This is a modified version of a comment I left in my last post. There are some significant additions, but please forgive me for some redundance.
Everyone, A few things, please.
1. No personal attacks. If you're not mature enough to debate in a clearheaded manner, please do not debate here. If you have gone overboard and you need to apologize to someone, you will gain both my respect and theirs.
This means: Do not questions someone's intellect, do not cast aspersions on their character, do not make slurs against any race, religion or color. You know the difference between debate and derisiveness, as we all do.
2. As I stated up-front, I do not know if these facts are true. I do know that they're news, and I believe it's time to discuss it. Any views, both pro and con, are welcome.
3. I do not particularly like either candidate. In many ways, Obama may be the better candidate for me personally, as health care is eating me alive and I may need major surgery soon. My health care coverage is the best I can afford or get as a single business owner, but it's not that great.
However, I also must vote for the good of my country and not myself, and I feel that Obama could do a great deal more damage than McCain could.
I base this decision not on the information in the former post (or the rumors of Obama's affair) but on that fact that Obama is the most liberal Senator we have, and we have Supreme Court Justices coming up for grabs shortly. Additionally, if certain programs and/or policies are put in place, even if they're wrong, it's almost impossible to dismantle them later.
I believe that if we give Obama 4 years, there could be tremendous damage done to our country and our country's foundation (The Constitution). Because, make no mistake about it, there will be both a President and a Congress with the majority consisting of the Democratic Party. There will be no checks and balances. For the Democrats, that's a field day. For the country, it will eventually create buyers' remorse of unprecedented proportions.
Most of us are moderates. This will result in a great skew to the left, which the majority of the populace doesn't want. And, McCain is a Democrat in Republican clothing anyway*. The difference is minimal but significant, as Obama is far to the left of even the Democratic Party average.
4. I believe that a vote for any other candidate besides Obama or McCain is a throwaway vote.
I'm truly sorry to say so (because I'd love a viable alternative) and I have friends that are doing protest votes (as Ed is doing) but as there is absolutely no chance of any other candidate winning, we really need to seriously focus on (and vet) the two primary candidates.
Update on Obama Birth Certificate
From Daily Nation:
"A US federal judge on Friday rejected a lawsuit claiming Senator Barack Obama is ineligible to seek the presidency because he was either born in Kenya or is a citizen of Indonesia.
It is not clear whether the Supreme Court will review Mr Berg's plea for a hearing prior to the November 4 election."
This is not due to any facts presented, but because the judge says that individual citizens do not have the right to bring such a suit.
*Yes, President Bush is also almost as liberal as McCain. At one time he tried to appeal to the extreme right wing of the Republican party by claiming he was a born-again Christian but Bush is not a born-again Christian, and he is not conservative. Bush is a new breed called a neo-con and Bush is appallingly pro Big Business. Hopefully McCain will be a step up from Bush, and McCain can at least walk and chew gum at the same time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
When voting third party as I will likely do this year, I do so fully knowing that my candidate will most likely not win. But I don't think I can in good conscious, vote for someone whom I disagree with on so many issues. Although my candidate won't win, there are benefits. If there is a significant number of people voting third party as what happened with Nadar in 2004, political parties do take notice. If this happens enough times, I believe they will start to try and lure us back with more moderate views. That was my hope when John McCain won the primaries. Also, eventually I think if enough people vote third party, a three party system will become viable in the United States, perhaps within my lifetime. I don't think it is wasted but rather, takes a longer time to give an effect. However, I understand how others including yourself might feel that way when an election is close. I don't think this year will be one of those close elections.
Ed, In turn, I completely understand. And I am so very tempted to vote for the candidates that you are voting for (I'm very impressed with them). But, well...you know my reasons.
Good post. I totally agree there is no need for name calling and personal attacks. Differences of opinion are what make democracy so great. Too bad it could not be so muddled by so many issues that have nothing to do with politics.
I have a question for you about Obama. What is it that you think that he will do as President that would dismantle the Constitution and send the Country into a tailspin? Let's face it, it can't get much worse than it is right now, can it?
Anchorage Daily News backs Obama.
HA HA HA!
You've gotta laugh.
Daniel, I admit that's ironically funny.
Scott, My biggest fear is that there could end up being a call to rewrite the Constitution.
For a while, conservatives talked about it. They wanted to change the Constitution to say that marriage is a union betwee a man and a woman.
That is VERY dangerous territory, because it opens the door for all sorts of additions, subtractions, wrangles, civil unrest, and more. The very nature of our country could change over night. And many people fear that. With a Democratically controlled (NOTE: Not necessarily democratic) Congress, we could face such a scenario.
Short of rewriting the Constitution, the Supreme Court could maneuver around it. I am a strict Historical Constitutionalist. That means I think it's NOT a living document, but a set of rules set in stone. It keeps things consistent.
Most Democrats believe that it's a LIVING document, which means it's alterable to fit the times or circumstances. This is dangerous, because it allows fluctuation (such as the Patriot Act, for instance).
