Bark Back News

Conservative Hypocrites Continue Hot Streak

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:01:00 +0000

By David Litsky
Sex scandals involving politicians from both major political parties are nothing new (see Presidents Hart and Edwards), however the recent escapades of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and Nevada Senator John Ensign continue an astonishing pattern of hypocrisy involving some of the most self-righteous Conservatives in the country—many of whom have spent their careers lambasting the moral failings of others.

In fact, Sanford’s admission that he has been carrying on an extra-marital affair for the last year is only the latest in a string of sex scandals involving current and former members of the House of Representatives that voted to impeach President Clinton in 1997. Sanford (who served as a U.S. Representative from 1994-2000) is not the first, second, or even third, but the SIXTH such congressman to be caught in a similar situation to that for which they attempted to destroy Clinton.

First was the very man who led the movement to impeach, Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, whose steadfast commitment to family values led him to serve his first wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital recovering from surgery for uterine cancer. She then had to sue him for support for herself and their daughter. On top of that, he then proceeded to have an affair at the very same time as he was leading the charge against Clinton.

Ohio Representative Steven LaTourette was the next to cheat, carrying on an affair with his Chief of Staff from 2002 through 2004. Republican Vito Fossella Jr. of New York took things a step further, not only did he cheat on his wife, but he had a child out of wedlock with his mistress in 2007. Perhaps the most hypocritical of the bunch was Republican Mark Foley from Florida. The details of his sordid case were highly publicized at the time, but let’s refresh our memory shall we? Congressman Foley, a staunch advocate of children’s rights, who led the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children and introduced the Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act of 2002, was then discovered to have repeatedly sent sexually explicit text messages and e-mails--to teenage congressional pages!

The two instances that have brought this double standard to the public eye most recently are those of Sanford, who not only carried on an affair, but spent taxpayer money to visit his mistress--in ARGENTINA, and Ensign, current Senator and then Representative from Nevada, who not only cheated on his wife from 2007 to 2008, but recently admitted to paying the woman thousands of dollars in hush money to keep the affair private.

The Republican Party has spent the better part of four decades decrying the moral failings of its opponents, while marketing itself as the party of family values and morality. That moral megaphone was never screeching any louder than during the Lewinsky Affair. The GOP's crusade against Clinton's transgressions now seems like a monumental case of the pot calling the kettle a pervert.

This continuing hypocrisy on so called moral values is a large reason why the Republican Party seems to be floundering, and unless it changes either its rhetoric, or preferably, its actions, it will continue to haunt them for years to come.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

A Sweet & Talented Kid

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:42:00 +0000

By Scott Cavanagh
Michael Jackson is dead. Can that really be true? For a person of my particular age group, it’s impossible to remember a time when he was not there—on TV singing those stunningly mature vocals on the J5’s early hits; sporting the gigantic animated Afro in their cartoons; sporting an even bigger real 'Fro and freakin’ kids out with “the robot” while singing “Dancing Machine”. I miss that Michael and have for decades.

As he tried to grow up in the public eye, the sex, drugs and rock and roll culture of the mid-seventies did not jive with Michael’s innocent “man-child” persona and protected lifestyle, and that’s sad.
Perhaps in another time, he might not have been so tortured.

He created a wonderland of music and fun for other kids, but eventually had to build a fake one of his own--complete with carnival rides, hangers-on and bribed "Playmates". It’s cliché now to talk about Michael's stolen childhood, particularly after he began using it in recent years as a pat excuse for his increasingly bizarre behavior, but facts are facts. While other kids played, Michael Jackson rehearsed. When other kids were eight and their Moms were tucking them in at night--Michael was working topless bars in Gary with his brothers. The kid carried that entire family on his back for over a decade. That’s one heck of a burden to drop on any child. Perhaps that kid is finally free now… and that makes me happy.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:07:00 +0000

The Bark will soon be back...

Thirty Days in the Hole

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 00:41:00 +0000

By Scott Cavanagh
Welcome to Washington Mr. Obama... now its time to save the world.

That is pretty much the sentiment from coast to coast and from pole to pole--leaving our 44th president with more pressure on him to succeed than anyone since Superman spun the planet backwards to save Lois Lane.

Last evening's pseudo state-of-the-union address ended a tumultuous first month in office--one filled with a bunch of early successes and more than one or two unfortunate setbacks. So what have we and our new president learned about our government and its players since the 20th of January?

We learned that Bill Richardson is just as sleazy as we always thought he was (and by the way, Governor Bill--if you're facing a Grand Jury investigation, what in the Hell are you doing running for president?); Tom Daschle deserved his early retirement from the Senate all along; Roland "Tomb of the Pharaohs" Burris is the silliest little liar on the planet; and Republicans still believe every problem can be solved by tax cuts and church attendance.

We also learned some good things however. We learned that Obama is going to shut the unconstitutional PR disaster that is Guantanamo Bay--just like he said he would. We also learned that the $11 billion cut from the SCHIP health insurance program for underprivileged kids would be restored, the true costs of the Iraq-Afghanistan wars will now actually appear on the nation's balance sheet and Helen Thomas is back in the front row for presidential news conferences.

Then there is the stimulus package. Three Republicans. That's all the GOP support the new president could muster, despite presenting a plan that included about .40 cents in tax cuts for every .60 cents of stimulus. So much for bipartisanship.

Obama's bipartisan tone continued for most of last night's address, but as the speech progressed, the president left no doubt that times have changed in Washington--at least as far as the sacred cows of modern conservatism are concerned. You name it, he targeted it: overblown defense budgets, no-bid contracts, tax cuts for the wealthy, unfunded school mandates, war in Iraq, torture--they were all in the crosshairs.

Now things start in earnest. The people have heard the president's plans, along with the comically cartoonish "response" of the newest GOP fresh face with very old and tired ideas--Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Obama could be in trouble if people choose tax cuts and prayer over targeted stimulus and a new course. They won't. Only a small minority of supply -siders still believe that mantra--if they ever even did--and the average American just has to look at his or her own bank account or 401k to know who is on the correct side of this argument.

Odds and Ends--
The selection of Jindal to give the GOP response to the president's address is one of the funniest pieces of political Jujitsu I have ever witnessed. Only three months ago, the entire conservative case against Obama revolved around his lack of experience, his rise from the sewer of Chicago politics, his childhood conversion from Islam to Christianity and his funny name. Now 90 days later, Republicans are all a flutter over the prospects of a 37-year-old-governor that was a Hindu until his 20's, took his American name from the Brady Bunch (think the GOP will be referring to him as "Piyush Jindal"--ala Barack Hussein Obama--any time soon?) and hails from the squeaky-clean state of Louisiana. Its almost as ridiculous as them crying about the size of the stimulus bill after doubling the national debt in less than a decade. You just can't make this stuff up.

Speaking of hypocrisy, did anyone catch John McCain's infamous "helicopter question" at Obama's open Q & A the other day? The Arizona senator grilled the president about the costs of a new presidential chopper to be unveiled next year. While the outrageous price tag on the vehicle does raise eyebrows, it seems a tad disingenuous for a man (McCain) that has wrecked not one, not two, but five multi-million dollar fighter jets through his own negligence and hubris (his words, not mine) to complain about the costs of the vehicle that carries the leader of the free world.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Enough Already About "Greedy" Auto Workers

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 03:43:00 +0000

By Scott Cavanagh
For a good part of the past three months, there has been an ongoing debate in this country about what constitutes a "middle class" income. As President-elect Obama touted his plan to decrease the tax burden on average Americans while raising the tax rates of those making over a quarter-million annually, many on the right cried "class warfare." "Who decides what is middle class" seemed to be the prevailing argument of many conservatives--and they had a point. While it's hard to imagine households with an annual income of over $250,000 struggling to make ends meet with anything less than a bloated lifestyle, its pretty safe to say that those who make six figures in America 2008 are not rich--but instead constitute a certain level of the middle class that is finding it harder and harder to provide the same lifestyle for their families that their parents did--despite nearly double the income. There is a big difference, however, between those that make 100k and those who make two-and-a-half times that amount, but for argument's sake, let's assume that those making a quarter million annually are part of the middle class.

What does this line of thought have to do with auto workers and the proposed $25 billion bailout of their three parent companies? Plenty. For the past few weeks, speculation has run high that the big three U.S. auto giants would soon be hitting the government up for an aid package similar to the $700 billion one provided to the financial and credit industries. That scenario came to fruition this week when the CEOs of GM, Ford and Chrysler came calling, hat-in-hand, to Congress.

There are so many obvious reasons for everyone to be angry about this request--from the lousy and misguided product lines these companies have produced for over thirty years, to the lack of research into fuel efficient vehicles, to the outsourcing of jobs and plant operations overseas to save a few bucks while rewarding mismanagement with outrageous salaries and bonuses. Ford lost 33% of its market share last year while its CEO received a $16 million salary--and a $15 million bonus.

Of course, simply saying no to the survival of the entire U.S. auto industry is no easy decision. With literally thousands of interconnected businesses--from suppliers, and distributors to auto credit operations and dealerships--the collapse of the big three could cause a ripple effect unseen in American history. So, what do we do? It appears that really only three options are available to us: 1) give the money to the big three and hope they have a miracle comeback and are not back at the beggar's table in six months; 2) devise some sort of creative Chapter 11 bankruptcy that would allow the companies to reorganize management and labor contracts, eliminate debts and stay afloat; or 3) allow them to fall into Chapter 7--full liquidation.

