An Arch Druid's take on the news

A note to two veeps

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:02:58 GMT

Yes, Senator Biden do rough her up. If you are going to run for Vice President, then you are what is called a heart beat away from the Presidency. There is no place for shrinking violets. Any GOP woman who screams and hollers "sexism" if you insist on Sarah Palin proving she is capable of the job, then you have already proved by way of those same GOP women, that she is not. If she starts whining at you for going after her aggressively, well, just bear in mind she did ask for the job. She should get the slings and arrows that come with being on the national stage. Senator Barack Obama has already endured it and is now Presidential candidate. So, if the GOP are of the opinion that Obama can get run through the grinder at every oportunity then the same can be done to Palin. She's a politician now, not "mom" first. So, be aggressive, "being nice" where Palin's talking points are attack, attack, attack on the most personal level possible, then you can dish it out as well. If she can't take it, then she isn't qualified. That is the sort of thing she would have to face were she indeed to become Veep.

Oh come on Sarah Palin: Maybe you can get by on that snowmobile by which folks in the mountainous northwest can relate to you by. But I have to wonder about that governor's mansion personal chef you dismissed. Who cooks 3 times a day at the Governor's mansion? Who serves out state dinners? Or do they go down to the local BBQ shack Alaskan style? Were you aware that Senator McCain did not square off against Senator Obama in the Senate when Democrats tried to bring GW's war to a close? Were you aware that at no time did McCain choose to buck the party line over a "surge" that took GW years to finally implement? And what I find amazing about how "successful" that surge was, even Gen. Petraeus quibbled over its surge, the GOP quibbled over the surge, even GW quibbled over the surge. Quibbled to the point where troop reduction arguments were out of the question as was bringing the war to a close. If the "surge" was a "success" then the war should have been brought to a close, right? Then what was McCain "right about?" He was putting the party first. He was putting GW first. But he was not considering the American people who were turning sour on the war. In which case, he wasn't "fighting for any of us," then was he?

McCain is all about shaking up Washington did you say, Palin? Beyond the McCain/Feingold campaign reform bill that the U.S. Supreme Court pretty much gutted, what did he in fact shake up? The GOP faces a lot of ethical questions during the time they had control of Congress, when did McCain step to the fore and insist on ethical changes? He did not. But the Democrats did. McCain may argue that he is totally opposed to earmarks, but he did not dictate to fellow GOP that they should not push earmarks either. That's pretty telling for a guy who's going to bring "ethical change" and "shake up Washington." Sorry Palin.

As you continue on the campaign trail Palin, I shall blog a lot more rebuttals to your canned and most definitely false talking points. And no, McCain did not fight the big spenders. How can we be sure he would do so as president?

A tale of two editorials

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:50:56 GMT

Republished in the Spokesman-Review of 3 September 2008. David S. Broder is a columnist for the Washington Post and Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services. What makes Broder's column interesting is that he goes somewhat more in depth when it comes to Veep candidate Sarah Palin who is Governor of Alaska, and Thomas on the other hand, spreads out GOP attack politics. In short, Thomas doesn't actually do any form of reporting, of trying to inform the readership. And anyone interested in Joe Biden's past Congressional record, can surely check it out for themselves, as they can't expect Thomas to do anything other than find a political ax to grind. So, if we are talking about "experience" on the Dem presidential ticket, then let us put it bluntly, that there is more experience shared between Obama and Biden than there is between Palin and McCain. And one other thing that Thomas seems to have ignored, while attacking Biden for holding contrary opinions of Obama before Obama tapped him to be number two, Reagan and G. H.W. Bush were campaign scrappers in 1979 before Reagan the primary winner tapped the first Bush to be his number 2. Why wasn't Thomas telling the public at that time that VP candidate Bush was running contrary to self? Oh, excuse me, Republicans, that's why. So, if Obama wants a fellow Senator as a running mate who has more experience in Federal gvt than himself? Why not? And Obama had already said he didn't plan on yes men in his administration. What Thomas describes about Biden, is that Biden would never be a yes man. Exactly what Obama needs. And therefore a negative. At least according to Thomas' world view.