A Supreme Court can either consist of conservative judges who stick to what the original framers intended. Or, it can be predominantly liberal, and reinterpret it at will to fit whatever pet project is at hand.
We are already in more danger than most Americans understand. Many conservatives have wrongly said that the Patriot Act is excusable because we're safter, even though it grants the government un-Constitutional rights to wiretap and eavesdrop on the average citizen. The thing commonly heard is "I'm just happy that we're safer and I'm willing to give up a little freedom to have that. What do *I* have to hide, anyway?"
That's great when you have a government that agrees with you. But the moment you have a government with fascist leanings (such as the current Bush administration) that don't dovetail with YOUR beliefs, you could be screwed. Then they can decide that they don't like gays, blacks, Mexicans, Christians, Buddhists, etc. and eavesdrop on YOU with the goal to gather enough information to do you damage.
You never know what's coming. Hitler taught us that.
But those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Wowee, I have not really been paying attention to comments although I do read your blog quite regularly. I haven't responded because most of it is over my head. But part of me is starting to feel that our version of Democracy is not working so well lately as much of the world is having economic issues right now. I do not know what the right answer is, but we sure are screwing up.
I'm likely voting for McCain because I feel he is the lesser of two evils, wouldn't it be nice to have an election in which this was not the case?
Ange
So now people are worried about one party rule huh?
Ill bet that a lot of people are also going to become very anti "Patriot" Act. You know, that little gem "keeping us safe" that under Bush has greatly expanded the "secret" powers of the President?
I bet a lot of people are suddenly going to think that public records laws are good, and that the practice of classifying everything in sight is not a great thing to do.
And how about all the secret powers Cheney created for himself? Those will still be great right?
And a President who loves to exempt himself from everything through the use of signing statements is AWESOME!!!!
The call to rewrite the Constitution was already put out. And it was pushed through. Hearings were blocked. Witnesses were ordered not to appear before Congress. The VP was part of the executive branch when that could protect him from questions, and part of the Senate when that could serve his interests.
The Republicans went so far as to try to change the filibuster law. They wanted to be able to shut down a minority party with a mere 50 votes (plus the VP's tie breaker) as opposed to 60 votes.
I wonder if they will support that idea now???
But nobody cared. Until 2006. And even then a lot of stuff was blocked. And then the lack of action was blamed on the party voted in.
Why no investigations? Simple. The majority party did not want any. Sex BAD - subverting the Constitution in the name of "fighting terrorism" good. I guess.
My hope here is that the damage is all undone. And once undone, made so it can never happen again.
In two years the balance in the Congress can be changed anyway. 1/3 of the Senate will be up for reelection, as will a number of representatives.
I seriously doubt Obama and the Democrats can do nearly as much damage in 2 years as W and the cons did in 6 years.
There is no safe Republican seat in congress right now. This is what the party leaders are saying. And it is all their fault. They should have thought of this long before now.
The Republican party will NOT be able to move to the center until they are rendered unimportant. All the neo-cons have to be voted out and retire to obscurity. Then the party can rebuild itself.
Saur - I have written a longer piece on voting third party and my reasons why that I will post on my blog tomorrow.
Also, I sent you a video link of an Obama interview when he was still in the Chicago legislature and contains some interesting thoughts on his view of the Constitution. Very scary stuff! It complements what you said in your comments to Scott above. For other's reference, it can be found here.
Anon: anyone who thinks that McCain is a lesser of two evils has no idea what evil is and has no idea what either McCain or Obama stand for.
Daniel, I beg to disagree. I do think McCain is the lesser of two evils, and Obama is the evil of two lessers.
...as if Bush vs. Kerry wasn't scary enough.
Ed, I am very interested in seeing that. Thank you.
Lazy, I agree with most of what you said: We are often more in agreement than not, even though we're on different sides of the moderate scale.
However: Explain your comment about Cheney's powers (4th paragraph) and the 6th paragraph?
BTW, you're right - it might only be 2 years of absolute power. But... that's scary enough as it is. I don't like it when it's unbalanced by EITHER party. After all, look what the neocons did.
Ange, It's because we're really not a democracy, we're really a republic. And that never works as well as a pure democracy, but it's somewhat more manageable for a time. It's basically democracy-for-snobs and was built into America by our Founding Fathers who felt very strongly that some people were 'more equal' than others (to quote a portion of Animal Farm out of context). That means we're really reigned over by a minority of elites.
It becomes a problem when these elites maneuver us into choosing between candidates such as Obama and McCain. In the past, it's worked OK for America, but it is becoming apparent that these elites do not represent the majority any more.
"A Supreme Court can either consist of conservative judges who stick to what the original framers intended. Or, it can be predominantly liberal, and reinterpret it at will to fit whatever pet project is at hand."
You forgot a third type of Supreme Court justice - the kind that your Republicans have been putting into office: those judges who will interpret the laws as they see fit, frequently in favor of Authority. This is what you've been getting.
