Have some members of the Republican party no shame?  Sarah Palin, anti-government controlled health care advocate, admitted during a recent speech in Canada that her family took advantage of Canadian medical care while living in a small Alaskan town near Whitehorse ,Canada.

My first five years of life we spent in Skagway, Alaska, right there by Whitehorse. Believe it or not – this was in the ‘60s – we used to hustle on over the border for health care that we would receive in Whitehorse. I remember my brother, he burned his ankle in some little kid accident thing and my parents had to put him on a train and rush him over to Whitehorse and I think, isn’t that kind of ironic now. Zooming over the border, getting health care from Canada

Perhaps someone should explain to the former governor that no that is not “ironic” it is hypocritical.  One can understand why she would confuse the two given her inability to grasp the bleeding obvious.

And how about those “good union jobs” her and Todd snatched up that paid for their health care?

This isn’t the first time Palin highlighted the difficulty of obtaining affordable health care in America. During the presidential campaign, Palin discussed how her and husband Todd had “gone though periods of our life here with paying out-of-pocket for health coverage until Todd and I both landed a couple of good union jobs.“

Meanwhile in California, a staunch anti-gay rights Republican state senator admits that he is gay.  State senator Roy Ashburn was arrested for drunk driving last week after leaving a gay club in California.   Mr. Ashburn has spent 15 years blocking every piece of gay rights legislation offered in the state senate of California.  We don’t give a hoot about your personal life Mr. Ashburn except when it is in direct contradiction to the policy positions you hold and push through the senate that affect all Californians gay and straight.  Even more so when such hypocrisies prevent equal rights for every American citizen regardless of their sexual preference.  Then its just blatant HYPOCRISY!

You don’t??  No worries there was none.  The attempted attack aboard the Northwest flight  to Detroit on Christmas day was eerily familiar….like we lived it before about eight years ago.  Remember Richard Reid the shoe bomber who attempted to blow up an American Airlines flight on December 22, 2001?  You don’t?  Well lets refresh your memory and the memories of the GOP members who were out loud and proud this week criticizing President Obama’s handling of the situation.  Their main issue is that the president did not respond appropriately with the seriousness that such an occurrence deserves.  And by respond, we can only assume that the Republican House and Senate members believe that the president should have appeared in a cowboy hat and boots with guns blazing.  But I digress. The thwarted attack happened on December 22,2001.  The person who came to the rescue in 2001 was a fellow passenger similar to the actions of the passenger on Northwest flight 253.  Guess what else?  The shoe bomber was arrested and put in jail just like the failed attacker on the Northwest flight.  President Obama made a statement yesterday regarding the failed attack and has been briefed on the hour about new developments in addition to ordering a full investigation of what went wrong.  The President has also ordered new procedures for all flights entering and departing the United States.  What did President Bush say in his 2001 statement regarding the failed shoe bomber attack you ask?

First 24 hours?

KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT:
….
Some additional information to bring to you at this time. We do know that President Bush was notified about this situation earlier today and that he has already had a briefing on the situation. The president, as we have noted, is spending the holiday weekend at the presidential retreat at Camp David.

CNN 12/22/2001

Crickets, crickets

48 hours??

December 23, 2001

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said that President Bush continued to monitor the situation and receive updates at Camp David. Bush has not issued any statements about the incident.

Boston Globe 12/24/2001

crickets, crickets

Five days later…more crickets.

Finally, TEN SIX DAYS later President Bush merely mentions the attack in passing while discussing a different point.

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE PRESIDENT; Bush Says Taliban Leader Will Be Found

President Bush said today that it was ”just a matter of time” before Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban leader, was captured, but he did not say if and when the United States Marines would join in any search. Mullah Omar is believed to be hiding in southern Afghanistan.

”I’m patient, and so is our military,” Mr. Bush said before having a cheeseburger and onion rings for lunch with staff members and friends at the Coffee Station, the only restaurant in this town of about 700. The president is spending the holidays at his 1,600-acre ranch, eight miles northwest of here.

….

Mr. Bush, in his last question-and-answer session with reporters in 2001, also said that the main task of the F.B.I. was now to protect Americans from further attacks.

”The whole culture of the F.B.I. has changed for the better,” Mr. Bush said. He added that the country as a whole was ”on alert” and praised the flight attendant on an American Airlines flight on Dec. 22 who noticed the man whom Mr. Bush called ”the shoe bomber,” Richard C. Reid, trying to light a fuse in his sneaker.

