charge when the ship runs aground? Unlike the criminal law system, those questioning do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The test is mere preponderance of the evidence.

Criminently (yeah a silly pun)!

Still no doubts? None at all gnawing?

If not, then I guess I am really lucky on the Oregon shore where I will be able now to watch the sun come up over the Ocean.

BIASES, BINGES, BOONDOGGLES AND BAILOUTS

Or, 13 Reasons for Ruin and ... maybe, a few Routes for Recovery

Dear Senators, Representatives and those who want to be President:

As near as I can figure out, up until the last few days, the Republican policies regarding our nation’s financial institutions and financial security seem to have been to:

(1) eliminate most scrutiny and regulation of financial institutions of any sort by changing or reinterpreting the laws,
(2) cut the staff and funding of the existing regulatory agencies,
(3) put agency heads in power who come from the regulated financial institutions and/or who are openly opposed to scrutiny and regulation on principle,
(4) replace the remaining professional staff doing the day to day regulating with either party zealots or those who will do what they are told,
(5) encourage embarrassingly massive campaign contributions from the institutions that were supposed to be scrutinized and regulated,
(6) conduct most public business in private,
(7) arrogantly and patronizingly insist that the “experts” (i.e. themselves and only themselves) know best no matter how obvious or elementary the proposition,
(8) attempt to impose a particular ideology on the market regardless of present circumstances,
(9) proclaim that the many questionable practices being produced such as loaning large sums to people who could not possibly pay it back secured by overpriced housing were somehow sound investments,
(10) assume sales prices of stocks, bonds and homes would continue to increase forever,
(11) cut taxes whether the economy is going up or down,
(12) discourage savings while simultaneously allowing heavy, heavy borrowing by consumers, businesses and the government itself to accumulate to ridiculously high levels thereby shifting the burden to future generations, and
(13) mortgage that future to largely foreign country creditors.

There seems to be little doubt left that above mentioned “baker’s dozen” of boneheaded decisions, bilious due diligence, bad deals and big debt not only busted our dollar’s standing, but caused a cascading collapse posing a deadly threat to our entire economy. The failure has been spectacular to say the least. It is not as if this was impossible to predict though. Some of the reasons behind the disaster are not too dissimilar from the destruction of the Savings and Loan Industry a few years ago, a debacle by the way in which another Bush, Neil, played a prominent role. In hindsight, if the question had been posed as above, that is reciting simply the 13 financial policies on which the economy was retooled starting with Ronald Regan, how could anyone with even a high school education not concluded those cumulative policies could lead to a new meltdown? It is one thing to gamble, but on this scale?

Has no one in the Republican Party ever heard of the Mini/Max concept in which you try at least to minimize your maximum losses. Has no one with a (Chinese made) American flag pinned on their pin stripe suit read Adam Smith? Did everyone in charge assume the law of supply and demand can be violated with impunity? How did “Conservative” with a large “C” come to mean the opposite of “conservative” with a small “c”? Does an MBA degree stand for Must Blow All?

The harm may have been unintentional, but speaking as a practicing business lawyer, the case law has always been quite clear on such situations. Those whose wilful acts or omissions cause reckless endangerment of others should be held responsible. And, it was dangerous, extremely so given the size and interlocking aspects of the undertakings. Frankly, if the five Republicans on the Supreme Court had put self declared terrorist, Osama bin Laden, in the White House in 2000 instead of the self declared “Business President,” bin Laden probably would not have been able to do as much harm to our nation. At least his policies would have received better scrutiny than the current occupant.

There were some greedy Democrats among the many, many Republicans who were more interested in lining their pockets and protecting privileges than protecting the country. And, other Democrats no doubt deserve a certain portion of the blame for being too weak, too cowardly, or too ineffective to be able to stop the looting that has gone on for the past decade or so when Republicans either controlled Congress or had enough votes to block changes. I am not a Democrat and do not care for the present Democratic Party leadership and almost all need a swift kick in the pants or replacement. But, for the most part, blame for this latest in a series of monumental crippling fiascos must be laid squarely at the feet of the Republican Party as a whole and those the party members gleefully selected to lead them. Democrats may be stupid or naive, but the Republicans are truly scary. Extremely frightening to me, in fact. Worse, they succeeded at all or almost all they sought and the direct result is the potential equivalent of bankruptcy not merely for millions of citizens and companies, but the country itself.