On the other hand, we have Broder who takes a measured look at Palin and at the fact that the GOP are busy repackaging her. From a gal who hires a lobbying firm to funnel earmarks and pork barrel projects into her state and therefore hardly a supporter of McCain's anti-spending stance. She is now repackaged as a go-getter. Yeah, a go-getter of yours and mine tax dollars. The Evangelical community is "embracing her" despite the embarrassment of her daughter's unplanned pregnancy. Because they are immediately repackaging her as "transparent and honest." Is that a fact? The Daily Kos publishes rumors about who's baby "Trig" really is? Is it mom's, or is it Bristol's? Only after the rumors get published, then mom wants the facts made public. I am not so sure that we are talking about a truly transparent or honest person. Not when Daily Kos forces such revelations out into the open. And mom must now make the calculated risk of shining a political spotlight on her daughter.

Even though Senator Obama happens to be more than fair in saying that children should be off-limits to attacks or politicizing of any sort; I am not a member of his campaign, I do not donate to his campaign. And once you shine a political spot light on a member of your own family, you do tend to put your family under as intense scrutiny as you can expect for yourself. Sarah Palin consciously did that, and while the Evangelical community has shown how liberal they can be when it comes to a sinning little girl not waiting to get married before getting pregnant, on the other hand, if it was any other little girl, they would have been just as condemnatory as always. A matter of politics and who's party you are a member of.

___________________________________________________________________

On CNN the repackaging continues, Palin is a real mom, then 99.999999999% of the rest of the nation must not be "real parents." Palin is a real leader. If we can exclude her radical desire to render Alaska an "independent nation." As well as flip flops on the bridge to nowhere. (See the Cafferty files among other news sources.) You'll have to excuse me then if I don't believe as a Republican that being a "mom" somehow qualifies you to be a Veep. We don't elect presidents on the assumptions that they are "dads" first. That as a dad, they know exactly what families go through. While the GOP are so busy repackaging Palin as someone supposed to be "appealing to the women vote," they are at the same time, denigrating the kind of person she could be as a woman and a politician. Which makes the point, that not even in the GOP general heart of hearts do they even believe that Palin is "qualified" based on how the GOP have chosen to spin her. I have to pity Palin. "Trophy veep" but not a real one, were McCain to truly use her to a political advantage in November. I also pity this nation, if the voters fall for a guy with major health problems and a trophy veep.

I'll have no problem voting for the Dems.

The Politics of Family Values?

Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:59:17 GMT

In the midst of what was supposed to be the Republican National Convention, that is, to include the interuption of Hurricane Gustav, came the news that Gov. Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol was 5 months pregnant and expected to not only bear the child but also to marry the father, a high school sweet heart. No big deal, right? Seems we hear a lot about unwed children bearing children out of wedlock. Only some of the time do we hear that the parents actually support their kids and their sexually active lifestyle, one that results in unplanned pregnancies. If not worse. What makes this an exception, is that Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, is an Evangelical Christian. One that opposes birth control, wants abstinence only taught in public schools, anti-abortion... OK, but she has a child who apparently did not listen too well to mom, had sex and got preggers.

Senator Barack Obama made it an issue that he felt that going after families, even Sarah Palin's family, was off-limits. Good for him. So I think that I will make an issue of Ms. Palin's religion. If Bristol was supping religion as heavily as any other meal, then she could easily have said "no" to her boyfriend, "we can wait until we are married." Apparently not. In which case, what Evangelicals say about their own kids, is polar opposites of what they say about anyone else's kids. Indeed, they are quite condemnatory of permissive parents. The sort of parents that would let their kids run wild and then get into trouble. Like Bristol seems to have done. Continuing on that theme, a Palin supporter mentioned his own teenage daughter getting into similar trouble, and utterly dismissing it as "life happens." On the other hand, if "abstinence only sex education worked," he would have an 18 year old grand daughter starting college who had a father in her life. That is, the married biological father. Seems these moral purity types are first and foremost the permissive parents they can't stand to see in anyone else. It doesn't matter what their own kids do. It only matters what other kids do.

Continuing on, Tucker Bounds on CNN pushing potential Veep Palin and McCain. The only problem is, he couldn't or wouldn't answer Campbell Brown's questions about McCain or Palin. He preferred to keep taking whacks at Obama. My take on Bounds is a simple one, if you are that obsessed with trying to take down a political opponent, you aren't proving the worth of the politician you support.

Bounds was prepared to even argue that Palin would just get in there and really reform Washington, now that has to be one stupid remark. "Reform" either is encouraged in Congress; or "reform" starts at the top of the ticket. Unless McCain wishes to give his trophy Veep the sort of authority to institute reforms in Washington, actually, she would not. Not as a Veep.