And until someone invents a time machine, you will NEVER get anyone who "knows" what the framers intended. What they intended can only be interpreted, which is what a judge's job is. The Founders are dead, and with their loss, all we can do is hope to do as they would have wanted. The Democrats do this no less than the conservatives do (I wish I could be as assured of the Republican party), and they all judge "as they see fit"; that's why they are put in their office for life, so that they can judge as they see fit.
You forgot a third type of Supreme Court justice - the kind that your Republicans have been putting into office: those judges who will interpret the laws as they see fit, frequently in favor of Authority. This is what you've been getting.
NO. This may be what the neocons have been doing, but true Republicans do not want or approve of this. Don't lump me in that group.
And until someone invents a time machine, you will NEVER get anyone who "knows" what the framers intended. What they intended can only be interpreted,
Again, NO. There are many writings from that period. We don't have just the Constitution to go by. But even if we only had The Constitution, we know that it's an easy enough to understand document and we know how it was seen at that time. It's disengenuous to say otherwise. I'm not saying YOU are being disengenuous - maybe you don't realize that.
which is what a judge's job is.
No. A judge's job is to know The Constitution and enforce it, not interpret it by any flexible or modern standards.
The Founders are dead, and with their loss, all we can do is hope to do as they would have wanted.
But their writings are not.
The Democrats do this no less than the conservatives do (I wish I could be as assured of the Republican party), and they all judge "as they see fit"; that's why they are put in their office for life, so that they can judge as they see fit.
Which is why I really think if we ARE to re-do the Constitution, we should change it up and make term limits on all Supreme Court justices so that they are more accountable to the people.
Saur,
I want to thank you for your blog.
If you remember yours was the first I found over 4 years ago after I started blogging.
I commend you for re-establishing debate etiquette and will watch and read with much interest.
These damn heart meds I'm on have affected my ability to clearly speak my opinion lately.
Uncle Joe, I am so sorry to hear of the complications from the heart meds. That must be extremely frustrating.
Many, many years ago I was on a medication for a time that greatly impaired my decision making and I was frustrated at the time. Sometimes we don't have the choice to toss a medication out the window, even when we want to. I was lucky and could finally get off it.
Thank you for your kinds comments. I didn't realize I was the first blog you ran across! I am very flattered that you (and your family) continue to read what I have to write. I love you guys, and know that you are spiritual family.
You're not the only one, much to my surprise. I've been named as one of the top blogs in the Tampa Bay area by both of our major newspapers, and I am very grateful.
Saur - One of the first things Cheney did as VP was hold an energy policy meeting.
Do you know who attended that meeting? Neither do I. Cheney made the list of attendees a secret. All attempts to get a list of people who were there have failed. Not that the Republican congress was too hot to get it.
We DO know that Enron was represented.
We can also assume that the results of the meeting dictated the policies of the Bush years.
But we do not know who was there.
How is that for an invented power?
It just gets better from there. Unfortunately. But it is almost over.
That is unless we get ANOTHER VP who does not understand what the Constitution says a VP does. Who was it that recently said the VP is "in charge of the Senate"?? Not Biden. I think it was someone else.
As for the courts, in the English common law system (as it was back then) laws were usually written in such a way as to allow courts to interpret them. The USA adopted the English common law system.
As I understand it, in Louisiana the system is slightly different. Since that was French territory, it runs under a slightly different setup. There is more power in the legislative system, and courts have less to interpret.
Or something like that. I heard about this long ago when I did not really give a crap. So I was only half listening - at best.
The point is that judicial review is a part of the Constitution. Courts can take laws and throw them out. This prevents the law making branch from getting too crazy.
This crap about "activist judges" is just that - crap. The neo-cons want activist judges too, judges that advocate for what THEY want.
ANY judge who rules in a way they do not like is labeled a "liberal activist judge".
If I am far to the left, it is because I was pushed there at the wrong end of a sharp pointy stick.
Enough is enough. I want my Country back.
ALL Republicans must go. Only by losing big time can the party take itself back from the cons.
"NO. This may be what the neocons have been doing, but true Republicans do not want or approve of this. Don't lump me in that group."
If you vote for them, you support them. As long as real conservatives continue to vote for Neo-Cons, neo-cons will continue to speak for you. The only way to get rid of them is for them to lose, and lose badly. It takes a rare person to give up power, and there isnt a jewel among the neo-con turds.
"There are many writings from that period. We don't have just the Constitution to go by. But even if we only had The Constitution, we know that it's an easy enough to understand document and we know how it was seen at that time."
Are you kidding me? We cant even agree on what people who are alive really think! The past cannot speak for itself, and we can only interpret. It's not disingenous, it's disagreement.
As for easy enough to understand, there are folks who'd say the same thing about the Bible, and while the constitution is a lot simpler, it's still open, especially if you dont believe that the Founders thought of it as "written in stone".
"A judge's job is to know The Constitution and enforce it, not interpret it by any flexible or modern standards."
"Enforce"? That's the job of the Executive branch. Interpreting disputes through the Constitution is the job of a judge.