NYT 01/01/2002

By the way, the shoe bomber Richard Reid was indicted on terrorism charges by a grand jury, tried and convicted in a federal court, and is now serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison in Colorado.   And guess what?  Not a peep was spoken by a single Republican about the arrest of the shoe bomber or the fact that this terrorist was tried and convicted in the United States federal court system.  Not even from former Homeland Security Chairman Tom Ridge.

Meanwhile Sen. Jim DeMint is blocking the nominee, Erroll Southers, for the top position at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) because the Republican member does not want baggage screeners to join a union.  So let me get this straight…..currently we have no one heading the airline security in the United States because Sen. DeMint is afraid of collective bargaining?  Can you imagine if this was a Democrat blocking a TSA Chief nominee right after an attempted terrorist attack five days ago?  Exactly…HYPOCRISY!!!

Two more things.  First, didn’t a Republican administration develop the Homeland Security program and had eight years to perfect it?  Second, because the Republicans are labeling this an attack, does this mean that there was another attack on the US during the Bush presidency thereby disproving the claim that Bush prevented subsequent terrorist attacks on the US during his presidency?

Bruce Bartlett, former domestic policy advisor to Ronald Reagan and former treasury official under George H.W. Bush, penned a recent article pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the GOP’s rabid focus on the allegedly increased deficit that will occur as a result of the passage of the health care reform bill.

The human capacity for self-delusion never ceases to amaze me, so it shouldn’t surprise me that so many Republicans seem to genuinely believe that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. Perhaps at one time they were, but those days are long gone.

Speaking of health care and fiscal responsibility…remember the Medicare drug benefit bill?

This fact became blindingly obvious to me six years ago this month when a Republican president and a Republican Congress enacted the Medicare drug benefit, which former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker has called “the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.”

As for the cost of the GOP orchestrated Medicare Part D program compared to either the Senate or House version of the Health care reform bill according to Bartlett:

Just to be clear, the Medicare drug benefit was a pure giveaway with a gross cost greater than either the House or Senate health reform bills how being considered. Together the new bills would cost roughly $900 billion over the next 10 years, while Medicare Part D will cost $1 trillion.

And now for the kicker..how did the GOP controlled Congress plan to pay forits Medicare Part D program?

Moreover, there is a critical distinction–the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit, whereas the health reform measures now being debated will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, adding nothing to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. (See here for the Senate bill estimate and here for the House bill.)………..

Recall the situation in 2003. The Bush administration was already projecting the largest deficit in American history–$475 billion in fiscal year 2004, according to the July 2003 mid-session budget review…….

Recall, too, that Medicare was already broke in every meaningful sense of the term. According to the 2003 Medicare trustees report, spending for Medicare was projected to rise much more rapidly than the payroll tax as the baby boomers retired. Consequently, the rational thing for Congress to do would have been to find ways of cutting its costs. Instead, Republicans voted to vastly increase them–and the federal deficit–by [$534] billion between 2004 and 2013.

The Prescription Drug Benefit program added $15.5 trillion in current value to our nation’s deficit!  Some of the Republicans that voted for the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Benefit bill?  Jim Bunning (R-KY),  Mitch McConnell (R-KY), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Orrin Hatch (R- UT), and Jon Kyl (R-AZ).  Yep you guessed it…the ones with the biggest mouths concerning the deficit being passed to their children.

The GOP continue to harp on the alleged lack of bipartisanship overtures by Democrats in the House and Senate.  We now have confirmation from a former member of the Republican caucus that such complaints are disingenuous.  We all know that the GOP game plan for the 2010 and 2012 elections is to obstruct and prevent the President from accomplishing any of his domestic agenda and to do it by any means necessary.  Well Sen. Arnel Specter confirmed on Sunday what every person paying even mildly attention already knew…the GOP has been plotting to bring this President down since January 20. 2009.  Specter revealed the GOP strategy according to private conversations that he was privy to as a member of the Republican caucus before he switched to the Democratic Party in April of this year.  See video below.