The reason that McCain suddenly decided that a "private matter" concerning Bristol Palin's pregnancy could be made public, because of rumors about Palin's Down Syndrome baby that was born in April, being actually the son of Bristol and not of Gov. Palin herself. McCain was prepared to take great pains to correct those rumors at great risk of embarrassing his running mate. Right along with the trooper story, and Gov. Palin now hiring a lawyer to defend past official behaviors, could be among some very major embarrassments to hit the campaign trail.

Now for the final hilarity of the day; seems the Evangelical community doesn't much care that Gov. Palin wasn't capable of so truly disciplining her own daughter that her personal life could too easily become a political issue in a most remarkable campaign season. Reminds me of the late Helen Chenoweth-Hague. When word finally got out that she had been a home breaker, the religious activists were so anxious to see President Bill Clinton driven out of office, that it didn't matter to them what Chenoweth's past had been like. After all, Gov. Palin talks real pretty. She talks what they want to hear.

Now what if that had been a Democrat?????

Since 1 September 2008, McCain is in a crybaby huff over Brown's interview with Bounds, claiming that she was "over the line" in trying to find out what would truly qualify Palin as capable of stepping in to take over the reins of the presidency. No. Brown was not. And if McCain wants to pull an interview with Larry King that is up to him. But that says a great deal about his judgment. If he can't stand the idea that Palin can't deal with the scrutiny, then she is definitely not qualified.

Notes to the GOP

Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:09:25 GMT

Hurricane Gustav looks to upstage the Republican National Convention. Source: CNN. Also, because of Hurricane Gustav, GW and Veep Cheney will not be attending the convention. What has been suggested by Roland Martin, is that McCain and Palin get the GOP nod as presidential and vice presidential candidates and they shut the convention down.

Should the convention actually shut down because of Gustav, I'll agree it is because the GOP have been particularly burned by Katrina, some 3 years before.

When listening to the various GOP talking heads trying to talk up Gov. Sarah Palin as veep nominee in waiting, including a Washington Times reporter, and Rep. Boehner, you get the impression that they are all about just looooviiiing the fact that McCain for one bucked his own party. Uh, at the time he did, they did not--flip flop. And in the same vein, Sarah Palin bucked her party. At the time, I highly doubt that the GOP looooooveeeed the idea that she did so--flip flop. Then Boehner managed to engage in a gross error in judgment when he dismissed the presidency itself as nothing more than an administrative position. Oh really? Well then, even Senator Barack H. Obama could enter that administrative position as easily as any other.

While the GOP were dismissing Obama as having great communication skills but... I was suddenly reminded of a movie actor that became Governor, Ronald Reagan. No Governor, no matter how densely populated a state he or she has, really has foreign policy expertise, no more than any member of Congress truly has. The reason that Regan got the GOP nod in 1979 had nothing to do with his foreign policy expertise and everything to do with his ideology. The assumption was made that Reagan would put into place the sort of cabinet, counsels and advisors who'd take on much of the foreign policy burden. Today, the GOP no longer accept that a presidential candidate may be "inexperienced" well as long as he's a mixed race Dem candidate. But "experience" doesn't matter if "she's a mother of 5 kids." Well, Obama is the father of two. She spent 13 years in state and local gvts. --Of a sparsely populated state. And Obama was only a community organizer before he headed to the Illinois state legislature and from there to Congress. So being president isan "administrative position." Well then, myself who has never been in a gvt office, can become president.

So talk about your GOP flip flops.

While the GOP talking heads were telling us all about McCain putting "country first." I guess they don't want to discuss Keating 5. Or that Gov. Palin was really selected to satisfy religious social engineers such as Bryan Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance. Or that his putting her on the ticket in the first place was to tell the Democrats that you could have put a woman on yours and blew it. But if Obama had put Senator Clinton on the ticket, then her and hubby would have overshadowed his administration and likely for the political worse. The GOP wouldn't have wasted any time attacking Obama's choice--flip flop. McCain on illegal immigration--putting business interests first over and above the American work force. McCain's selection of Palin, putting the interests of religious activists ahead of reaching out to independents and moderates, of which I am one. If the convention becomes an attempt to raise money for the Red Cross to help areas of the Gulf coast soon to be devastated by Gustav, wouldn't it only be an attempt to engage in a political oneupmanship against the Dems? But then again, Gustav wasn't a threat to the American coastline when the Dem convention was underway. It is only now a threat as the GOP consider whether to hold theirs or not. Couldn't be better timing for showing us a GOP that would like to continue engaging in crass political opportunism.