From Mirriam-Webster:
Main Entry: judge
Pronunciation: \ˈjəj\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): judged; judg·ing
Etymology: Middle English juggen, from Anglo-French juger, from Latin judicare, from judic-, judex judge, from jus right, law + dicere to decide, say — more at just, diction
Date: 13th century
transitive verb
1: to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
2: to sit in judgment on : try
3: to determine or pronounce after inquiry and deliberation
4: govern , rule —used of a Hebrew tribal leader
5: to form an estimate or evaluation of ; especially : to form a negative opinion about [shouldn't judge him because of his accent]
6: to hold as an opinion : guess , think [I judge she knew what she was doing]
intransitive verb
1: to form an opinion
2: to decide as a judge
synonyms see "infer"
In any other country, after 8 terrible years of one party, you'd not give them another 4 to further destroy things, whether it be economically or with regards to the standing of the US everywhere else, which quite frankly, is at an all time low.
Aside for political partizanship, as you are clearly a Republican supporter, the very idea that McCain is a better option than Obama based on the parties they represent alone, nevermind other factors; such as policies, debating abilities, standing in the rest of the world, choice of Veep and intelligence to list but a view; perhaps illustrates why the posting of an Obama smear and the attempt to justify it as open and fair debate was never going to stick.
Lazy, So Cheney didn't 'create' secret powers. What he had was a secret session and didn't disclose who was there. I'm sure it's possible. I despise this administration. But:
1. Then how did anyone know that Enron was invited?
2. Secret meetings are allowed and have always taken place, to the best of my knowledge (can you cite anything to the contrary?)
As for the V.P. being 'in charge of the Senate', they can think that all they like (just like they can think they're a reincarnation of Ghandi) but that doesn't make it so. The first time they tried to 'take charge', I'm sure the Senate would be in an uproar. Good luck with that, Mr/Ms V.P.
So, it's moot to make that a contentious point. It can't happen.
The neo-cons may want activist judges too, but I've seen no evidence of that. And may I add that I'm willing to believe almost anything nasty of the neo-cons.
Dave, You wrote:
If you vote for them, you support them. As long as real conservatives continue to vote for Neo-Cons, neo-cons will continue to speak for you. The only way to get rid of them is for them to lose, and lose badly.
SO very true! But... I have a choice between a neo-con (Very Bad) and a socialist (Even Worse). And if I vote as my conscience dictates (as Ed is doing) then there may be an even better chance that Obama will win and so, in essence, I'm voting for Obama. It's a true conflict for me.
I would have happily voted for Hillary (and I even donated to her campaign) due to exactly what you just wrote. But I can't put the country into the hands of Obama without a protest vote.
Note that I'm voting for McCain because he isn't Obama, not because he is McCain.
------
As for the Constitution, there is plenty of evidence as to what the framers intended. For instance, laws that were subsequently passed were passed close enough to the inception of the Constitution for us to know. And again, it's pretty self-evident.
I'll grant you that there are gray areas that we now wish were closed or opened wider, but each side wants something different. However, it was a MUCH more conservative time (I dare you to argue that) and we know they leaned in that direction. For instance, Gay Marriage would never have been considered (unless they were trying to decide between hanging and tar-and-feathering).
That isn't to say they were always RIGHT then, either. Daily violence was much more acceptable, there was slavery allowed in the states, and women had little rights. I think we have a better country now, but in the case of:
1. Slavery, we went back to the portion of the Constitution that said that all men were created equal.
2. Violence, we went back to the part of the Constitution that said we were all guaranteed the right to pursue happiness and so we tightened things up a bit. (At one point, you could walk by someone on the streets and club them, and there was little redress).
3. Women, we decided that 'men' meant mankind. But even then, we passed the 19th amendment just to be sure. We didn't suddenly decide the Constitution meant something other than what it had been interpreted as meaning for 100 years.
As for enforcing vs. judging, I understand your point. We'll go with your definition then. The police enforce. However, legislation DOESN'T enforce, either.
Daniel, Please see the first half of my note to Dave.
As for Obama being a socialist (and Hilary not?), well, I think he's far from that, but if my choice is socialism or 4 more years of the Feudalism represented by the Republican Party, then sign me up, comrade!
****
On a completely unrelated note, has anyone noticed a change in the word verification? The one I've got right now is "frisons", which is almost a real word (I've been getting a lot like that lately).
Dave, I understand and empathize but just as it's wrong for the neo-cons to "throw the baby out with the bathwater", it is wrong for the liberals.
Not all change is good, and you know that to be true.
If we say that fascism is bad for the right, then we need to also say it's bad for the left.
Hillary wasn't a socialist, just a liberal and of no real difference from McCain except that she is honest about her leanings. Comparatively speaking, she is much more conservative than Obama.
The word verification: I noticed the same thing. I speak a smidgeon of other languages and lately I've been seeing non-english words too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mopkn0lPzM8
I don't watch enough tv to have actually seen any commercials.
have you seen this one?