Good grief. The number of zeros in the amount demanded by the White House, $700,000,000,000.00, for its so-called “bailout” plan to hopefully slow down the hemorrhaging is approaching the gargantuan sized pile the Pentagon spends on everything it does including two separate wars and trying to refit a tired and badly used military. Yet, the hundreds of billions in supposedly needed instant “bailout” was not even on the budget. Talk about budget busters, it is the biggest “bailout” of all time and may be greater than all the past ones put together especially when the other buyouts of the past few weeks are counted in dramatically upping the total. It’s staggering in its implications, almost unimaginable in scale. In any event, much of it is likely a net loss, maybe all. And, there is no reliable evidence that the hemorrhaging stops at a mere trillion or so. Shouldn’t there be some nagging doubt or scepticism about the concept as well as the amount since those telling us so are the same ones who told us the Iraq War would “only” cost $20 billion?

So, what to do? Bush’s Treasury Secretary has proposed a “bailout” which will give him an initial three-quarter trillion to play with. That Treasury Secretary and his boss had the nerve to initially demand Congress abdicate its Constitution responsibility to oversee the taxpayer resources being possibly squandered. The Secretary (who came to his position straight out of the same group of preening, cover storied, “geniuses” on Wall Street who made a lot of other promises and representations) asked, no - demanded, that he be given the power to do whatever he jolly well pleases with that huge pile of cash. He insisted that there be no oversight and especially no penalties or future liability for him. As to what he plans to do with it, he has already indicated he intended to simply hand the money over to the malefactors who caused the problem with no strings attached. He apparently planed to buy up his buddies stupidities (or thefts) and happily stick the tab with the taxpayers. If there are any profits later, those would have been kept solely by those who caused the losses. The Treasury Secretary still insists this be done almost immediately with next to no debate or investigation. The unmitigated gall and arrogance of such a proposal is something only the current Administration could have come up with. In light of their track record on this and almost everything else, they could have at least acted humble when they were proposing a pocket picking and power grab of such magnitude.

Since Senator McCain has said only days ago he greatly admires that Treasury Secretary. Of course, the Treasury Secretary McCain likes so much is the same guy who in March of this year was still going on TV to say the economy was great and let’s keep doing what we have been. McCain has voted for almost every financial deregulation plan his party has proposed over the past few decades and is showing us nothing really different even now. So, McCain just lost my vote for sure.

That leaves the rest of you in Congress such as my own Senator Gordon Smith, who wants to be re-elected for another two to six years even though he has supported so many of those Republican policies that lead us to this juncture. Whether I vote for him will depend on what he and the rest of you do about this between now and election.

If you vote in Congress to pass anything like what has been proposed by the Treasury Secretary, you do not deserve mine or anyone else’s vote. What might get my vote for an incumbent?

• For one, there needs to be denunciation of President Bush and the Treasury Secretary for even proposing such a “bailout” as initially proposed. There should be a public admission by Republicans that the Republican platform and policies on the economy over the past decades was a terrible idea. As for the Democrats, no gloating. You spineless wonders caved in on the abandonment of the concept that financial institutions should be fiscally conservative (with a small “c”). You have complicity in the tragedy thanks to your incompetency in stopping the rape of the system by the Republicans.

• Words are not enough though. If there is to be a transfer of taxpayer money from desperately needed other programs such as rebuilding our national security readiness and protecting our health, jobs and infrastructure, then NO CASH FOR TRASH!!!! Either buy the assets at current market value or buy appropriate shares of the company stock so that taxpayers can have at least a chance as owners, albeit a slim one, of protecting their investment. Or, possibly only allow the money to be given out loans secured by all the assets of the businesses obtaining the money.

• Maybe instead of giving the money to the idiots and maybe criminals directly responsible, perhaps use it instead to take over the mortgages of those poor homeowners suckered into the subprime mortgages with the escalating rates. By the way, didn’t anyone in charge begin to have suspicions once they heard about the “miraculous” growth of what turned out to be aptly named “subprime” mortgages? What part of “subprime” did they not understand? Certainly change the bankruptcy laws to once again allow the court to write down interest rates to fair market rates. Why should the banks be given a write down unless the people they duped or mislead get one too?