House Republicans presented a four-page outline of their health care reform plan Wednesday but said they didn’t know yet how much it would cost, how they would pay for it and how many of the nearly 50 million Americans without insurance would be covered by it.   See article

Dejavu

Yesterday President Obama responded to today’s GOP scheduled tax day “tea party” initially brought on by CNBC analyst Rick Santelli during an ill advised rant last month.  The GOP has now taken the spectacle and ran with it.  Unfortunately, the Grand Old Party do not have a cohesive focus or message for their stunt.   The president, however, has decided to address all the criticisms lodged against his economic policies coming from certain factions of the GOP.  If you want to be informed regarding teh president’s policies and teh logic and reasoning behind them, read below.  If you want to know why it does not make sense to send checks directly to taxpayers as opposed to giving it to the banks read below.  If you want to know why it does not make sense to nationalize the banks read below.  If you want to know why it is critical to our economic recovery that the government increases its spending please read below.

President Barack Obama’s remarks at Georgetown University, as provided by the White House                          

A House Upon A Rock

It has now been twelve weeks since my administration began. And I think even our critics would agree that at the very least, we’ve been busy. In just under three months, we have responded to an extraordinary set of economic challenges with extraordinary action – action that has been unprecedented in both its scale and its speed.

I know that some have accused us of taking on too much at once. Others believe we haven’t done enough. And many Americans are simply wondering how all of our different programs and policies fit together in a single, overarching strategy that will move this economy from recession to recovery and ultimately to prosperity.

So today, I want to step back for a moment and explain our strategy as clearly as I can. I want to talk about what we’ve done, why we’ve done it, and what we have left to do. I want to update you on the progress we’ve made, and be honest about the pitfalls that may lie ahead.

And most of all, I want every American to know that each action we take and each policy we pursue is driven by a larger vision of America’s future – a future where sustained economic growth creates good jobs and rising incomes; a future where prosperity is fueled not by excessive debt, reckless speculation, and fleeing profit, but is instead built by skilled, productive workers; by sound investments that will spread opportunity at home and allow this nation to lead the world in the technologies, innovations, and discoveries that will shape the 21st century. That is the America I see. That is the future I know we can have.

To understand how we get there, we first need to understand how we got here.

Recessions are not uncommon. Markets and economies naturally ebb and flow, as we have seen many times in our history. But this recession is different. This recession was not caused by a normal downturn in the business cycle. It was caused by a perfect storm of irresponsibility and poor decision-making that stretched from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street.

As has been widely reported, it started in the housing market. During the course of the decade, the formula for buying a house changed: instead of saving their pennies to buy their dream house, many Americans found they could take out loans that by traditional standards their incomes just could not support. Others were tricked into signing these subprime loans by lenders who were trying to make a quick profit. And the reason these loans were so readily available was that Wall Street saw big profits to be made. Investment banks would buy and package together these questionable mortgages into securities, arguing that by pooling the mortgages, the risks had been reduced. And credit agencies that are supposed to help investors determine the soundness of various investments stamped the securities with their safest rating when they should have been labeled “Buyer Beware.”

No one really knew what the actual value of these securities were, but since the housing market was booming and prices were rising, banks and investors kept buying and selling them, always passing off the risk to someone else for a greater profit without having to take any of the responsibility. Banks took on more debt than they could handle. The government-chartered companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose traditional mandate was to help support traditional mortgages, decided to get in on the action by buying and holding billions of dollars of these securities. AIG, the biggest insurer in the world, decided to make profits by selling billions of dollars of complicated financial instruments that supposedly insured these securities. Everybody was making record profits – except the wealth created was real only on paper. And as the bubble grew, there was almost no accountability or oversight from anyone in Washington.

Then the housing bubble burst. Home prices fell. People began defaulting on their subprime mortgages. The value of all those loans and securities plummeted. Banks and investors couldn’t find anyone to buy them. Greed gave way to fear. Investors pulled their money out of the market. Large financial institutions that didn’t have enough money on hand to pay off all their obligations collapsed. Other banks held on tight to the money they did have and simply stopped lending

This is when the crisis spread from Wall Street to Main Street. After all, the ability to get a loan is how you finance the purchase of everything from a home to a car to a college education. It’s how stores stock their shelves, farms buy equipment, and businesses make payroll. So when banks stopped lending money, businesses started laying off workers. When laid off workers had less money to spend, businesses were forced to lay off even more workers. When people couldn’t get car loans, a bad situation at the auto companies became even worse. When people couldn’t get home loans, the crisis in the housing market only deepened. Because the infected securities were being traded worldwide and other nations also had weak regulations, this recession soon became global. And when other nations can’t afford to buy our goods, it slows our economy even further.