Joe, The end says "Barack Obama. He may be The One, but is he ready to lead?"
My specialty is marketing, and I must ask: Who the heck thought up that last statement? Right there they're verifying that he IS The One. Why would they word it that way?!
How about "Barack Obama. He THINKS he's The One. But is he ready to lead?"
McCain's campaign remains a horrific amalgam of mismanagement.
But it IS a cute video, overall. I don't know if it achieves the goal they were aiming for, however.
I am not sure how some of the attendees were rooted out. There may have been witnesses who saw people come and go at the time in question. The VP does live on a Navy Base and there may be civilian employees there.
The Secret Service also usually makes visitor logs public.
But what the people were doing there in the first place remains a secret. Nobody is talking about that.
And thus is the secret power invented. See we are supposed to be able to find out what was discussed - but not always a full transcript.
There were many other things too. Like the expansion of executive privilege to cover people not usually considered covered.
And a whole lot more. Too much to even remember.
But this is not really the issue here. Bush will be gone soon - and the new administration will be able to undo all these executive branch policies in short order.
The bummer here is that no impeachment hearings were held. We impeached a President for lying about oral sex, but one who lied about a case for war, who may have allowed energy company executives to write policy (which resulted in record high prices and record high profits), blocked every attempt by congress to exercise oversight powers, and so on will get away with it.
So that future Presidents can make a case to get away with the same shit.
The issue I looked at was pretty basic. Did I want a President who graduated in the bottom of his class, or one who graduated with top honors? One who probably got into the school he went to because of a family tree loaded with Admirals, or one who got into the top schools in the nation based on merit?
As for the VP part of the ticket, Biden does not exactly claim top honors. But he did get a double major in history and political science, and later a law degree.
As opposed to a BA in journalism. And.....uhhhh.....well nothing.
Is education everything? Not exactly. But it is a starting point. Something to go on. And an indicator of how rapidly one can learn stuff and retain stuff.
So yes, being in the bottom 5 of your class and obtaining top honors from Harvard is a major difference.
But far be it from me to suggest that we let in an "elitist". And what exactly is an "elitist"? Someone who is smart? Someone who worked to get educated? Someone who obtained top honors?
Or someone who got by, simply based on family connections. Like a daddy who went to a fancy pants school (so junior gets in as a legacy) and was head of the CIA - or a daddy and grandfather who were Admirals?
As for the "socialism" charge - is that what one calls demand side economics? We have tried supply side twice. The first time ended in a recession, the second time ended in an even bigger recession. What the hell is trickling down? Where are all the jobs that this theory supposedly creates? I do not see any?
By the way - how is your job search going? Getting any good leads? Because you know, the Bush tax cuts have created so many jobs! Why just the other day 5 employers begged me to come work for them. They even started to bid for my employment on E-Bay! Demand to fill all these new jobs is that strong.
And how was your employment situation in the 90s, when those horrible higher taxes were in place? I bet it was nothing short of a full blown depression back then! No jobs for anyone!!
What we need right now is a cut for the middle. If that means a slight increase at the top fine. They can afford it. Then the middle can dig out of debt, or maybe start spending more. Either way the results will be positive. Digging out of debt means more money injected into the credit market - and less repos / foreclosures. Buying more stuff means business has a REASON TO EXPAND.
If I had a business and was given a 0% tax rate - I would not expand. I would sit on that money. Why expand if there are no customers to demand more stuff?
Contender makes a great boat that was in high demand. They are scaling back operations due to less demand. Other builders of popular boats are closing shop outright. What will a tax cut for them do to expand business?
Nothing. Not unless demand for the product increases.
But keep listening to people on the radio who make tens of millions a year talk about all the expansion business will do with a tax cut. And remember that they will also get a tax cut - which they will NOT use to expand anything except their personal bank account.
By the way, business sends jobs overseas not because of taxes! The company HQ buildings remain here in the USA where there is AC and the politics are stable. They send jobs to India and China because LABOR IS CHEAPER. You do not see company HQ operations going to India now do you? Nope - they remain in New York City. Because the executives like to live there.
It is the jobs that go over there - because labor is cheaper. Cheaper labor means you can sell the same crap for the same price you sold it for when it was made in the USA, but reap more profits.
Don't you think that taxing companies that send jobs overseas because of cheaper labor may counter balance that cheaper labor factor - and make American workers seem not so expensive?
Assuming of course that the goods in question have inelastic demand. Meaning you can not just raise the price of it and people will keep buying it. Otherwise, you can keep your labor overseas - raise consumer prices - pay the higher tax - and still make more profit than hiring domestic workers.
I will risk calling the bluff of big business. Move the HQ building to some third world country. Move the company to Bangladesh. Let the top executives live there, with their families. Behind gated mansions with military troops standing guard at the gates to keep the compound safe. And bomb proof cars to drive to and from work in. Go on - do it! Take your wife and kids there too. Send your kids to school there. See how the wife likes living in a nation with no Sacks Fifth Ave a short limo ride away. In a nation where the city smells like an open sewer, and diseases you never heard of are common place. Someplace where the political climate is so unstable that a military coup is always a possibility, or where armed rebels are more than just a bad movie plot.