Oh and by the way, CNN showed us numerous pictures of a New Orleans that had been rebuilt to cater to business interests, but in many areas still devastated that were the homes of people permanently dislocated by Katrina, no rebuilding of any sort. Businesses alone does not make a city. People make a city. And from what I understand from CNN exposes, the people of New Orleans got short shrift even 3 years after Katrina. So, McCain and Palin are now down in Mississipi. Given the proximity of that state to Louisiana, that might be a bad move. GW is heading to Texas, to monitor events there, Texas is a next door neighbor and could get a good hard thrust from this monstor storm. That could be a bad move as well. Because of the unpredictability of this force from the Gods, you would want your most important political leaders to steer clear of the danger zone. Whether GW or McCain as candidate in waiting. No, they should not be where they would be in any form of danger while this hurricane is churning toward the Gulf coast. Lending a help hand, touring devastated areas, that happens afterwards. Only a fool would get in the middle of it.

McCain's Trophy Veep

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:00:47 GMT

If I were Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, I would be running not walking away from accepting the Republican veep pick by dirty old man Senator McCain. Or I would have to be just really ignorant about the sort of man he is. It has been a known fact on the blogosphere that Senator McCain suffered a "mid life crisis" about the time his first wife was injured and disfigured in a car accident. McCain served up divorce papers rather than living up to his marital oath, inclusive of: for better or for worse, for richer or for poor, in sickness and in health... Cindy McCain became that rich trophy wife for a fellow with certain ambitions. So, if McCain thinks that Governor Palin can bring him the women's vote, well then: First point, not all women are "pro-life." Second point, not all women are life-long members of the NRA. Third point, there are plenty of women who are moms, so? Is that really what McCain wants to bring to the presidential table, a woman who's a mom first? Maybe he needs a mom! LOL! I too am a small business owner. Fourth point, Mitt Romney could have just as easily exploited his business experience to shore up McCain's weakness on economic policies. But, as that small business owner, wouldn't Governor Palin have suffered enormously in her small business endeavors because of the last 8 years of the GW domestic policies that favored global business interests? Energy companies? I am sure she does. But, when asked to succeed a presidential team that made an economic mess of this nation, with whom McCain agreed up to 90% or 95% of the time, isn't she only undermining her own efforts with her business? Fifth point, her son is going to Iraq, and just how many tours might he do because of GW's foreign policy?

I think someone ought to show Governor Palin the video of Senator McCain and his rich trophy wife at a Sturgis biker rally. Where McCain "jokingly" suggested that his wife could participate in a biker beauty contest. There is no question that Sarah Palin is a beautiful woman, would McCain take her around to a bunch of bikers and suggest she strip for their pleasure?

Bay Bucchanan was on CNN trying to be highly dismissive of the idea that women would not vote for a woman for Veep. Then again, Senator Clinton managed to prove that there islingering racism, which her campaign capitalized on, that people would prefer to vote for a white woman over a black man. She got those 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling because people are highly uncomfortable with the idea that a mixed race Dem nod for president might actually win that office. But, had it been Clinton v McCain, those 18 million cracks would have quickly disappeared, because people truly would not have been ready to vote for a white woman over a white man. Bay Buchannan doesn't face reality.

So, about the only "diversity" that I find in the McCain/Palin campaign is that she is a woman. But under no circumstances is she "diverse" from the sort of issues that McCain wants social engineers in the form of religious activists to vote for him on. So, not even as diverse a ticket as can be found in Obama/Biden.

Quite frankly, while the GOP have been on the air at CNN trying to be highly dismissive of Senator Obama's qualifications, between his time spent in the Illinois legislature and from there to Congress, he actually had more time in government than Palin itself. And while Palin is suddenly being lauded for wanting to reform the GOP in her own state, let us do remember something, there are two roles for a veep, to be ready to step in if something happens to the president himself. And to be president of the Senate to break tie votes. Unlike Dick Cheney, most Veeps have not taken an activist role in their administrations. Would Governor Palin "reform the GOP" on a national level as a traditional as opposed to activist Veep? She's there for political convenience, to pick up that disgruntled "Hillary vote." That as I recall, Rush Limbaugh encouraged Republicans to vote for Hillary in order to defeat that guy with a funny name. Not that they proved effective. So, would the "Hillary vote" a large percentage being GOP vote for a man with a woman as his running mate? Not if they are machismo types with racist tendencies. So maybe, they'll just vote for Bob Barr.