If these were different economic times, this loan would simply be made and things would probably turn around quickly, as they did two decades ago with the Chrysler bailout. But these are anything but normal conditions--and only weeks after Congress handed the Feds $700 billion dollars to bailout Wall Street, handing out even another dime seems outrageous. But while everyone appears to be in agreement that giving these management teams another $25 billion would be akin to burning it all in a dumpster, nobody wants to oversee the Chapter 7 liquidation of one of the greatest institutions in American history.

Which leaves us with Chapter 11. While the majority of Democrats, including the president-elect, favor a conditional $25 billion loan that forces the car makers' hands on issues like fuel efficiency, environmental standards and executive compensation, more and more Republicans are making the case that a Chapter 11 action is the way to go. No more good money after bad; this time it would be a fresh start with less debt and a chance to reorganize efficiently.

Unfortunately, it appears that when all is said and done, the main target of this GOP restructuring talk is not the gas-guzzling, cheaply made ugly cars and ridiculous, terrorist-funding Hummers and SUVs spat out by these corporate dinosaurs over the past 20 years. It's not even the executive pay scale that allows for $20 million failure bonuses. The GOP's main focus: labor contracts. Wow, what do ya know? Yes, it's those greedy workers with their big salaries and benefits that are running these companies into the ground. If we could just renegotiate the contracts so they got paid like Wal-Mart workers, everything would be fine, and the stock price would soar and the rich would get richer and the CEOs could keep their jets--while the workers applied for food stamps.

If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a conservative economist or legislator talk about the bloated salaries and benefits of blue-collar auto workers, I could bail out the big three myself. Funny how nobody talked about how much the financial wizards at AIG and Bear Stearns were making before they handed them $700 billion, no strings attached. Did anyone ask them to take any pay cuts? How 'bout cuts in benefits? Hell, that cash is openly being used to pay multimillion dollar executive packages and holiday junkets. But $25 billion to the auto industry's blue-collar workers? Only if they accept cuts to those "bloated salaries" and benefits.

And its not just conservatives that repeat this baloney over and over again. In an open editorial about the proposed bailout, CNN's Campbell Brown echoed those same sentiments, stating that some in the auto industry "make as much as $30 to $40 an hour--with benefits!" What do you think Campbell Brown makes to sit in front of a camera and look pretty? Think it's more than $30 an hour? If it is I'm sure there is NO WAY she gets BENEFITS TOO!! That would be outrageous.

A $30-an-hour job pays $56,000 a-year. Is that rich? Does that person deserve a pay cut? I was under the impression that $250,000 was middle class. Which is it? What do these critics of auto worker pay propose they make? Should they have no health care, or retirement? Do any of these critics have jobs without health care?

It's a simple point. If $250,000 is middle class, then an auto worker raising a family on $56,000 does not deserve a pay cut--he deserves a pat on the back for being able to survive.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

America '08: One Big Dysfunctional Family

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 03:01:00 +0000

Posted by TDaddy
I took my six-year-old daughter to an NHL game last night. I always try to get there in time for the National Anthem -- especially when one of my children are with me. As I removed my hat and we sang "and the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there..." I looked at the flag and then back at my daughter and wondered what the soldiers defending Fort Henry in 1814 would think about these United States nearly two hundred years later. Surely, they would not recognize much. But, they would no doubt be proud to have defended what became and has remained the strongest democratic republic in history through which personal freedoms and economic opportunity have spread to most of the world.

Although my chosen political party lost the election last week and the balance of power is now firmly in the hands of Democrats, when I pause for the national anthem I can't help but feel a continued and abiding sense of pride to be a small part of this American experiment. The power wielded by the governing President -- especially when his own party controls the Legislature is immense. And yet the founders of this nation were brilliant enough to devise a system with sufficient checks and balances among the three branches that the majority party is never able to manage complete consensus - let alone rule as a the monarchs of England once did. Now, as we make the 44th peaceful transition of Executive federal power, we are vividly reminded of the reasons the rest of the world looks to us for leadership. Without the United States, this world would be a vastly different place. It is no small coincidence that dictators have been thrown out in much of the world and replaced by governments that necessarily provide more freedoms to their citizens including the right to chose their leaders and follow their own dreams. These world developments had their origin in the loud cry of human freedom exercising its strength and pride from America. Still, there are billions who live under tyranny, but we can take solace in the fact that the unrelenting force from the human desire to be free has spread from our nation and it will eventually find its home in more places as the oppressed hear about what freedom can be.

It is true that I have sharp differences with some of the stated policies of President-elect Obama's administration. However, those differences cannot diminish the pride I hold being an American and the hope I harbor for the future of this great nation. Every time we have a national election, my pride and hope is given new strength. Some 55 million voted for his opponent last Tuesday, and yet Mr. Obama will be OUR President. We are like a family: we honestly -- and sometimes brutally -- shout our differences at home, but we passionately defend each other on the streets of the world. Let us never forget the ties that bind together as Americans. I look forward to the next four years as an opportunity to freely speak my opposition to polices I believe go against the nation's best interests while at the same time putting my hand over my heart in support of this great nation. Our best days are still ahead of us.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Obama Won for All the Right Reasons

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:01:00 +0000

Posted by Stephen Hart
I begin this post at 2:23 a.m., a little less than two hours after the conclusion of President-Elect Barack Obama's victory speech. Actually, "victory" doesn't do it justice; the word seems too much linked to a mere contest, even if the prize is leader of the free world.

His message to the American people and to all countries whose fate and fortune is intertwined with the United States (which is basically most of the globe) -- and the promise that he will bring to the White House -- transcends the term "victory." Because, as Obama himself said, the real winners tonight are us.

We won because Obama, whether you voted for him or not (or even like him or not ... and after his words at Grant Park in Chicago, you'd have to be completely stubborn or without a pulse not to feel even the slightest bit of hope), made us care about the process again. All you have to do is take a gander at voter turnout, and the videotape of lines wrapping around polling centers, to see that.

Of course, some people voted simply to try and prevent an African-American from becoming president.You didn't hear words of blatant racism from those people, just the usual read-between-the-lines catch phrases. Or they hid behind GOP talking points that were so old, you needed a can of Pledge to dust them off. I witnessed such conversations between like-minded voters while I was on line this morning. And I live in New York, not Alabama.

And yes, I'm sure some African-Americans were guilty of voting for Obama simply because of his ethnicity. Is that any better? Not really. Do they have more of an excuse? Well ... yes. After all, it's not like African-Americans have won a lot of these battles -- whether those battles were at the voting booth or in the court room or in any situation where African-Americans have been made to feel afraid or powerless.

I watched the night's election coverage in a small Obama headquarters on Staten Island, the most conservative of New York City's five boroughs. I watched it with a predominantly African-American audience that rejoiced every time a state was called for Obama. And I celebrated right alongside ... and the last time I looked, I wasn't black. (Although, to be honest, I truly couldn't appreciate the victory quite like my African-American colleagues; it's only natural, I don't have their perspective.)

Which got me thinking: Maybe the reason why we were all rooting so hard for Barack Obama is because his life reflects ours a lot more than John McCain's and his seven houses (or is it eight, I keep losing track), or George W. Bush and his silver-spoon, Air-National-Guard upbringing. If you don't think that's the case, then why did Obama win over more working-class white voters than McCain (or past Democrat nominees John Kerry and Al Gore)?

It's true that part of the reason I voted for Obama is because of his dynamic personality. I gave money (the little that I could afford) to the past campaigns of Gore and Kerry, but I didn't get off my butt and do anything else on their behalf. Obama, through his words and actions, motivated me to the point where I felt compelled to get involved. It was the essence of a grassroots campaign, and the organization and execution of Team Obama was the political equivalent of Vince Lombardi's Green Bay power sweep. It started when the campaign simply asked for small online donations ... $5, $10, $20. They made you feel that even such a small contribution was making a difference. After that, you were hooked. You started emailing and phoning the campaign asking what you could do. And when you volunteered, they couldn't have been more welcoming and encouraging. I have been voting in elections for 25 years and I never felt like that about any candidate.

You felt that way because the man simply exudes grace and class. He isn't the elite snob as he was portrayed by both Republican and Democratic rivals. But he also doesn't play to the least common denominator. He's smart and doesn't feel guilty about it, and he shouldn't. He doesn't flaunt his intelligence, but he also doesn't "dumb it down" for the masses. He gives well, thought-out responses and not just some five-second sound bytes that play well on the nightly news. I don't want a president who I can picture having a beer with. I don't think Barack Obama will be caught chewing his food with his mouth open at state dinners or giving back rubs to female world leaders.

The international community quickly and loudly weighed in with an overwhelmingly positive response for Obama. The 200,000 or so people who showed up to hear him speak in Berlin this summer had already told you that. And guess what ... the world's opinion of us matters. George W. Bush doesn't think so, and look at our current standing amongst our allies. This country will need global friends to help fight our battles -- whether they're in Middle Eastern deserts or on Wall Street.

But more than Obama's cult of personality, the bottom line in voting for a candidate is because you agree with his policies more than the other guy's. I believe Obama's economic plan is better for me; that he's more concerned with providing health care for all Americans; that he's more concerned with education. And, for all the hawks out there, Obama will make the military decision to concentrate our troops in Afghanistan rather than Iraq-- because wasn't the original war goal after 9/11 to capture Bin Laden?