You know executives will not do this. They like to live here, and they will continue to do so. HQ buildings are not going anywhere - or they already would have. And can you blame them? I would not want to live there either.
I think what the cons fear the most is that Obama may actually succeed. That the economy may recover. That he may win reelection. That at the end of it all, we are not any more socialist than we are now - and better off.
That is what they are afraid of.
Lazy, There is a weak spot of mine. I have continually wondered why Bush didn't undergo impeachment hearings. Since the Congress has been a Democratic Party-controlled one for a couple of years, and they initially threatened to do so, are we to assume there really was nothing to impeach?
Probably.
But I still don't like Bush, and I won't pretend I do. I think he's sneaky, and his real motives for the war overseas is NOT to protect the country or he'd be more worried about the borders and less worried about the war-demolished country of Iraq.
Anyway:
If you're not sure how the attendees were rooted out, I would want to know that before we could continue the discussion because we know how rumors can start on both sides and be equally inaccurate. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I really want facts.
You're right, a new administration MIGHT change this, or it might take advantage of the edits of the U.S. Constitution that the Bush administration somehow managed to create.
Elitist is not someone who is smart, or rich, or (in the case of reverse snobbery) poor or as dumb as George Bush. It's the belief that government (or the head of government) knows better than the people. It's the belief that once they've been elected, they must do what they believe is BEST for the country and not what the PEOPLE believe to be best for the country. George Bush is a classic example of such an elitist. We do not need another in Barack Obama.
You keep mentioning trickle down economics. You may not be reading my comments but I've already said that T.D. economics doesn't work.
I agree we need a tax cut for the middle class, and I'm happy with putting the rich in higher tax brackets, but BOTH sides will be doing this. There is no distinction here.
I also believe it's time to impose tariffs on imports to encourage production and jobs at home again.
Perhaps some neo-cons worry that Obama will succeed. But true conservatives (NOT neo-cons) worry about something else: The erosion of the Constitution which began in the Bush administration. The potential for socialism. And frankly, Obama has vastly different standards than them. In fact, he has different standards that even us moderates, as he is to the far left.
True conservatives (meaning Reagan Republicans) disagree with me in some areas. Although I was (and in many ways am) a Reagan Republican:
1. I don't believe in trickle down economics (it's been disproven over 20+ years).
2. I don't believe that taxing the wealthy at a higher rate is class warfare. I do believe they can spare more than we can. I realize that some people say this is a disincentive, but the people who would be at a higher tax rate are often being paid disproportionately more. In other words, they're not working harder for their money - in fact, sometimes they're not even working AS hard as the majority. Examples include McCain's wife, for instance. What has SHE done for Bush beer except skim the profits?
3. I don't believe in the current war(s). Which makes me sound as if I'm a classic liberal, but my reasons are different. I believe that IF we are to go to war with such people, we do not waste our citizens' lives on such an enterprise. I believe we nuke them, and then retreat. Once they rebuild their little civilization (or lack of it) if we don't like what they've done, we do it again until they get the picture.
If I were President, I would merely withdraw all the troops from overseas immediately and plant them at the borders. I would cut down on illegal aliens (which neither side will do for different reasons. The Democrats want more votes, and the neo-cons want cheap labor).
I couldn't figure out the last statement either.
That's actuall the first political ad i've seen this year.
Joe, I never watch TV. So, it's one of the few I've seen. And I avoid ads like crazy, cuz they make my blood pressure go up. ;o) One of the best ads I've seen was pointed out by Dave. Go here to see it. It's a brilliant blend of humor and the marketing group is fabulous, even though it IS for Obama.
Google "Cheney energy task force". There are only about a billion sources that pop up. You can weed through it all yourself if you want.
Socialism is just a scare word thrown around by the rabid right. Obama's "liberal" voting record mostly consists of voting against the Republican agenda. Of course this is all it takes to be labeled a "communist" or "socialist" or even "liberal".
The scare tactic of "overthrowing the Constitution" is bullshit because the US Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. Any law or policy that is unconstitutional can be thrown out. All it has to be is challenged in court. And anyone can bring up the challenge - not just congress.
And lets take your definition of "elite". Government knows best and will do what it does regardless of what the people want.
The people of California voted - in a fair election - for medical marijuana. The Bush DEA did everything it could to squash that. Doctors that dared to write a prescription that Bush did not like was threatened with the revocation of their DEA number - meaning they would not be able to prescribe anything.
Voters in FL voted to limit class size. Jeb Bush said he had a "devious plan" to thwart it and tied funding for the program to a bullet train - then sent it to voters forcing them to fund BOTH projects or fund neither.
I am sure you remember that one.
Jeb Bush also tried EVERYTHING he could to over ride the voters of Broward County who authorized vegas style slot machines.