• There must be far better oversight and it better be both open and nonpartisan. Congress should closely and frequently oversee progress. Moreover, not all the money should be spent instantaneously. In other words, no bailouts without open and public hearings on each including looking at the books of the target institutions.

• There must be investigations to pin point what went wrong. How can we avoid another debacle unless we know what caused it other than voting Republican in the 21st century? Better yet, there must be criminal investigations with subpoena power to ferret out what appears to be some likely fraud and other criminal activity. Some jail time for the worst offenders might prove to have a deterrent effect.

• In that regard, a significant amount of the money allocated to “save” us must go to funding lots more professional non-partisan regulators and sufficient staff for them to do such ferreting. And, let’s roll back the roll back that was done by Republicans when they set out to restrict any serious regulating since the mid-80's.

• Encourage more savings and less spending by consumers. See that interest rates improve for those who want to put money into banks as depositors.

• We definitely need more transparency on accounting, auditors, appraisals and other “due diligence” practices. Ralph Nader had a good idea for reducing conflicts of interest. He suggested taking away power for auditor and rating agency selection from companies and placing it in the hands of the SEC to be administered on random assignment. Maybe create stiff penalties for those who refuse or fail. Certainly no bailout funds unless the companies receiving it agree to new practices and accountability. Prudence and conservatism ought to once again become the principles on which financial institutions make decisions. Increase their fiduciary obligations to protect the money of others.

• Perhaps ask Ralph Nader about another of his suggestions, to create a securities speculation tax, starting with derivatives, to deter what he accurately styled as “casino-style capitalism.” Also look at his proposal to avoid future housing bubbles by removing implicit government guarantees for new mortgages that exceed thresholds of greater than, say, 15 times the annual fair market rent value of the home. Doesn’t that sound like a prudent conservative thing to do? Why reject a suggestion simply because of who proposes it? Maybe Nader is on to something.

• In contrast, maybe there should be a continuing suspicion hereafter of those opinions coming from the now fully discredited (no pun intended) financial institutions. Maybe we need more consumer advocates or taxpayer advocates on financial company boards and regulating bodies. Certainly any member of the FDIC or Federal Reserve ought to be subject to Congressional approval.

• Maybe there ought to be warning labels placed on bailed out companies and executives of those companies similar to warnings we put on food, so that future customers know who were idiots and who weren’t. It could be a mandatory part of their prospectus, offerings, advertisements and websites. That would be a good idea even for the nincompoop pundits who should have known better and lead us to this juncture. Journalism will never be a genuine “profession” unless its members have a license before holding themselves out as practitioners. To be a true profession, it should be one with enforceable ethics and occasionally some getting fired for getting it so wrong.

• It is time to lower expectations. Wall Street rules lead to the breaking up of profitable newspaper chains because they weren’t making enough profits. Banks for the same reason made really risky investments because the bank owners and managers didn’t feel the rate of return was as high as it should be to be attractive. Expensive company CEOs made similar risky short term decisions primarily because their personal rewards in stock options and bonuses were tied to short term income, not long term safety or viability. Every silver lining has a cloud. Or, the proverbial “perfect storm” as this is turning out to be. Those might not have occurred if expectations were realistic.

• Certainly NO bailout of uber rich CEOs! If a company gets any funds, there must be no golden parachutes and none of the executives should be allowed to earn more than the President.

• And, enough of the tax cuts, especially for the massively rich. That includes reimposing a reasonable tax on estates of a million or more. Estate taxes can’t harm the financial institutions and would provide desperately needed funds for essential programs which will otherwise be crippled by the bailout.

• Maybe there should be a restriction on lobbying by companies being bailed out.

• Maybe there should be renewed questioning of aggregations, especially in the communications industry and control of news outlets by holding companies with potential conflicts of interest. It is hard to expect vigorous investigations of GE or Disney for instance by the networks those two own. The antitrust laws were created for a reason. The age of the Robber Barons of the late 1800s is not too dissimilar from today. Then, as now, that puts too much influence on the economy in the hands of too few.