It has also been on the news, CNN that Governor Palin so-called anti-corruption and moral reformer, had some possible ethical problem as it concerned an Alaskan state Trooper who got fired on her watch. News at 11? And on the blogosphere, one of Palin's qualifications is being a mother of 5. Oh? McCain already has a first lady in waiting. He doesn't need two.

Let's first start with...

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:51:18 GMT

Some anonymous blogger puts "Thomas Sowell" as his "name of choice" on a post. When Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University gets wind of it, he cries "Identity theft." Well now, I know it isn't me, because my "name of choice" is FrmrId. And I only comment about Sowell's republished to the Spokesman-Review editorials. I think that I could understand that Sowell wouldn't care to have a bogus blog post attributed to him. But, I have yet to hear that a person's name is somehow patented! Or that there is a licence of some sort, such as with music, that you can't go around downloading music that current artists expect to be paid for in royalties no less everytime that music is played. Or that you can't lift without attribution online content where the authors of newspapers or news magazines are paid for their reporting. But here, the anonymous blogger uses "Thomas Sowell" to post to a blog perhaps an argument much like Sowell's own thinking. The "sincerest form of flattery" now becomes using a name that because of the internet and the press becomes known world wide for work that while the original Sowell did not write this, may in fact be in agreement with him?

As a side note, it has long been a fact known to biblical researchers that "John" or "Luke," etc. may not have been the actual apostles. But the actual authors simply borrowed the names of the apostles to give their own works now included in the bible more credibility. In short, the bible supports Identity theft circa Sowell's current beef. There could be a real argument here that Sowell wants gvt to step in and "protect his identity" from anonymous bloggers prepared to use it. James Bond also known as 007 who has sometimes posted to Dave Oliveria's Huckleberries online blog, had better be warned. Gvt may well be asked to protect names no matter how fictional and constrict what bloggers or commenters can use as names online. Myself, if someone wanted to use FrmrId on their own blogs and sow some "confusion," oh well? It would say to me that they lack real imagination in a failure to come up with something of their own. But, I wouldn't I don't believe have an "identity theft" beef with it.

Going on to Jonah Goldberg. There is no question that Goldberg would whine and complain about Obama's pick of Joe Biden as his running mate. Indeed, one of Goldberg's biggest criticisms is that the sole reason that Obama would even pick Biden for all that he was the polar opposite of Obama on the Iraq invasion, as an example, was to guarantee Obama getting the electoral votes in Biden's state. Wow, as seen on CNN as of 28 August 2008 that would be one reason why McCain would pick Mitt Romney, because he could deliver Michigan. LOL! Isn't that exactly why veeps are picked? To add strengths to the presidential nominee's otherwise obvious weaknesses? What Goldberg also neglects is that Obama made a very public statement that he didn't plan on yes men in his administration. Biden, if Goldberg is correct about his voting record and etc.; would hardly be a yes man.

CNN also alerts as to Senator McCain using past words past reflections against the Dem presidential team. Because Senator Biden had at some point appeared on Charlie Rose and questioned Obama's political readiness... it becomes an avenue of attack against Obama. The problem for McCain is that Biden dropped out of the race at its earliest stages, soon after the primaries had officially began. He ran no attack ads against his Dem opponents that equalled the nastiness of Senator Clinton's. And Biden is a senior enough fellow in Congress itself that he is surely entitled to sober reflections of his fellows in elected office.

GOP supporter of Senator McCain, reminding the voters that McCain went to Latin America. Whoooeeee, let's paaarrrrty. Wasn't McCain in Latin America to support NAFTA and CAFTA? Wasn't McCain basically supporting global business interests over those inevitably hurt by global trade? IE, through jobs outsourcing. Wrong move, lady. CNN, 28 August 2008.

A word of warning to the GOP

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:01:52 GMT

I can think of one reason why Hillary Clinton lost the Dem nod for presidential nominee, her ads supported Senator McCain. Now Senator McCain seems to think that he can take license from the Hillary ads to bash his opponent, Senator Obama. How funny is that? It certainly declares that Senator McCain has run out of original attack lines, original thinking, and now has to borrow what ever he needs even if it is from a Democrat, to win the White House. That's not showing judgment, leadership, independence, character, or even intelligence. You can't think for yourself unless someone leads you by the hand as to what to say, what to place as a pathetic ad?