Political talk shows can bring on all the analysts they want, and come up with all kinds of factors for McCain's loss (to me, he lost it the day he tabbed Palin as his VP). But throw out all the pie charts and graphs and exit polls and demographic numbers -- the bottom line at 4:21 a.m. on a Wednesday morning is that most Americans believed in Obama more than McCain.

It's change we can believe in. Here's hoping, and praying, that it comes to fruition.

Stephen Hart is a veteran reporter for the STATEN ISLAND ADVANCE and a regular contributor to BarkBackNews.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

FINAL HOWLS: Election Day Diaries

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:44:00 +0000

This election will be characterized by massive turnout, but not just because blacks and young voters will turnout in record numbers. Fear driven whites will also turn out in massive numbers in response to the prospect of a black man being president.

In the past, strong turnout by Republicans and conservatives has been enough to overcome the numerical advantage of Democrats. That won't be the case in this election. The surge in white voters will be impressive, and keep it from being a complete landslide, but it won't turn the tide of this election. For once everybody votes, and Obama wins.

If McCain loses he has no one to blame but himself. He was the perfect candidate to beat Obama: a reasonably conservative guy who could appeal to most conservatives, but with a well established reputation as a straight-talking maverick who would vote his conscience over party politics if it was for the good of the country. His resume, and most importantly character, could appeal to independents--especially independents who might be hesitant to vote for an untested black man in a time of crisis.

But McCain sold out. The country watched as he changed positions to pander to the right wing. We watched as he picked a supremely unqualified person to be VP because he thought she could win him votes. And we watched as he ran a slanderous campaign that simply lied about his opponent. His impressive reputation, which could have won him the election, was gone.
BoxCar John

END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Obama Draws Record Crowd in Columbus

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 05:27:00 +0000

Posted by Scott Cavanagh
A crowd estimated at over 50,000 flooded the grounds of the Ohio Statehouse yesterday to hear Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama make one last appeal for their support on Election Day.

The rally felt a bit more like a religious revival or a concert than a political event--with dignitaries from Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman to Governor Ted Strickland serving as nothing more than Steve and Edie warm-up acts to Obama's Sinatra star power. The Illinois Senator did not disappoint. Blessed with perfect weather to augment his near-perfect delivery and diction, the Democratic nominee rifled through a series of topics in a relatively short time-focusing on some of the main stump speech standards (McCain's support of Bush policies, his lacking health care plan, etc.) that have been gaining traction with voters for weeks.

According to Coleman, the rally was the largest of it's kind in Ohio history.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

A Taxing Debate...

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:02:00 +0000

With only four days remaining before the election, debate is still hot and heavy over both candidates' proposed tax plans. Some choice comments from the past few days...

"I do not believe the central issue of tax policy is "fairness." If it were about fairness, there would be no income tax at all. What Obama has done is place a thin veil of "middle class tax cuts" over a policy that is intended to do nothing more than appeal to class warfare. The purpose of an income tax is to finance the government. Period. Taxes are about money and economics. The only logical purpose for changes in the tax code is to affect the economic behavior of people and businesses in order to encourage positive economic behavior such as investments, savings and consumer spending. This in turn increases profits along with government revenues. To me, it makes no sense to redistribute wealth to those who pay little or no taxes. It may make us feel good about ourselves, but it does nothing to encourage job creation, investment in research and development and consumer spending. When we decide there are those in our society that need help, the government can provide help and it is called Welfare. We can argue about what welfare programs are truly necessary and actually assist the poor (see Welfare reform signed by Clinton--good for him) but we should not dress up welfare as a tax cut which results in the government writing a check to millions who pay no taxes at all."
-TennisDaddy

"To clear a few things up about how Obama's plan is going to hurt people making just over the $250,000 level, let's look at the real numbers. According to MONEY magazine, FORTUNE AND the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, here is what will happen to your taxes under Obama's plan:

Under $19,000-cut by $567
$19-38,000-cut by $892
$38-66,000-cut by $1,042
$66-112,000-cut by $1,290
$112-161,000-cut by $2,204
$161-227,000-cut by $2,789
$227-603,000-increase by $12

If you make less than $603,000, the biggest tax increase you can get is $12. You can also see that the majority of the tax relief goes to the real middle class--not the poor. Where do you guys all fall in? If you are paying more than $12 extra in taxes--you need to start buying the beer. If not, thank Barack for your tax cut."
-SC

"The company I work for is a private company owned by the physicians. My physicians are some of the lucky ones who make over $250k annually (many do not). We employ 125 people and service eight hospitals--providing care to over 800,000 patients annually. Our costs (particularly health care) continue to spiral upward--and radiology has become an IT business out of necessity in order to become more cost effective and productive--so we are as lean as we can get right now. Any increased tax on those greedy $250k+ wage earners means my bosses' incomes will go down. Because we have reached maximum efficiency, the only alternative will be to lay people off. Laid off people don't spend money and the economy slides further downward. Businesses that lay people off also have less people on their payroll which reduces income tax revenue. The business owners now have less take-home pay and no longer take vacations or remodel their homes, which impacts the middle class business owner because his "greedy" customers have reduced their spending.

Now some would argue that my owners should be accepting of working harder to make less money and therefore should accept a pay cut to retain their workers. The reality is that I will be forced to lay-off personnel if Obama/McCain raises taxes in an already tight cash environment. Hopefully, I will not become one of those that are laid-off, as I make a pretty good living and we middle managers are the first to be chopped. So, if Obama is elected president and raises taxes on my bosses, can my wife and four kids come live with you?"
-FoxFire

"Why is it that every time a Democratic or Progressive candidate tries to give even the smallest break to the people that have the least, conservatives conclude it will result in them becoming destitute and homeless? That's the same stuff they were warning about when we elected Clinton, and they survived just fine. Now after eight years of Bush disasters they are concerned about Obama costing them their jobs. Same old song. Want to save your employers some cash? End the war in Iraq and the $4 billion-a-month hemorrhage."
-E. J. Black
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Beware Comrade Obama and Bush Economics

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:02:00 +0000

Posted by Scott Cavanagh
Barack Obama is a Socialist... better yet, a Communist. That's all that the McCain camp appears to be left with one week before Election Day. They tried "terrorist" for a couple of weeks but that didn't seem to stick--something about Obama being a United States Senator and model citizen--so now we're left with labeling him some sort of Marxist. Man, how did Barack slip that one past us--and Colin Powell too?

Sure, adjusting tax rates so that the rich pay the same percentages they were paying under those raging socialists Reagan/Bush would be like a regular Communist revolution! Viva Fidel!

Funny how when Bush gives people that are already rich and prosperous huge tax cuts, that's not "redistributing the wealth," but rather providing "tax relief." The principal McCain camp factoid that 95% of those receiving Obama's tax cut do not pay any taxes, is a lie to begin with. Those people pay the majority of their tax (as do 98% of the population) in payroll taxes--a tax the average mega-rich person living off of investments and inheritance (two other taxes conservatives want to eliminate completely to avoid any tax burden whatsoever) don't pay.

Hey Joe the Plumber, or Barney the Butcher for that matter--keep looking out for the welfare of those billionaires, buddy--I'm sure they have your best interests in mind as well--while they set up PO boxes in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying any tax at all. How patriotic. Then later, if they have it their way, they can give that money--tax free--to little Junior, who can sit on his ass for the rest of his life and live off of the tax-free dividends that guys like you helped him accumulate by supporting policies that do nothing for you and everything for him. Guess what else Joe? If you bust your ass to make $60,000 in a year, you now pay a higher tax rate than billionaire Warren Buffett. And that little prick you went to college with who inherited all that cash from his tax-dodging dad--he made $60,000 in investment income and didn't pay a dime.

While 33% of the national work force is making less than $15,000 annually, and half of the country is earning less than $30,000, Republicans are crying "class warfare" because Obama wants to give a tax break to the 97% of the country that makes less than $250,000. What a Commie!! How have Bush/Cheney economics worked for you so far? Just keep pushing the money upwards guys--that's a really great idea. A country with a handful of billionaires and no middle class is not a thriving republic--its freakin' Mexico.

Adios Amigos.

END OF POST

Barking Back: Top Reader Comments

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:53:00 +0000

Mike Hart on The Final Debate:
"I listened to the second half of the debate at work and saw the last ten minutes. When it was over I heard many of the pundits saying McCain had done a really good job; however, I then watched the debate in its entirety on tape and I did not see that - and I do not think it is because I am going for Obama.

Obama was very cool when facing Mac's scurrilous attacks but he handled them all well - especially the Ayers thing (great concise explanation ) and the new stupid ACORN thing (although he should have pointed out that Mac was the key speaker at an ACORN rally in 2006).

Mac got off a good line on not being Bush but Obama had countered that line before and after the line with his remarks how Mac is like Bush with his voting record.

Obama destroyed Mac on health care and left Mac looking stunned as he ripped Mac's lame "fine" thing. The average cost for Americans health coverage is $12,000 by most accounts, not $5,800 as Mac claims and even if it is that number, you still take a loss with his $5,000 credit (if you lose coverage) - so who wants a loss?

Obama gives Mac too much credit on too many things, like the torture issue, an issue that Mac has gone back on. Credit Obama for not doing his slight stammering as much this time and for not agreeing with Mac that much this time.

Great job by Obama clarifying that "Joe the Plumber" would not lose coverage under his plan and small business would not either. No one said "Joe the Plumber" was rich except Mac trying to be funny, fell flat - as did his wealth distribution warfare thing.