• Do we really want to bailout foreign countries that own big pieces of some of the distressed companies? How will that enter the consideration?

• Whatever you do, do not act precipitously. How about asking for some corroborative proof to the extravagant claims of the Administration officials and those desiring to fleece what is left of our nation’s treasury?

The bottom line, as they ironically say in the financial world, is if you vote on a “bailout” without genuine study and reflection, then your foolhardiness becomes evident. So, what’s it going to be? Do you want my vote or do you want to continue with the binge that has been recklessly destroying our country? Your choice. Then, I get my choice.

“McCAIN’S UNCHAINED MELODY”

Or, Cain’t Keep Listening to McCain and the Lame Dame Proclaim the Same Ol’ Dang Thing

With Senator McCain, we can’t possibly gain.
He’ll continue the pain. It’ll fester and remain.

More economy strain. More military drain.
More pollutants in rain. More torture and shame.

The Constitution is stained if not totally slain.
Health’s not maintained. Folks dying in vain.

We’re hated from Bahrain clear up to the Ukraine. Whether Haitian or Dane,
Even in Spain, we’re hotly distained whether village or city or mountain or plain.

Why his pals acted so wild and insane, he still has yet to begin to explain.
From all that we can currently obtain, McCain is proclaiming just their usual refrain.

It’s a long, very long, culpability chain. So, why keep it the same and suffer again?


As for that questionable dame he chose to campaign,
Her main claim to fame seems to be her lipstick and aim.

Her confident claim is we assuredly sprang without contradiction from Able and Cain.
As for sex, just simply abstain. No need to worry if you’re upright, not layin’.

Her statements are so silly, you’d think she’s Mark Twain.
As far as the facts allow us to ascertain, Palin’s deranged and should be detained.

I shouldn’t be angry and loudly profane, but where the &#@% did McCain leave his brain?
The question to frame is do we want her to train when all of her answers focus on drilling and cranes?

She’s not a boon; she’s a bane. So, please pick again, not someone so lame.
She’s only more of the same of those who would reign.

Why in the world would you vote to retain someone from the party responsible for most of the blame?


This isn’t a game. It’s not arcane or mundane. Logic and research makes it quite plain.
Unless you really like to complain, select real change in those to ordain.

Barack is our man. Obama’s the name.
He’s bright and urbane. Look at all he overcame.

And what McCain won’t even feign to tame, Obama at least, will try to restrain.
With him in office, in the same vein, our principles and honor won’t tarnish and wane.

At least, he knows what we need to regain. A weather vane is not what he became.
So what if he bowls down the wrong lane? So what if he likes bread with whole wheat grain?

So what if he has a strange sounding name. So what if he drinks not beer, but champagne?
So what if he’s black? To what does that pertain? Is racism forever and always ingrained?

“Vote for Obama,” we proudly exclaim! Let him be the one in that big Air Force plane.

“CHOICES AND CHANGES”

Or, Do As I Say, Not As I Do

The Woman who wants to tell us what to do as vice-president says she is all for “Choice” at least for whether women with disabled infants and pregnant teenagers should be allowed to work full time as a governor and potential president or stay at home and take care of the kids.

She says in her campaign propaganda she wants to allow all kinds of happy Choices once she is in control. . .
• so long as the Choices do not involve women learning how to prevent pregnancies,
• so long as the Choices do not involve women having sex prior to marriage, and
• so long as the Choices do not involve women terminating an unwanted pregnancy even if the lack of Choice threatens the life or health of the women.

That’s not really much of a Choice, is it? And, don’t you have reason to suspect that if she herself was not stuck with a disabled infant plus a pregnant teenager, she would be insisting there should be no Choice on even that? In light of her other positions, don’t you suspect she would normally deny choice for someone in that predicament?

The voters do have a choice though. Voters can chose to say no to those who want to order women what to do even when it is a woman doing the ordering.


The Man who wants to tell us what to do as president says that he is all for “Change” at least as to which particular Right Wing thinking, Evangelical preaching, war loving, Neo Con touting, 95% voting Republican sits in the Oval Office. That is a change, of a sorts, I guess so he is not technically lying to everyone.