Rudy Giuliani made an appearance at the Dem nominating convention. He made the rather remarkable argument that Senator Obama had made a big mistake not bringing Senator Clinton on board as his veep. Oh really? What Giuliani wouldn't exactly have cared to discuss honestly, was how much the GOP would have relished making a political target of Senator Clinton, just because of her husband. They lost that chance during the primaries, and thought that they might get a second chance should Obama make her a part of his team. What big mistake? As it is, the GOP win the consolation prize, they can just take advantage of Clinton's words. That guarantees one thing, Clinton's "18 million votes" won't mean squat. So for a Republican to take a whack at Obama and his refusal to consider Clinton and her "18 million votes" is to put the whole matter on the suspect list.

Senator McCain continues to play the wounded victim of Obama's "celebrity status." As aired on CBS News. Does Senator McCain no longer remember that he dared Obama to polish up his foreign policy credentials and take a tour of foreign countries? That Obama in doing so got the sort of reception that GW only wished he could have gotten in his last 8 years? McCain ends up sounding like he ate a whole two bunches of sour grapes and his ads and campaign speeches show it. So, just what does McCain bring as the presumptive GOP nominee? Not a lot, if he focuses all of his commentary on his opponent.

CNN showed us a GOP willingness to try to tear the hide off of Obama. News flash, blogs and message boards have been up and running for months trying to tear the hide off of Obama. So, unless the GOP can come up with something truly original, ho hum.

Can Michael Barone find relevant news?

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:45:40 GMT

Michael Barone gets frequently published to the Spokesman-Review, with all the negative attention he puts on Senator Barack H. Obama, you get the impression the fellow actually fears Obama would become president. And that is why he rehashes old news going back 10 to 20 years. He also wants to shove in Obama's face, his being pro-choice, a negative in itself. Well, being a pro-choice Republican, that would to me be a positive.

On the other hand, what if McCain were himself a shoo-in for the White House bid? Would Barone inform us about a video that ended up on YouTube of McCain appearing before a biker rally and volunteering his wife for a biker style "beauty contest?" No? But it would be relevant news given that McCain was only on the campaign trail when this happened. Given as well that the incident occurred in the last few weeks, it should be very relevant as something that would immediately punch a hole in the GOP's favored son's White House bid. To the best of my knowledge, Senator Obama did not make a caricature out of his marriage nor in the manner that Senator McCain had, embarrass his wife and family. Had he done so, that would be relevant news.

Weather Underground Bill Ayers who morphs into Professor Ayers. You would think that the news media would take into consideration that even "terrorists" who desire to violently over-throw the U.S. government in their younger and more radical years, are very capable of growing up and moving on. That is, if they don't succumb first to their violent ways. For Bill Ayers to become Professor Ayers, how much was his checkered past a consideration before he was to be ultimately hired on at the college or university where he now teaches? Not associations with aspiring wannabe politicians for the Illinois state senate, but his own past! That would be between the hiring college or university where he now teaches and himself. Apparently, Professor Ayers' history did not work to prevent him from teaching. And that is the point that Barone and those of his ilk seem to be missing the point on. Ayers is now a professor. He is no longer a terrorist style 60s radical. That being the case, if the university or college library were to abruptly close the door to public access of Ayers' files, the issue might be a simple one to explain that has nothing to do with Senator Obama. And everything to do with not embarrasing a man who seems to have become a respected professor. Or again, he would not now be at that particular halls of higher education. Therefore, what is there to see? What we know is out there. And there is nothing new to discuss.

What Barone has completely missed the boat on, Senator Obama has been fully scrutinized by the news media since the time that he announced his candidacy for the U.S. Presidency. A lot of that scrutiny was wild, speculative and only minor infractions of hard analasys for the news media to chatter about 24/7. Just how many real estate deals with now convicted felon Tony Rezko can you discuss at length? I understand that Bob Dole himself got a cushy condominium deal while U.S. Senator. Undoubtedly, it can be a mark against Obama, but it is also a mark against any politician who accepts fairly similar favors. Not only has Obama faced a constant barrage of media scrutiny, such as from CNN, but he even survived such scrutiny to go on to become the presumptive Dem nominee for the U.S. Presidency. Which begs the question about Barone, isn't he a day late and a dollar short?

Oh yeah, we can hear all sorts of constant rehashing of old news from here to election day. But, having already heard it, it won't change my opinion of whom I vote for. To put it bluntly, it won't be for Senator McCain.