The Dems should highlight Mac's statement that they and abortion groups make too much of a woman's health when dealing with abortion - that should be all over ads!

Thought Obama should have corrected Mac on many things when Mac lied/erred but maybe he felt that would use too much time. How could Obama have voted against Breyer? He was not even a Senator then. I think Mac meant Alito and Roberts. Obama should have pointed this out - it would have showed Mac had another "senior moment.""
**********
Carter McCoy on The Final Debate:
"I think McCain may have made up more ground in this last debate than people think. He clearly dominated the first 45 minutes or so and made some very strong points about income redistribution and his own record. This was at worst a tie for McCain. "
**********
Anonymous on McCain's Attacks:
"Casual T--Do you really believe the "hate" speech is going in only one direction in this campaign? Good heavens C.T., have you heard anything that democratic supporters have said about Palin, her family, and even the birth of her child? Are you completely dismissing all of that hate speech? Apparently the feminist movement does? Biggest lesson learned in this election--feminists leaders in America are only concerned about like-minded liberal women. U.S. feminists leaders are AMAZINGLY silent in defense or support of women who are unjustly attacked, and happen to have a conservative viewpoint."
**********
TennisBum on Thoughts from the Editorial Board:
"If you think Obama won't raise taxes on the middle class as well as the wealthy you are naive. Clinton gave the same promise back in 1992 saying he would only raise taxes on those making over $200k. In 1993 he raised taxes on all but the poorest class."
**********
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Notes on the Final Debate...

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 03:32:00 +0000

Posted By Scott Cavanagh
Easily the most productive and lively debate of the three. Some thoughts I jotted down during the event:

--McCain sure does take a lot of notes. He spent more time scribbling during this debate than he did wandering the stage in the last one.

--The "Joe the Plumber" bit was effective for about the first seven references--by number eight I hoped Joe would lose his business and go bankrupt. No matter how many times McCain repeated the theme, it did not change the fact that Obama's plan would not raise Joe's taxes a dime unless he made at least $250,000 last year.

--McCain showed real political bravery on the question of spending cuts, when he said he would consider repealing lucrative ethanol subsidies that are very popular in GOP-leaning farming states.

--While his voting record may indicate otherwise, McCain had the line of the night when he reminded Obama and the viewing audience that he was not George W. Bush. He continued to impress when he listed the many areas where he has stood up to his party over the years. When put in laundry list form--it is a very strong record.

--Things started to get away from him (as his campaign did IMO) when the subject turned to Sarah Palin. Is it just me, or does complaining about a $3 million planetarium project in Chicago seem a tad ridiculous when your "maverick reformer" running mate requested $28 million in earmarks for her Alaska hunting camp of 6,000? And when did the governor become the foremost authority on special needs children--in the five months since her son Trig was born? Man, that woman is good. According to McCain, she has transformed the entire good old boy network of Alaskan politics, delivered her fifth child, arranged another shotgun wedding, become the foremost expert on special needs kids AND ran for VP--all in 18 months!! You'd think she could handle Katie Couric.

--Forty-five nuclear power plants. Forty-five! That's how many uninsurable--lets replace carbon emissions with a more deadly bi-product--terrorist targets McCain thinks we need to build in the near future. Maybe AIG can insure them--they like big risk. Oops.

--It was great to hear Obama take on the oil companies about the hundreds of miles of coastline which they already control and refuse to drill under. That is a major point in the drill-or-not-drill debate and needs to be addressed.

--Health care was the killer for McCain and really turned the debate back to Obama. Let's face it, no matter how you cut it--and McCain admitted as much himself--the Arizona senator has one answer to the soaring health care costs that are crippling American families and businesses. That entire plan consists of providing families with a $5,000 tax credit-- minus the costs incurred by HIS OWN proposed tax INCREASE on health benefits. The average plan costs about $12,000. You do the math.

--Where the heck was Iraq? Afghanistan?
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Are McCain's Attacks Going Too Far?

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 03:46:00 +0000

The McCain Camp has ratcheted-up the personal attacks on Barack Obama's past and character since Governor Palin's sudden "discovery" of the Bill Ayers connection last week. Do these insinuations of terrorist sympathies and anti-American behavior on the part of Senator Obama represent a new low in desperation tactics, or are they just par for the recent course of American political discourse? More frighteningly, are they dangerous? Some thoughts on the matter...

CasualT: Things are starting to get out-of-control in terms of the “hate” the McCain campaign is beginning to encourage. I’ve seen clips of McCain and/or Palin rallies where the audience clearly shouts “Kill him!” “Terrorist!” and more. Last night on Larry King, of the three republicans on the panel, TWO of the three expressed strong embarrassment at the tactics being used. To me, they were clearly concerned about possible hate acts resulting from getting people worked up in this manner, and wanted to distance themselves now from what they see as a potential hideous act.

How will Republicans feel if this hate-mongering results in an assassination? I think they need to think about this, and what this would mean for the COUNTRY, whether or not you agree with Obama’s policies. I think we can ALL agree that what happened to Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were bad for this country in a fundamental and extremely significant sense, whatever our ideological background.

BoxCar John: It's truly pathetic what is going on. I would not have dreamed that McCain, who I previously saw as an honorable man, could run this kind of campaign. Obviously I was wildly wrong about his character.

But the really dangerous stuff is coming from Rush, and probably other Right Wing radio programs. I listened to a bit of his program a couple of weeks ago, and it was wildly out of control, even by his standards. Although he chose his words carefully, he was basically calling Obama a traitor who would sell out the country to foreign interests (economically and militarily), and make this country a socialist state. I couldn't even follow his torturous logic in making these claims, to say the least. And callers were not shy about using the words traitor and treason. And this was before McCain started talking about these supposed shady associations of Obama's. Nutjobs listen to Rush across the nation, so it would not be surprising that the result could be violence.

TDaddy: These comments suggest that Palin's arguments about Obama's associations amount to "fighting words" that are intended to incite an imminent riot, or worse - a political assassination. I suggest that is simply not what's going on. The only supportive example I've heard is the wacko at one of the rallies who said "kill him." I concur it doesn't matter whether the guy was referring to Obama or Bill Ayers - the comment was way way way out of bounds of civilized debate. Having said that, I don't see how McCain or Palin is going to control the thoughts and words of every nut-job in the crowd.

What McCain can control is the message. I may not have read everything you have, but my understanding of the offending comments is they deal with Palin's statements that Obama has close ties with Bill Ayers - an unrepentant domestic terrorist. This is not a lie. Bill Ayer's past deeds are well-documented. Further, Barack's association with Ayers is more than just a guy in his neighborhood. The importance of the comments go to two relevant issues: 1) Does having close ties to a number of questionable characters speak to the character of Barack Obama?, and 2) has Obama been truthful to us about those relationships? So, it goes to his character and his honesty. Those are qualities that are important to voters. And, they should be.

Here is a quote from a recent Palin speech:

Barack Obama remembered Ayers as just a guy in my neighborhood. Then the other day though his campaign claimed that for the first time that Barack wasn’t aware of Ayers’ radical background. Yet just two days later they’re that he knew about the background after that first meeting and then last night again, Barack Obama on ABC he left out some key details of his relationship and work with Ayers yet again so we got to try to keep this all straight, that he didn’t know that he launched his political career in the living room of an unrepentant domestic terrorist until he did know about it. (Palin; October 8)

I don't see why this and similar statements should be considered off limits. How does any normal person listen to the above and be motivated to violence? If Palin or McCain actually encourage people to do violence then they should not only be called on it - they should be taken off the ticket. But, these statements are not calling anyone to violence - they are calling people to look more closely at the candidate. Are there crackpots in this country who want to assassinate Obama? Of course there are. That would put him in the company of every other president and major party nominee - heck, even George Wallace got shot while running for president - and he WAS a racist. That's why we have secret service to protect our leaders. In short, my view is that too much is being made of what Palin and McCain are saying and any concern that their speech is inciting violence. McCain has gone negative. I don't care for it. But, that's what presidential politics amount to in the last days of a tight campaign.
POST A COMMENT

Thoughts From The Editorial Board...

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 15:20:00 +0000

Boxcar John: The debate was unremarkable. Both men said what you expected them to say. Obama had a chance to seal the deal: had he shown some passion in addition to his mastery of the issues, he might have cemented his lead irrevocably in place. Instead he was once again dispassionate and aloof. McCain, on the other hand, needed to somehow show new energy and ideas, and instead he stuck to the same old script. Verdict: McCain has just enough life left that some unforeseen event could conceivably push him back in it, but time is running out fast.

Fast Kenny: I thought McCain sounded disjointed and incoherent many times and ineffective at making his case. Both dealt mainly in generalities, but Obama sounded more coherent and more convincing in that he has a general plan and set of guiding principles and priorities that will help the country.

Obama briefly zinged McCain on McCain's past deregulation efforts, an issue I'd hoped Obama would hammer on more. "Cronyism" was a term McCain mentioned more than once, as something he detested, which is odd considering that was the enabling factor of McCain's entire career. McCain also brought up his across-the-board spending freeze plan for all government programs, which though it seems like a sledgehammer approach to a complicated budget, I don't know that it's not necessary in order to draw needed attention.

The predicted mud-slinging didn't happen tonight and the discussion was focused mostly on economic and foreign policy issues, which I think worked in Obama's favor. I guess McCain is nobly relegating the mud-slinging to his lipstick-wearing pit bull side-kick.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

McCain's Attempt to Change the Subject

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:28:00 +0000

By Scott Cavanagh
As we all know, John McCain likes to tout his "Straight Talk" approach to politics--portraying himself as someone who tells it like it is regardless of the political fallout.