He says in his campaign propaganda he wants to make all kinds of happy Changes once he is in control. . .
• so long as the Changes do not involve taxing the incredibly rich,
• so long as the Changes do not involve eliminating our fatal dependence on oil,
• so long as the Changes do not involve regulating or cleaning up the environment in a useful way,
• so long as the Changes do not involve removing the proven nincompoops and partisan zealots in the current bureaucracy,
• so long as the Changes do not involve keeping jobs in America, worker’s rights or equal pay for equal work,
• so long as the Changes do not involve requiring insuring health care is available for everyone,
• so long as the Changes do not involve maintaining social security or welfare for those who need it,
• so long as the Changes do not involve expanding benefits for veterans or wounded,
• so long as the Changes do not involve enhancing college and upward mobility (except through rich trophy wives),
• so long as the Changes do not involve granting same sexes the choice of marriage,
• so long as the Changes do not involve freedom from religion,
• so long as the Changes do not involve free speech for dissenters, open meetings, equal time or continued public control of the airwaves,
• so long as the Changes do not involve restricting corporate consolidation of businesses and farms in the few,
• so long as the Changes do not involve regulating greedy excesses and stupidities in the business and financial world,
• so long as the Changes do not involve restricting access by Republican lobbyists or their deep pockets,
• so long as the Changes do not involve verifiable paper ballots when Republican built electronic voting machines are used,
• so long as the Changes do not involve redistricting or changing prior Republican gerrymandering,
• so long as the Changes do not involve revealing crimes or blunders of the prior Administration,
• so long as the Changes do not involve admitting the economy is in recession, any wrongdoing or saying sorry,
• so long as the Changes do not involve giving up the right to spy without warrants, to torture, and to prison forever without trial or counsel,
• so long as the Changes do not involve restrictions on threatening, invading and occupying foreign countries without cause,
• so long as the Changes do not involve allowing Democrats any say in future selection of judges.


There is at least one change though that we can be assured he will attempt – to change the Supreme Court so that Roe v. Wade can be overturned to eliminate the right of Choice for women. Well, actually it’s not entirely true that he wants to eliminate all Choices for women. Women will still retain the choice of using coat hangers in back alleys or not. That is both a Change and a Choice.

“ASSUMPTIONS VERSUS TRUTH”

Or, What Is Asserted about Obama and What Is Reality

1. ASSUMPTION: Obama is a Muslim and was sworn into office using the Koran instead of a Bible.
TRUTH: No, he’s not and never has been anything except Christian. He was sworn in using a Bible. The only so-called “evidence” to the contrary is a photo of him as a young man wearing a native costume that looks vaguely arab. If costumes are “proof,” then every Shriner seen wearing a Fez must be one too.
QUESTION: Even if true, should a religious test determine who should be president?


2. ASSUMPTION: Obama is Black.
TRUTH: No, only half right. Short of a paternity test, it is hard to be conclusive of who a father is, but passing through a womb is always conclusive of who the mother is. And, Obama’s mother is as white as McCain.
QUESTION: Even if true, should the amount of melanin in the skin determine who should be president? And, if the skin color should be considered, wouldn’t it help restore trust in the rest of the world that we really believe what we said in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence by electing a “Black”?


3. ASSUMPTION: Obama is an elitist because he eats Arugula and is thin. TRUTH: McCain apparently prefers designer bread.
QUESTION: Even if true, should a food preference test determine who should be president? And if it should, shouldn’t the president be a role model for healthy choices, especially in our obesity plagued nation?

4. ASSUMPTION: Obama is not a “patriot” because he doesn’t wear a flag pin 24/7 and because he questions the president’s decisions.
TRUTH: Anyone who says such nonsense ought to look up the definition of “patriot” and ponder exactly what our Founding Fathers were doing in 1776. Sewing the flag on the bottom of shorts is not proof of patriotism. And, the flag pins seen on most lapels are made in china.
QUESTION: Besides, shouldn’t the test of patriotism be more than blindly following orders or acting in conformity to others in fashion? If obedience is the test, that would mean the guards at Auschwitz were supremely patriotic.


5. ASSUMPTION: Obama can’t bowl.
TRUTH: Bet he can beat McCain bowling and would kill him in basketball. QUESTION: Even if true, except to insure the candidate is healthy enough to survive the rigors of the office, should an athletic test determine who should be president?