Who keeps trying to use the power of government to define marriage? Not the "liberals". No, it is the people who think they know what is best, and have no issues at all using government to enforce their views.
By the way - I voted no on 2. Florida has done just fine as a State so far, and there is simply no need to change the state constitution in that regard.
But I have a feeling that even if question 2 fails, the majority party in the State will try to override that vote too. Because we are too stupid to know how to vote.
Shall I continue here? I think you get my point.
Obama on the Constitution,
"And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that." Obama
How can Obama take the Presidential Oath to uphold, or more importantly, to preserve, the Constitution when he thinks it needs to " break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution "?
And I am just asking a question! No need for the spammer to come over to my blog and leave me 50 vulgar comments!!!
Jungle Mom, WHAT? Do you think the spammer came from here? What a poltroon. It's a shame that people can't behave like responsible adults.
Anyway, excellent point and I heard the same quote and feel it's significant. Thank you for the contribution. I'm glad you brought it up, as I didn't.
Lazy, Well, I'd say it's a matter of degrees. I'd say Barack is a socialist because he's an extremist liberal who wants to go even further beyond the bounds of US law and the Constitution than Bush did.
I've thrown out the term 'fascist' when I've mentioned the Bush administration before. Yet, it doesn't completely describe the Bush administration and is a slight exaggeration. (For instance, Bush never encouraged or allowed violence against his opponents).
The same can be said of Obama - he's not quite a socialist in all ways, but in many ways, he fits the stereotype. IMHO, he comes closer to being a pure socialist than Bush comes to being a fascist. See Jungle Mom's comment below yours.
Your discussion of my definition of elite didn't seem to contradict it. In fact, it just goes to show that I'm right. Each state should be able to set it's own laws unless it's directly in conflict with Federal law. And, IMHO, Federal laws and regulations need to be reduced as much as possible so we can return more power to the states and the people.
You had me at 'nuke them'.
"True conservatives (meaning Reagan Republicans) disagree with me in some areas. Although I was (and in many ways am) a Reagan Republican:"
St. Ron is not a "true" conservative, he is Neo-con Prime. Supply-side economics, war-mongering, ballooning deficits, tax-cuts as an answer to any situation, welfare to corporations but not the poor, the "Star Wars" boondoggle, high secrecy and low access - all these are Reagan traits. Do they sound familiar?
@ Jungle Mom: re: Obama on the Constitution.
Is that the quote you use to say that Obama wants to escape the Constitution? Read it again. He says that the Warren court wasnt that radical because it stayed within the bounds of the constitution. Then he goes on to lament that the courts became the focus of the Civil Rights Movement, rather than organization at the community level. How exactly does that make him a radical? Sounds to me like he wishes that the People had made the changes rather than the courts. Isnt that what conservatives want too?
"Each state should be able to set it's own laws unless it's directly in conflict with Federal law."
I'd like to see more of that also, actually. Think of it as competetive governing. People will go to the state which has the best policies, and leave the ones with the worst (except maybe in the case of NY, CA and maybe IL, where they'll go for the Big Cities).
One last thing, from the Underhanded Tricks department: a "War Crimes" bill that includes provisions for letting the Bush administration off the hook for any war crimes they "may" have committed.
Isnt changing rules ex post facto unconstitional (as in, right there in the constitution)?
And Saur, as to why Pelosi et al arent persuing impeachment charges, it's not because the charges arent warranted, it's because Pelosi et al would be implicated also, since they were part of the bunch who aided and abetted this criminal Administration. One can only hope that an Obama administration will set loose a revitalized Justice Department to investigate BushCo, since Congress probably never will.
Saur,
I assume the spammer came from here because of the tone and topic. I could be wrong.
Dave, No, we do NOT want the Constitution freed from the constraints the Founding Father's placed on it. Did you miss the entire 'redistribution ' part?
Uncle Joe, ;o)
Dave, By today's standards, perhaps. But Reagan was a Republican with radical new ideas that hadn't been tried out before. Hindsight is always 20/20, and I believe that if he were currently the President, he would not be heralding trickle down economics.
As for the other things you've mentioned - we will have to agree to disagree.
Reagan was very accessible to the public and the press (unlike Bush, who cows the press and ignores the public). Reagan listened to the polls (like the Clintons). And ANY President and his staff must operate with some secrecy when national concerns are at stake.
As for Star Wars (and the nuclear program), America ended up with peace of unprecedented proportions after a long reign of terror by Jimmy Carter (an example of what can happen when you let a socialist in the door for 4 years).
Dave, Your comment about competitive governing - my thoughts exactly!
That's one reason why I think abortion is a non-issue. There is so much precendent set now that I sincerely do not believe it would ever be revoked.
But IF it ever was, it would merely recede to the states. Most would keep abortion, and the Bible belt wouldn't. Inconvenient for those who want an abortion in those states, but not insurmountable.
As for the bill you mentioned, that was in 2006. Did it pass? Very interesting - I'd missed that one (but I'm not surprised - Bush is always punching holes through the Constitution that are so wide you can drive a truck through them).