That approach was taken to the extreme this weekend, when the McCain camp openly expressed its desire to "move the conversation away from the economy and the bailout" and focus on "getting tough" with Barack Obama. That's right, not only have the McCain people decided (in the middle of the worst financial crisis in 75 years, no less) to avoid addressing the issues that concern the future of America and concentrate on attacking their opponent personally--they went ahead and announced it in advance.

And boy, were they true to their word. By Saturday afternoon, VP candidate Sarah Palin had dived in full-bore--accusing Obama of "palling around with terrorists" because of his extremely limited association with former Weather Underground bomber and college professor William Ayers. What strikes me so funny about this cynical and desperate tactic is not the fact that it can and has easily been disproved that Obama was close to Ayers, but rather the way in which Palin tried to gain favor by bringing it up.

Everyone knows about Ayers, heck I was warning about Obama's opponents using it against him months ago. If Sarah Palin and John McCain truly believe that Barack Obama "palls around with terrorists" and is a dangerous radical with such terrible associations--why are they just bringing it up now? Should they not have been ringing the alarm bell for months that a dangerous associate of terrorists was trying to hijack the presidency? Did the 64-year-old Ayers suddenly recruit a new group of radical commandos at the exact same time as McCain's poll numbers were falling into the toilet? Of course not. This is just another ridiculous dead rabbit pulled out of the hat by a desperate campaign with nothing to offer but the word maverick. I mean, think about it--they ANNOUNCE they are going to get tough with Obama and the NEXT DAY they are suddenly up-in-arms about Ayers? It's pathetic. Reverend Wright can't be far behind.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Some lessons from last night's VP debate

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:00:00 +0000

--Wasilla, Alaska is now the "Heartland" of America. And I thought it was just the meth lab capitol.

--Winking at the camera is now an acceptable part of a debate over the future of the free world. I actually thought that was just something Tina Fey made up for character effect--but Palin actually does it. I wonder if Nancy Pelosi's non-stop blinking would work for or against her in such a circumstance?

--She may consider herself an agent of change, but one thing will apparently stay the same in Washington as long as Sarah is around--someone awfully close to the Big Bomb Button will not know how to pronounce the word nuclear. In fine Bush tradition, she would control our Nuke-U-ler arsenal--whatever that is. Nice education in the new Heartland.

--Evidently, Governor Palin did study some history at the five colleges she attended, as she mentioned Civil War General McClelland in her answer about troop strength in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, she named him as the current commanding general in that country. That man is actually Gen. David McKiernan.
Posted by Scott Cavanagh
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Round One to Obama... Barely

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:26:00 +0000

By Scott Cavanagh
Nothing quite spoils the event euphoria of a prize fight more than a draw. The same can be said for the results of last night's first presidential debate. We may have wanted the "Thrilla In Manilla," but what we got was more of tactical sparring session, with neither fighter scoring anything resembling a haymaker.

In fairness to the combatants, they did do more than spar, and there were plenty of signs that the rematch could be quite bloody.

Obama was clearly the more articulate and polished speaker, but he hardly dominated the affair and was shamefully vague (as was McCain) in his answers concerning the financial bailout.

While McCain was (not-surprisingly in my-book) stronger in the one-on-one exchanges than most pundits had predicted, he still spent much of his time hurling silly "gotcha" accusations at Obama regarding talking-point charges that he knows are baseless and silly. Obama did not vote to deauthorize funding for the troops in Iraq--he simply voted against one plan and for another. Obama never said that he would meet willy-nilly with foreign leaders; he simply stated that he would be willing to talk to anyone if the welfare of the United States was at stake. And yes the Surge was a tactic and not a strategy. The Surge is one tactic in Bush's overall war strategy. Maybe there is a reason McCain finished third from the bottom of his class at Navy.

When he stayed on substance and avoided lame attacks and old jokes (did you know he was not voted Miss Congeniality in the Senate?--guffaw, guffaw) McCain stood his ground well, although he seemed to lose his temper any time Obama made a sustained stand on something, and even interrupted him multiple times. Jim Lehrer seemed to be either unwilling to or uninterested in stopping it. In addition, McCain made a habit a smirking and laughing to himself during much of Obama's air time--something other candidates of both parties have really taken beatings for in the past.

Obama was respectful of McCain in return and that played well for the most part, but he did not take advantage of many opportunities that were virtually teed-up for him by his 72-year-old opponent. McCain's constant contention that any universal health care plan would take away patients' ability to make decisions with their doctors should have been countered with the fact that those decisions are now being made by insurance companies-- not doctors. He also could have really let McCain have it over his decrying a "wasteful" $3.9 million environmental research earmark on the very day the $25 million "Road to Nowhere" opened for business in Alaska.

Obama scored when pointing out the logical disconnect between McCain's concern over $18 billion in earmark spending and his apparent lack of concern over the $380 billion in additional corporate tax breaks he is currently proposing. I think Obama will also do himself a real favor by sticking to his guns and record on the Iraq War. He was against it from the beginning; he was right then and he is right now. To suddenly back down because we have managed to temporarily partition-off the warring parties with walls, tanks and bribes, does not make this trillion-dollar fiasco a success. If McCain wants to run on the Iraq War--let him.

Obama was solid as always, but I'm still not convinced he possesses anywhere near the public speaking/debate skills of either Clinton (William Jefferson) or Kennedy (John Fitzgerald). He is smart and measured, but he has yet to show me the ability to spin on a dime like Bubba and go from offense to defense effortlessly without losing his place and timing. McCain sees this and is trying to bully him. We need a knockout--like Clinton gave W's Daddy, Perot and Bob Dole. The next debate will not be about foreign policy. The K.O. will come then.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Ladies and Gents... the Paulson Administration

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:08:00 +0000

By Scott Cavanagh
I knew he could do it... knew it all along. Just when people were starting to write him off as finished--a lame duck with no more catastrophic plans or pathetic cronies left to unleash on the country and its citizens--George W. Bush has given us one more for the history books.

Now the administration that has provided us with so many memories--from the worst attack in our history, to the drowning of New Orleans, the acceptance of torture, the outing of a CIA agent, domestic spying, preemptive endless war and mind-boggling budget deficits --has managed to oversee the end of the modern American financial system.

But this is not just about events--it's about people--special people, like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove; Scooter Libby and Alberto Gonzalez; Harriet Miers and Mike "Way to go Brownie" Brown. These are people we were supposed to trust because George W. Bush told us to. Oops!

Now Bush and his cronies--the very people who have preached the gospel of unfettered, unregulated, greed-is-good capitalism for 30 years--want us to entrust one of them with the sole stewardship of $700 billion of our money--no questions asked.

That's right, only weeks after both Bush and his latest co-commander (remember the Petraeus Administration?)--Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson--deemed the fundamentals of our economy "strong" and our markets "flexible and resilient," the administration has decided that not only are we staring over the abyss of the next Great Depression--we need to immediately adopt their plan for recovery--with Paulson serving as our financial Il Duce in some quasi-socialist economic fiefdom--or else.

They have steered the old Ford directly into the ditch and now they want us to hand them the keys to the family Cadillac--because only they know the way out of this mess. In the immortal words of John McEnroe--they CANNOT be serious.

We all understand that the collapse of many of our oldest and most respected financial institutions requires swift and decisive action. However, the idea that a virtually sight-unseen plan, provided by the very people who got us into this mess--one that gives one man unlimited power with virtually no oversight--is the only answer, is not only stupid and short-sighted, it comes right out of the same tired "our way or the highway" play book that the incompetents in the Bush administration and their buddies on Capitol Hill have been utilizing for eight years.

These are the same guys that shoved the Patriot Act down our throats without even giving members of Congress time to read it. Remember Saddam Hussein? We had to go to war against him too. It was going to be easy, pay for itself with oil revenue and be over in months. That was five years, $556 Billion and 4,200 dead Americans ago. Remember how we had to privatize Social Security by letting people play the stock market? How's that idea sound right about now?
(Heck, John McCain suggested in 2004 that some of those Social Security benefits be invested in the sub-prime mortgage market. How's that for foresight?) Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in a time of war--why not? Taxing the rich equally would be socialism. Universal health care? Well, that would be socialism as well. Now they are all for socialism, although the form they are proposing sounds a bit more like fascism.

It appears there is nothing that can stop this bailout now--so all that is left is for the few non-eunuch Democrats with any fight in them to band together with the handful of actual fiscal conservatives that still exist, to fight for a few basic principles of common sense, oversight and fairness in this process. This could be their historic moment. Do this right and save their retirements and the Boomers may well build them a statue.

There can be no extravagant compensation packages for CEO's. If they don't like the reasonable compensation offered, FIRE THEM--with two weeks pay--like the rest of us. If we are going to lend these obviously bad credit risks billions of dollars, we need to charge them the same "high-risk" interest rates they would have slapped on us. Why in the world would we not want a return on our money--considering we are going to give it all right back to them to gamble away again anyway? There can be no bailout "Czar" with the powers proposed for Paulson and his successor at Treasury. A powerful Secretary--yes--another all-powerful, infallible Grand Poohbah--please, no.

Those concessions are not too much to ask in return for what is left of our national "cash flow."