6. ASSUMPTION: Obama is young.
TRUTH: McCain is old.
QUESTION: Which is a greater risk – that a person will get ill in office or that a person will look too young?


7. ASSUMPTION: Obama is a celebrity.
TRUTH: Got me on that one. The first Black selected by any party ever to run for the highest office in the land can’t help but be a celebrity. Of course, most of our best presidents have been celebrities. One, idolized by conservatives, was even an actual “star” of movies (a B-movie star perhaps, but clearly a celebrity nonetheless). Besides, for every Brittney there is a Bono.
QUESTION: Isn’t to some extent determine, a popularity contest exactly what voting is about?


8. ASSUMPTION: Obama is popular with foreigners and attracts huge crowds.
TRUTH: Got me on that one too. Could it be jealousy because the crowds dwarf the small audiences McCain attracts?
QUESTION: Since we cannot go it alone in the world, wouldn’t it help to have a president who was popular abroad with both the leaders and their countrymen? Wouldn’t is be better if he was not distrusted or hated?


9. ASSUMPTION: Obama is rich.
TRUTH: By any test, McCain is far richer than Obama.
QUESTION: Should wealth disqualify an individual from the presidency? Shouldn’t the test be whether the individual uses the wealth to assist others or serve himself?


10. ASSUMPTION: Obama owns a house worth more than a million.
TRUTH: McCain owns several houses worth more than a million and can’t seem to remember how many he owns.
QUESTION: It is hard to find a good sized home for less than a million these days. On the other hand, how many homes does one person really need?


11. ASSUMPTION: Obama is uppity and egotistical.
TRUTH: Based on what?
QUESTION: Even if true, is it even possible for there to be a candidate for the office of president


12. ASSUMPTION: Obama is immoral because he does not want to ban or punish gays.
TRUTH: Obama is still with his first and only wife and did not abandon her because she was ill or not rich enough. McCain cannot say the same thing.
QUESTION: Shouldn’t the morality test for president be how they conduct their own life and not what they tell others to do?


13. ASSUMPTION: Obama is inexperienced.
TRUTH: Ah, at last a substantive issue raised by opponents to Obama. Obama obviously has spent less time in the Senate than McCain. Fair enough. McCain however has spent his time in the Senate voting for Bush fiascos 90% of the time.
QUESTION: Shouldn’t the test be whether the decisions derived from “experience” were intelligent ones? Perhaps better an unknown in office, than to continue a known candidate who continually courts disaster.


14. ASSUMPTION: Obama did not get shot at in combat serving his country.
TRUTH: Neither did great war leaders like Franklin Roosevelt. Or for that matter, neither did lousy war leaders like the current president.
QUESTION: Should being unskilled enough or unlucky enough to get shot in combat be the test for an administrative leader?


15. ASSUMPTION: Obama thinks he is smart.
TRUTH: Obama is smart. No one graduates from the top law school in the court and is selected to edit its law review unless they are proven smart. McCain graduated among the bottom of his class and still supports Bush and Bush’s ideas.
QUESTION: Shouldn’t we want a recognizably intelligent person in office?


16. ASSUMPTION: Obama is going to increase taxes.
TRUTH: Yes, the uber rich do need to worry. They will not be able to buy the second yacht if Obama is elected and will have to look at Mercedes for a new car each year instead of a Rolls Royce, but for almost everyone else, a tax cut is promised. McCain intends to transfer wealth from the lower and middle classes to his own kind by cutting benefits to those who can least afford it and shifting the costs of war to the children and grandchildren.
QUESTION: Shouldn’t the test be whose taxes are increased and why? Shouldn’t we look at benefits cut as well as taxes since both come out of the pocket in the end?


17. ASSUMPTION: Obama doesn’t want to drill off shore or in wildlife refuses so he must not care about high gas prices.
TRUTH: Such drilling will have little or no effect on gas prices for literally years. On the other hand, conservation and renewable energy sources like wind power will have more immediate affect not just on prices, but also on global warming.
QUESTION: Shouldn’t the question be reducing the dependence on oil, not just foreign oil?