Interesting point about Pelosi et al. I hadn't thought of that.
Jungle Mom, Ah, I see. And I agree with you about the Constitution. However, taxes themselves are (IMHO) un-Constitutional but, like abortion, they're here to stay.
So, it's a question of how much, and not if.
It's like this old story:
At a very elegant dinner party, a rich, elderly man was seated next to a young woman, renoun for her looks and possibly her lack of morals.
During their dinner conversation, the young girl engaged in a great deal of flirtatious behavior - nailing a rich old man could be very advantageous.
The elderly man finally felt comfortable enough to lean over and ask "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
The girl blushed, and admitted coyly that she would.
"Would you sleep with me for a dollar?" asked the old man unexpectedly.
"Sir!" gasped the girl, "What kind of woman do you think I AM?"
"We've already established that," replied the elderly man. "We're just haggling about the price."
"Dave, No, we do NOT want the Constitution freed from the constraints the Founding Father's placed on it."
I dont see any evidence that Obama does either, certainly not in your quote. As for "redistribution", with the Bush tax cuts, money has flowed upwards from the people who do the work (which is what creates wealth, not stock markets and ownership) to the people who pay as little as they can get away with (increasingly overseas) to get it done. I'd call that "redistribution".
As someone who makes considerably less than a quarter million a year, and works fairly hard for it, I will cry not one tear for the sad millionaire, because almost none of them get there all by themselves.
Basically, what the Illinois State Senator was talking about way back in 2001, was his dismay that the founding fathers had not codified “egalitarianism” into the US constitution and that the Warren court hadn’t taken the admittedly radical step when it had the chance. That’s what he means when he says that he could now sit down at a lunch counter and order, if he “could pay for it.” If he could not pay for it and the white guy sitting next to him could, then he’s not equal. This is why wealth has to be redistributed-in order to achieve “economic justice” - code for egalitarianism.
A Marxist thinks Man is equal if he has the same relative to every other man. As long as all men are given the same rights by the state, then its fair – “social justice”-again, socialist code words for “egalitarianism.”
So when Senator Obama talks about “negative liberties” he’s really talking about the protection of individual rights which are negative, in his view, because they limit the state from instituting “social and economic justice”, egalitarianism, by coercion-his goal.
In Obama’s view, the problem with the Constitution is that it doesn’t say “what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.” In other words, Obama, believes that the Constitution is flawed because it doesn’t give the state the right to coerce another citizen to give you some of his wealth and achieve “social and economic justice” which code for egalitarianism.
So when you put Obama’s “spread the wealth” philosophy with his belief that the constitution is flawed because it stops short of giving the state the power to act “on your behalf,” you can see how the argument can be made that Obama’s “hope” and “change” are really just 'newspeak' euphemisms for the socialist reorganization of society based on the Marxist principles of egalitarianism through activist judicial reinterpretation of a flawed constitution.
I can not be any clearer.
Jungle Mom, Impressive summation. I do agree with her, Dave. I heard the same interview.
So, your arguement is based on "code words"? No, sorry, I dont buy it.
Dave, Not code words, but plain English.
I heard the interview. My issue is with the government having the power to "act on my behalf." How will it determine in what areas I need action on my behalf?
I think people use the words "fair" and "equal" interchangeably. This should not be. Having more than a couple of kids, I find myself explaining the difference often.
For example: It is okay for Child 1 to bring home a C in math, but not Child 2. Why? Because Child 2 can get a B with her eyes closed, and Child 1 needs to work for every bit of that C. They are not inherently equal in their math abilities so to be fair, I cannot punish Child 1, while Child 2 would not fair as well. In fact, Child 1 would be praised for a B, but Child 2 would be questioned on her work ethic.
Example 2: Child 3 is interested in piano. I pay for piano lessons. I don't give Child 4 an extra $15 a week spending money because he is not interested in piano and isn't spending the family's money on piano.
Fair, but not equal.
I agree with AQ on the "fair vs. equal", at least as far as his examples go (further agreement pending). It's a large part of what's wrong with our schools, and with the welfare system.
I'm still not agreeing on the code-words, unless you can show me the code-book (get your spies crackin').
Dave, Actually AQ's a 'she', though of course you can't tell from her pseudonym. We originally met years ago, and she's more frequently a contributor my the other blog on our local schools that Michelle supervises.
She is very sharp.
I like the wry comment about the code words. I think the reason you have that impression is that the entire speech isn't quoted here, so you don't get the flavor of it. Go here to read more on it. I apologize that it's National Review...I'm sure you're allergic to it. ;o) I'm psychologically allergic to country music and rap.
Well darnit, I think everyone is missing the key component of this discussion. There are meds out there that cause you to have poor decision making and unclear thinking? If so what are they and where can I get them because so far I've had no excuse for my idiocy
Thanks for the compliment, Saur.
And please pass those meds, Doozie, when you find them.
Post a Comment