Now the current president is calling on the two potential future presidents to call off their campaigns and tend to the business of getting on board the bailout express. They may end up having no choice in the matter, but I can't help but envision a time only a few months from now, when W will be sitting back choking on a pretzel in Crawford, while either John McCain or Barack Obama will see a lifetime of hard work and noble dedication destroyed by a an inherited Bush shitstorm that will turn one of these good men into the next Herbert Hoover.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Reviewing the Conventions...

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:34:00 +0000

By Scott Cavanagh
Summer walkabout has ended and the Bark is back. My thoughts on the political events of the past couple of weeks, starting with the Democratic Convention and ending with the Republicans:

The Democratic Convention:
The Clintons: Of course the media's idiotic first two days worth of ridiculous non-stories about "What will the Clintons do?" irked me to no end. What will the Clintons do? I could have told you that two months ago--they will give tremendous, incredibly articulate speeches that will bring the house down. The Clintons do what they always do--come through under incredible pressure for a party that has been trashing them for 18 months. Of course that is still not good enough for many Obama supporters, who are now complaining that the first woman to come within a whisker of the WH did not sufficiently criticize the second woman in that position enough in the first 48 hours after her announcement. That's ridiculous. Has Colin Powell or any other black Republicans trashed Obama? Of course not. Its about time for the Obama people to start worrying about themselves and statements like "the surge has worked beyond anyone's wildest dreams" and stop concentrating on whether or not the Clintons are going to save them. If they wanted Mommy to fight their battles for them, they should have had her at the top of the ticket to begin with. If so, they would not have to be wasting their time groveling in states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Be prepared, if Obama loses this election by a hair, they will blame it on the Clintons. If they win, they will say they did it despite them.

Biden:
Biden is the most qualified person in the country to be president. He has more political experience, life experience and ability to work effectively across the aisle than anyone else in the country and I thought his acceptance speech was excellent. Spending five years in a prison camp is hard to comprehend. Losing your young wife and daughter to a car wreck on Christmas Eve and being left to rebuild a shattered life and raise two sons on your own may be just as incomprehensible. I truly think this is a very special guy and always have. This was a great pick by Obama because it helped cover him on the experience question, and Joe is a team player that will never try to steal the spotlight from the candidate. Joe Biden has been in Washington for 30 years and is one of the three poorest Senators--that tells you all you need to know. He's not in it for the cash and never has been. That said, Obama would have been much better off with Hillary as far as winning the election is concerned. No way they lose together. I don't know if the logistics of such an arrangement could ever have been worked out though.

The Stadium Event:
(Prior to reviewing this event, I have a TV caveat I must bring up. One of the moments I've been waiting for since it became obvious that either Hillary or Barack would win the nomination, was the state roll call of delegates. I know I sound like a real political geek, but I freakin' love the conventions and have been watching them faithfully since I was a kid. My favorite time is when each state rep. says some little corny line about his state like "The great state of Ohio, home of Johnny Wad Holmes, Traci Lords, Charles Keating and Maurice Clarett casts its ballots for the next President of the United States... Larry Flynt!" This year, with the first African-American nominee in history having his name announced, it would be incredibly exciting. So what did they do? They moved that part to the mid-afternoon and just told us about it that evening. That was a real bummer, I wanted to hear that actually happen--its tradition and its cool and its better than a civics class.)

I still don't know if I liked the stadium idea or not. The GOP had already been getting some mileage out of portraying Obama as this "celebrity" candidate (something I had been worried about for months because of the press and Hollywood's undying devotion to him) so making this historic event look a little bit like the Super Bowl was a bit risky in my opinion. I think the whole night lacked intimacy, but that lack of intimacy was drowned out by the sheer joy and passion that the crowd produced. The high point of the night (prior to Obama) was the speech (covered mostly on the radio) by Congressman John Lewis of Georgia. Here was a man who was one of the ten speakers that addressed the crowd 45 years before in Washington with MLK. This man had been beaten senseless by southern policemen and attacked by dogs and here he was 45 years to-the-day later, talking to a wild, packed stadium of people from all walks of life, who had come together to give a black dude the nomination to be leader of the free world. Damn, what a freakin' country we live in. You could feel his passion as if it were your own. His pride was your pride. Very cool.

Al Gore is a wooden mannequin. I love the guy, but he has the charisma of a houseplant. Ditto John Kerry.

Then came Obama. Obviously, Obama is a great public speaker (although I still think Bubba is superior) but I thought some of his stump speeches leading up to the convention were starting to get off-message a bit and were lacking focus. I felt the same way at the beginning of his acceptance speech, but as he got to the meat of the matter and started spelling out the choices we have to make in the next few years, he really hit his stride and took off. Like John Kennedy and Bill Clinton before him, Obama is brilliant and that makes me happy. I want my president to be a brilliant student, and a quick thinker/talker, and charming and articulate. I don't care if I have a beer with him--I have my own freinds for that. Obama is special and that came through in the speech, as it does every time you listen to him for more than a sound bite. As far as his ability to win is concerned, I still think he has a tough road to travel and is anything but a shoe-in. Charles Barkley really hit it on the head when asked about Obama's chances, responding that no matter how many blacks and minorities vote for Barack, he cannot win without the support of at least a good portion of white America--and that is tricky. How many white people will say they are going to vote for Barack and then not do it when they get into the booth? If white people can trust a black man to be president and get over their fear, he will win. If not, it does not matter what he says or what he stands for.

John McCain is special too, but he has virtually sold his soul to the devil in the past few years. Like many former supporters of McCain, I had been hopeful that a GOP victory this fall would result in a moderate and sensible McCain--one that was free of the chains that made him have to pander to the wingnut section of the party. And lets face it, he had a case to make. Obama's resume is thin, whether those on the Left like to admit it or not. McCain was positioned nicely to say simply: "This guy was nothing more than a community organizer just a few short years ago, and his ENTIRE experience on the national stage consists of one term in the Senate--the majority of which has been spent running for President." That case alone, combined with his compelling life story, good relationship with the media and the bigot factor made McCain's campaign immediately viable--and more importantly acceptable--to a large swath of voters that Obama desperately needs. While scary, I had been feeling better about what America might look like under a President McCain if he were to pull out a victory. Then came Caribou Barbie and the convention and I started to remember who these guys really are.

The Republicans:
There were so many highlights to the GOP convention; I don't know where to start.

-It's good to know that we don't have any real problems in the country that are not caused by the "Elite Media" or the "Eastern Elites". It's particularly great to be told that by the billionaire Governor of Massachusetts. What the hell?

-I don't know about you guys, but I love to be lectured about homeland security by representatives of the administration that allowed 9/11. If I hear one more time that "Bush kept us safe" I will puke. Safe from what? A declining economy, endless war and a world that hates us? How safe did he keep New Orleans or Valerie Plame? Note to George: We've only been hit once--on YOUR watch!!

-While on the topic of W--was his via-satellite eight minutes sheer oratorical magic, or what? The couple of sentences that he got out without stumbling were great. I think there was something in there about the culture of life, or whatever. I think Laura's blank stare intro was even better. To look at those two and think that we were only a few hanging chads from avoiding all of this mess just really makes me think... that we are very stupid people.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN... JOE LIEBERMAN!!! The funniest thing I have ever witnessed at a convention--other than Marilyn Quayle's rousing oratory in '92.

All one has to do is listen to one night of Republican speakers and the hate is just overflowing. They hate the media, and people from the East Coast and people from the West Coast and non-believers and immigrants and teachers and lawyers (unless they are theirs) and liberals and unions and Muslims and environmentalists and Europeans. Their WHOLE game is fear and hatred. That is all is has ever been. And all of their "issues" are non-issues created to simply piss people off.

Think about it:

Guns: A total bullshit wedge issue. Nobody is trying to take away anyone's right to own a gun. Nobody has ever proposed anything that would limit hunting weapons or any legal gun ownership. It's a fake issue.

Gay Marriage: Another totally bogus issue. Not a single gay organization in a single state had any pro-gay marriage initiatives on any state ballots in 2004, yet it was the staple issue for Republicans all over the country. There were 12 states with anti-gay legislation placed on the ballot by religious wing nuts and GOP operatives. Their only purpose was to force the Dems running in those states to have to take a public stand on the issue. When they said they supported some kind of gay unions, they were called out in every church and got pilloried for it. When all 12 measures passed in all 12 states, the right wing groups bragged for months that they defeated the gay movement and such, when in fact, the poor gays had done nothing but watch the right shit on them again for no reason.

Taxes: This is and has always been bogus. The majority of Americans pay the vast majority of taxes in payroll taxes and fees. When calculating the way the "poor, put-upon rich" are always getting the shaft, the GOP always talks about income taxes and cries. Its a total ruse, and idiots and the supposedly "liberal" media allow them to get away with it decade after decade. The rich pay the lowest taxes they have ever paid--much lower than they paid under Eisenhower or Nixon, and they are still crying. They now control so much of the national wealth that the gap between rich and poor is the highest it's been since the Robber Baron days-- but that's not good enough for them.

Abortion: The lowest abortion rates in the country since the procedure became legal were achieved under Bill Clinton's regime, because they provided students with education and condoms. The states with the highest pregnancy rates in the country-- are ALL southern GOP strongholds. By the way, they also get the highest percentage of welfare and federal aid and have the fattest people, buy the most porn and get the most divorces. Who cries the most about these issues? Fat, redneck Republicans. What state has the lowest abortion and divorce rates? Massachusetts.