Thomas Sowell on economics

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:58:34 GMT

If there is one argument that I can agree with Thomas Sowell about, is that government, especially a democractic one, is necessarily limited. A democratic government can't do it all. Or it lacks efficiency. A democratic government can't hope to control it all, or it ceases to be democratic. And that even further, capitalism can better address what has been described as "supply and demand." That it can provide on a private business level better delivery of goods and services than can the government. For the most part, correct. So, I wonder to whom Sowell was preaching his economic theory?

If a private citizen truly could provide better surgery with a set of kitchen knives than the most reputable surgeons now known, is it time to ditch the practice or is it time to improve the education? How about private citizens that convert their cars to run on alternative fuel, inclusive of solar power and batteries? Seems they are shaming the auto industry here in these states that are decades behind on the development of fuel efficient cars or those that run on batteries and solar power. Which begins to make the argument that "supply and demand" isn't always served as efficiently as it should be. Not when the same capitalists can field armies of lobbyists to importune government to aid them in keeping dinosaur automobiles on the road, dinosaur styles of engines whether gasoline or diesel within each car, truck, bus, etc. Reduce the CAFE standards because of course, they are too arduous to maintain. Until gas prices shoot over 100 bucks a barrel and people start buying Priuses. Then the auto companies start facing a melt down.

Maybe Sowell is now criticizing private industry for no longer being efficient in delivering goods and services. For needing government protection from competition, from the consumers, from itself. From its own greed. Such as was the case with home lenders that made it necessary for the government to step in and bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Or the taxpayers who had to pick up the tab some 20 years ago when the Reagan revolution deregulated the Savings and Loan industry which in turn went bankrupt and took with it, the life savings of thousands of people.

Then again, just how "efficient" is the capitalist system in delivering goods and services if those who are the captains of industry first operate from dancing dollar bills in front of their eyes? But not quality, nor with honor, and most assuredly without considering the long term stability of their own companies. It can be easily said that Sowell has a nice theory, a very good read, but theory has no practical reality given how the private sector wants government to do all and be all on their behalf. Which puts Sowell again as not being in touch with the facts, unfortunately.

Pitts defense of Obama

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:39:35 GMT

Leonard Pitts, jr, republished to the Spokesman-Review on the 18 of August 2008 went to great lengths to describe the smears and lies afflicting the Obama campaign, including Corsi's latest book, "Obamanation." I have visited at least 2 blogs/message boards in which Obama hatred has gone beyond virulent to the utterly ludicrous. The latter is found on AOL's own news channels, "No more hugs as Obama rips McCain." At least half of those posting demonstrated nothing but pure hatred for Obama. A percentage deemed Obama to be "not patriotic" for having no love for GW. Well now, dictatorships declare you have no right to criticique the leaders, and indeed, will have you executed for lacking in patriotism if you dare to do so. Problem for the sort of posters with that sort of mentality, this isn't a dictatorship! In a democracy, any political leaders can be criticized. And in the history of this nation in particular, criticizing one's leaders has been robust. The question I have then for such people, what makes you think that GW should be the exception? Maybe you can buy into the "dear leader" argument, but that if you claim to be "conservative" however, that's the total opposite of what you should be doing.

And then, the riff about black guys vs white guys. Those who won't take care of their own "white liberals." Technically, I am white and of Germanic descent, I was also born in a state that turned GOP and a state as well that seemed more prepared to satisfy special interests over and above the interests of its mostly white population. While posters were very prepared to scapegoat the other on the above message board, their heartburn is truly with those who's concepts of "compassion" lies with pharm companies who sell the drugs that end up injuring and killing those who take them. The GOP led "Medicare reform bill" assured that pharm companies would be able to milk the wallets of the taxpayers with no guarantees for the elderly.

Who's concepts of "compassion" lie with companies who outsource jobs and import poisoned food, pet food, toothpaste and toys. The GOP in the GW administration chose to be quite lax in the sorts of imports that enter our stores.

Watching McCain speaking to the VFW this morning, what he had to say about what "the troops" wanting to win, so McCain claims anyway, and on the other hand, the troops in Iraq are supporting with monetary donations, Senator Obama and state why—CNN, the troops believe they are on the wrong track in Iraq. Which begs the question of whether McCain knows all that or is simply dismissive of all that.

So yes, in this ugly campaign season, Pitts is correct.