The Palin pick, in my estimation, may be the most cynical and pathetic maneuver to ever come down the pike. Not only is she COMPLETELY unqualified to be President, she is the most blatant partisan to ever grace a major party ticket. Somehow, in the blink of an eye, the GOP has managed to put an unqualified, religious, wing-nut creationist only a heartbeat away from the presidency--and we are not even allowed to ask her any questions!!

Sarah Palin is a woman that believes another woman that is raped or faces the prospect of dying from delivering a deformed baby should have to have that child--presumably because God says so. At the same time she applauds her pregnant (abstinence-only trained) teenage daughter for "choosing" to have her baby. That's nice that a well-to-do girl with a big stable family can make that "choice" that the Barracuda would take away from her and thousands of other girls through draconian legislation. Any woman that does not support a woman's right to choose not to die from a pregnancy makes me sick. Another president with a lack of empathy scares the crap out of me.

Sarah Palin's total experience prior to 18 months ago, was serving as mayor of a town one-fifth the size of Westerville. She won her two elections to that post in her hometown with vote totals of 984 and 887, respectively. It would be like being mayor of Obetz--but it would be Obetz... in Alaska! During this time the "reformer" (who spent her twenties competing in beauty contests and trying to be on ESPN) requested nearly 28 million dollars in earmarks for that little shithole town. She supported the "Bridge to Nowhere" until it became politically unpopular and now claims to have turned down that money, when in fact, she accepted the money from our pockets and redirected it to her own pet projects. Is Sarah Palin smart, or well educated? We don't know. Why? Because the GOP decided to set her up as this "victim of the media" before she was ever even announced. Now she is not even answering questions from the media. It is sooooo outrageous it makes my head want to explode!!

The GOP has been bitching for years about career women that put their jobs ahead of their family and so forth. Now they have the nerve to say they have no problem with a mother of five with a special needs infant and a pregnant daughter running for President. The hypocrisy is amazing. Speaking of hypocrisy: John McCain supported Roe V. Wade -- not anymore. John McCain was against the Bush tax cuts-- now he wants to make them permanent. John McCain said Pat Robertson was an agent of intolerance -- now he kisses his ass.

For weeks, McCain and virtually every Republican I know have been pounding on Obama's lack of experience and substance--and it was getting some traction. His seemingly sincere concern that the nation might be placing itself in the hands of a man with good intentions but a lack of experience was understandable. The Palin nomination trumps all of that and makes him out to be a hypocrite again. Sure, he's soooo concerned about the experience and qualification level of a self-made guy who became the top student at Harvard Law School, a successful community organizer, a three-term state representative in the mean streets of Chicago and a United States Senator. However a beauty contest contestant from Obetz Alaska is just fine and dandy -- as long as she likes prayer in school and totes a gun. No matter that McCain is three years OLDER than Ronald Reagan was when he took office -- not to mention six years removed from a serious cancer operation that gives survivors an average life expectancy of eight years--McCain is fine with Sarah. Hopefully, it will prove to be his last political move of any consequence.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Clinton Bashing Has Hurt Obama As Well

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Wed, 07 May 2008 19:28:00 +0000

By Scott Cavanagh
The razor-thin margin of victory in yesterday's Indiana Primary more than likely sealed the fate of Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations. I believe today, as I have all along, that Senator Clinton and her supporters will now begin to wind down their activities in the remaining undecided states and try to begin the process of uniting the party in time for the August convention.

These developments however, will not change the facts that Clinton has won virtually every vital battleground state in play this November, would have had the right to contest the nomination if she had so chosen to due to Obama's inability to close the deal, and would be conceding without any representation from two huge, vital states that could swing the nomination to her.

The attitude from Obama supporters that the Clinton people's arguments lack logic--while they pretend the rules regarding super delegates don't exist--and find no need to fix the Florida and Michigan mess--is just so frustrating. The attitude TOTALLY smacks of every stereotype the GOP has about the pompous left.

Is it illogical to think that a candidate whose opponent cannot lock up the nomination in the traditional way, might take advantage of established rules to garner the nomination rather than concede to someone she sees as a loser in the general? Is it illogical to think that it might be in the best interests of my party and my country to have a full accounting of the wishes of two large key general election swing states before conceding the nomination to a candidate that has lost all of the others?

Let me state a couple of things emphatically. I am not now, and have never been, a lackey for Hillary Clinton. I supported Joe Biden at the beginning of this process and leaned towards Edwards after that. I came to her when left with the two candidates we have now. I firmly believe that the rise of Obama, coinciding with the rise of McCain, is the GOP's dream scenario--and I've been saying so for months. The moment all the racial crap started in South Carolina everything changed. Obama was turned overnight from the candidate of everyone (which I truly believe he was) to the candidate of black people and the far left. While at the same time, Hillary Clinton--our frontrunner and the candidate with the greatest African-American poll numbers in history (to go along with enormous popularity with working people and seniors) --was turned into the candidate of the right wing of our party. That worked great for Barack in the immediately approaching southern primaries--where the Democratic primary voting populations are more than 60% black--and carried on through a couple of other smaller states, but what did it produce for our general election chances in November?

When that smoke cleared, the GOP must have felt they had all died and were Raptured to Heaven. The Clinton Coalition--the strongest Democratic voting conglomeration since FDR--had been severed and destroyed forever. Win or lose, blacks and many on the left will never embrace the Clintons as they once did. Combine that with the idiocy in Florida and Michigan and it's like Republicans wrote the script. All that's left is to gin-up some fear mongering for a foreign-born black guy with a Muslim name, friendships with Farrakhan, the PLO and American terrorists (no matter how slim), a loose cannon wife, and a family preacher (the guy married him and baptized their children) that says 9/11 was an inside job and the US government created AIDS. They didn't even have to worry about Hillary making a Clintonesque comeback for the nomination, because the left wing of the party and the press put a public relations pooh-pooh on a totally legal super delegate fight and revotes in Florida and Michigan months ago.

Anything Hillary did from that point on (other than simply quit) was portrayed as "hurting the party" or some kind of underhanded Clinton scheme--which of course only plays that much more into the hands of the GOP--which desperately needs to paint as bad a picture of the Clinton years as possible. Our ONLY successfully completed Democratic presidency of the past 50 years belonged to Bill Clinton. Playing along with the "the Clintons are lying, manipulators that are no different from the other corporatists" crap, as the left has done, is just idiotic. (Claiming, after reading that last sentence, that she was "just the First Lady" and had nothing to do with policy--when you know she was her husband's top advisor for 35 years--is also totally disingenuous--but if you must make it, than all the bashing over NAFTA and Health Care should cease.)

No eight years of Clinton peace and prosperity for McCain to fight against. No "Here's what we did, here's what you did" comparisons between the Clinton years and McCain's voting record. Nope, it will simply be the maverick, All-American, POW war hero against the black Muslim friend of Farrakhan and Qaddafi (their words and images, not mine), whose entire national stage experience consists of one senate term - half of which was spent running for President.

I understand full-well that Obama is most likely going to be the nominee, I hate however, the fact that his people have, for quite some time, tried to lay down this preventive strike against Hillary going to the super delegates by insinuating that it would somehow be cheating or trying to twist the rules. That is not the case at all. If it went to the supers, it would do so for only two reasons--because we did not count the votes in Florida and Michigan and he cannot close the deal and get the 2,025 he needs to win. If you are Hillary Clinton and you believe, as I do, that Obama is going to be a very weak McGovern-ish character in the fall, and you do not fight for the nomination to try and prevent four-eight more years of these horrible Bush policies--you should be ashamed of yourself.

We (Dems) are being set-up like Andruw Jones with a 0-2 count. Do you think the GOP does not have many Reverend Wright-ish dudes out there just waiting to be trucked out to the public? Are you not worried that he cannot close the deal (with Dems for crying out loud) when ALL of the left is on his side? Were you comfortable with what happened to this guy's poll numbers and popularity the minute even these minor attacks started? Do you honestly think its just coincidence that the Right has not been tearing Obama to bits? They are just waiting for the left to kill Hillary. Then they will pounce and it will be ugly.

Does none of this scare you? Only four years ago, we ran a three-time Purple Heart winner against the worst president in modern times and lost. The key states in the past two elections (and virtually everyone since 1964) were Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan and Florida--states Obama has either lost to Hillary or we are not counting (and pissing off). The GOP's case in '04 against Kerry? He was not a brave enough hero and was out-of-touch with regular people. Obama is not only going to win this nomination, he is going to win it (thanks to all the Hillary bashing by the left) as the undisputed candidate of the left wing of the left party (a traditional prescription for disaster in itself), which will only add to his, albeit undeserved, reputation as an elitist. He will be treated as the candidate of minorities and people too liberal for the Clintons.

I hope Senator Obama can overcome smallmindedness and fear mongering this November. I don't think he has shown, thus far, that he can. One commercial--just one--featuring Michelle Obama talking about her views on America and the irrefutable fact that an American terrorist bomber held a fundraiser for Rev. Wright's best buddy--and we are done--TOAST. Two more Scalias, here we come. Sorry if that upsets me.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

On Health Care and the Economy...

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Sun, 04 May 2008 05:05:00 +0000

A Japanese doctor said, "Medicine in my country is so advanced that we can take a kidney out of one man, put it in another, and have him looking for work in six weeks."

A German doctor said, "That's nothing, we can take a lung out of one person, put it in another, and have him looking for work in four weeks."; A British doctor said,"In my country, medicine is so advanced that we can take half of a heart out of one person, put it in another, and have them both looking for work in two weeks."; A Texas doctor, not to be outdone said, "You guys are way behind. We took a man with no brains out of Texas, put him in the White House and now half the country is looking for work."

END OF POST

Democrats' Two-State Two-Step Continues...

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:25:00 +0000

Posted by Scott Cavanagh
What, exactly, do Obama supporters propose everyone "move on" to--Hillary simply quitting and handing the nomination to an opponent that cannot mathematically lock it up himself, trails in super delegates, has not won a single large or battleground state other than his own and just got clobbered in both Ohio and Pennsylvania? That request would not be surprising however; they've been begging their opponent to either play nice or quit for months now.

If those continued surrender requests were not strange enough, they want her to do so with two of the four most populous and important states in the union having no say whatsoever. I find this attitude particularly odd coming from fellow progressives who traditionally scream (appropriately) from the rooftops when it appears some small precinct or group of voters (usually in states just like Florida and Michigan) has been disenfranchised as the result of local, state or national party mandates or decisions. Now disenfranchising the entire Democratic voting populations of two all-important battleground states is just fine.

If the Obama camp's case against the revotes is simply and understandably the fact that taking those states out of play favors them and they are not about to slit their own throats--that's fine, but to disingenuously pretend that some flimsy decision by the DNC (a group the two major candidates otherwise ignore) binds them and ties their hands from changing things, is a far worse fib than anything dealing with a Bosnian tarmac.

Who cares whose fault it is that all of the Democrats in Michigan and Florida will have no say in the closest and most historic presidential race in history? Are you honestly trying to tell me that the Obama people could not easily dump a few of their $220 million into a fund matched by the Clinton people to pay for revotes in those two all-important contests?

Do the Obama people truly expect us to believe that their justification for not wanting to actually hear from the voters of Florida or Michigan is a decision by the DNC prompted by the greedy and egotistical actions of some state party bosses? Wow, some kind a "new politics" there.

The Obama campaign has been quick to question Hillary's sincerity on a number of issues. Let's talk about sincerity here. They don't want revotes because they are petrified of them. While neither of the candidates campaigned in Florida, both were on the ballot in the original vote, and Clinton won by a landslide. It is the state with the largest senior voter base--her strongest voting block. Michigan is a snapshot of both Ohio and Pennsylvania--both big Hillary wins.

Once again, it comes down to what happens in November--that is all that should matter to Dems and Progressives. I ask you again, without Florida and Michigan, what large electoral count, in-play, battleground states has Senator Obama won? How well has Obama and his popularity fared after just the smallest of controversies over speeches by an old preacher and just one little misstatement about religion and guns? Remember, the GOP has not even begun to unleash the hounds on this guy. What do you think Karl Rove and Co. will do with Rev. Wright's speeches and the fact that a convicted American terrorist bomber held a fundraiser for Barack--mention it in a speech like Hillary? They'll turn the GOP campaign into their own little YouTube of Wright, The Weathermen, and bullshit "He's a Muslim" stories--24/7. If he can't take what Hillary is dishing out without calling on her to quit, what does that tell us about his chances against the inevitable Republican blitzkrieg attacks? Hillary has taken everything the Right has thrown at her for 17 years--from total dissections of her political decisions and the most intimate details of her personal life, to being called everything from a radical and a carpetbagger to a drug dealer and a murderer--and she has bounced back and come out on top time and time again.

Obama has said it himself--Indiana should be the key indicator of who will get the nomination. If he wins there, the combination of a strong showing in North Carolina would probably stem any momentum Hillary has recently gained and force her out. If she wins however, and carries that momentum to victories in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico (63 delegates and polling 2-1 in her favor), she would have every reason and right to think that she would be the stronger general election candidate and fight for the nomination.

The only way for this to be avoided, other than asking the first viable female candidate in history to just quit a race in which her opponent cannot mathematically put her away or beat her in the most vital states, is to have campaign-funded revotes in Florida and Michigan. Both candidates would have the opportunity to make their cases regarding the importance of each and every vote. If Obama were to win even one of the two, he would have an insurmountable lead in the popular vote and sit on the cusp of clinching the delegate count. If Hillary were to sweep both, she would still need a strong showing everywhere else to take the nomination, but if she pulled it off, she would have accomplished it fair and square. Either outcome would be fairer, more transparent, less divisive and a better reflection of the voters' wishes than any other foreseeable conclusion.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Not So Fast With Those Revotes...

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:48:00 +0000

Posted by Ken Hart
Sigh, this again? If Hillary were really interested in acting according to party rules, she would've abided by the decision to penalize Michigan and Florida. Oh wait, I forgot -- she did sign off on that decision. She just changed her mind once she started losing.

Nice use of caveats here, too: "...when he has no legitimate lead in the popular vote and has lost the majority of major states?" Actually, he does still lead in the popular vote. And if you count Florida, he still leads in the popular vote. If you count Florida and Michigan, Clinton takes the lead ... only because Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan. That's because he, like Edwards, stuck to his agreement. If you count the people who voted "Uncommitted" in Michigan, he retains his lead in the popular vote. And that's not counting the states to come.

This talk of "overriding the will of the people" ignores the fact that the state legislators themselves are responsible for this mess, not the DNC and not any of the candidates. (And don't forget that the GOP also punished states, though not as harshly.) If the DNC hadn't punished those states, do you think Iowa or New Hampshire would hesitate to move their primaries up to December? It would be a mess.

Michigan has already ruled out a new primary, and Florida seems willing to do it ... only if someone else picks up the tab for their own screwup.

After three months of this, let's move on.
END OF POST
Leave a Comment

Obama Needs to Support FLA/MI Revotes

scott@scottcavanagh.com (Scott Cavanagh) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:08:00 +0000

By Scott Cavanagh
For months now, the political airwaves, editorial pages and blogs of this nation have been overflowing with the opinions of concerned pundits languishing with worry over what (Oh, my God—Its TEARING US APART!!) a protracted battle for the Democratic presidential nomination might produce this November.

The main concern, particularly among supporters of Senator Barack Obama, is that a brokered convention fight—particularly one ending in a Clinton victory via a super delegate advantage—would be a horrible example of old school inside political gamesmanship overriding the will of the people—and would turn off all of the wonderfully righteous flock that have only come into the political process because they want change.

Once again, I find the gall and chutzpah of the Obama Camp (and I count the editorial boards of the NY Times, The Nation, Huffington Post and Rolling Stone among them) just amazing. They complain endlessly of Hillary playing dirty, when Obama surrogates continually hold press conferences and send mailings that disparage her in ways much more personal than anything she has said about Obama. When asked about it, Obama simply says it did not come from him—yeah, and the Swift Boaters had nothing to do with Bush. Don’t get me wrong—banging on your opponent is okay, its part of the game—crying foul every time your opponent fires back is not. It's a sign of weakness—one the GOP will jump on faster than a missing flag pin.

If crying every time they took a shot were not bad enough, the continual calls for their opponent to drop out of a race in which she trails by the slimmest of margins and has won virtually every major battleground state vital to a November victory, borders on comical. This is particularly galling when you consider that the only reason the Obama people have any lead at all is because of petty, inside political games.

Michigan and Florida are two of the largest and most important swing states in the union. One is the picture postcard of the economic disaster that is Reagan-Bush economics, the other the most-hotly contested and important state (along with Ohio) of the past two presidential elections. Both also happen to be Hillary strongholds (Florida has the highest percentage of senior voters in the country, while Michigan is almost identical in demographics to both Ohio and Pennsylvania—both won big by Hillary).

Because of petty party politics, egos and inside squabbles, neither of these two ultra-important states will seat any delegates, nor have any say in who the Democratic nominee will be.

How in the world can the Obama people cry foul over Hillary fighting for her legal right to the nomination--by established party rules--when he has no legitimate lead in the popular vote and has lost the majority of major states? Does he have a legitimate case to be the nominee? Of course he does, but so does she, and unless the problem of Michigan and Florida is solved, he and his supporters had better get used to the idea that this might come down to the supers—and if it does there is nothing “wrong” or “shady” about it.

If Obama wins Indiana next week, this may turn out to be a mute point, but with Hillary leading in all the polls there, it looks as if the race will be even tighter the next day. The only way to avoid the brokered convention that everyone says is such a prescription for disaster, is to have revotes in both Michigan and Florida. If Obama were to win those states, the nomination would be his—guaranteed. If Hillary were to win, she would have the lead in both popular vote, super delegates and major states—case closed. What would be the argument--from either side—with such a plan?

The Clinton camp has proposed such an idea and the early reaction from the Obama people is that the Florida and Michigan decisions have already been made and that is simply that. They also claim that the costs would be prohibitive and would not be picked up by the party. For the Obama campaign that claims to represent “new politics” and has by most accounts over $220 million in the coffers, to take the position that the party bosses made their decisions to move their primaries up and got what was coming to them—voters be damned (and by the way, we can’t afford it)—is not only hypocritical, its irresponsible.

Without Florida and Michigan, what real claim will Obama have to the nomination? That he won a bunch of southern and western states that are traditionally dominated by the GOP? Democrats need to think about November. Another GOP win and that Supreme Court will be stacked for the next half-century. The four most important states in the union, as far as 2008 are concerned, are Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida. Hillary has won two of them. As it stands now, only the Obama people stand in the way of finding out who would win the other two.
END OF POST

Leave a Comment