This is the situation we confronted on the day we took office. And so our most urgent task has been to clear away the wreckage, repair the immediate damage to the economy, and do everything we can to prevent a larger collapse. And since the problems we face are all working off each other to feed a vicious economic downturn, we’ve had no choice but to attack all fronts of our economic crisis at once.

The first step was to fight a severe shortage of demand in the economy. The Federal Reserve did this by dramatically lowering interest rates last year in order to boost investment. And my administration and Congress boosted demand by passing the largest recovery plan in our nation’s history. It’s a plan that is already in the process of saving or creating 3.5 million jobs over the next two years. It is putting money directly in people’s pockets with a tax cut for 95% of working families that is now showing up in paychecks across America. And to cushion the blow of this recession, we also provided extended unemployment benefits and continued health care coverage to Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Now, some have argued that this recovery plan is a case of irresponsible government spending; that it is somehow to blame for our long-term deficit projections, and that the federal government should be cutting instead of increasing spending right now. So let me tackle this argument head on.

To begin with, economists on both the left and right agree that the last thing a government should do in the middle of a recession is to cut back on spending. You see, when this recession began, many families sat around their kitchen table and tried to figure out where they could cut back. So do many businesses. That is a completely responsible and understandable reaction. But if every family in America cuts back, then no one is spending any money, which means there are more layoffs, and the economy gets even worse. That’s why the government has to step in and temporarily boost spending in order to stimulate demand. And that’s exactly what we’re doing right now.

Second of all, I absolutely agree that our long-term deficit is a major problem that we have to fix. But the fact is that this recovery plan represents only a tiny fraction of that long-term deficit. As I will discuss in a moment, the key to dealing with our deficit and debt is to get a handle on out-of-control health care costs – not to stand idly by as the economy goes into free fall.

So the recovery plan has been the first step in confronting this economic crisis. The second step has been to heal our financial system so that credit is once again flowing to the businesses and families who rely on it.

The heart of this financial crisis is that too many banks and other financial institutions simply stopped lending money. In a climate of fear, banks were unable to replace their losses by raising new capital on their own, and they were unwilling to lend the money they did have because they were afraid that no one would pay it back. It is for this reason that the last administration used the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, to provide these banks with temporary financial assistance in order to get them lending again.

Now, I don’t agree with some of the ways the TARP program was managed, but I do agree with the broader rationale that we must provide banks with the capital and the confidence necessary to start lending again. That is the purpose of the stress tests that will soon tell us how much additional capital will be needed to support lending at our largest banks. Ideally, these needs will be met by private investors. But where this is not possible, and banks require substantial additional resources from the government, we will hold accountable those responsible, force the necessary adjustments, provide the support to clean up their balance sheets, and assure the continuity of a strong, viable institution that can serve our people and our economy.

Of course, there are some who argue that the government should stand back and simply let these banks fail – especially since in many cases it was their bad decisions that helped create the crisis in the first place. But whether we like it or not, history has repeatedly shown that when nations do not take early and aggressive action to get credit flowing again, they have crises that last years and years instead of months and months – years of low growth, low job creation, and low investment that cost those nations far more than a course of bold, upfront action. And although there are a lot of Americans who understandably think that government money would be better spent going directly to families and businesses instead of banks – “where’s our bailout?,” they ask – the truth is that a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or ten dollars of loans to families and businesses, a multiplier effect that can ultimately lead to a faster pace of economic growth. Read the rest of this entry »

According to the Citizens For Tax Justice, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research and advocacy organization, the budget plan proposed by House Republicans far exceeds the spend proposed by the President’s budget.  CTJ compared the two plans and the GOP didn’t fair too well.  After a week of criticising the president for the amount required under his plan, it turns out that the GOP’s plan spends significantly more, $300 billion more.  The GOP does hypocrisy so well.  Below are the highlights of the GOP plan that House Republicans will announce on the steps of the Capitol today.

• Over a fourth of taxpayers, mostly low-income families, would pay more in taxes under the House GOP plan than they would under the President’s plan

• The richest one percent of taxpayers would pay $100,000 less, on average, under the House GOP plan than they would under the President’s plan.

• The income tax proposals in the House GOP plan, which is presented as a fiscally responsible alternative to the President’s plan, would cost over $300 billion more than the Obama income tax cuts in 2011 alone

Caterpillar, Sprint, Home Depot, IBM, United Airlines, Texas Instruments, General Motors, Pfizer, cut over 43,000 jobs yesterday.  Yet the GOP is playing politics with respect to the latest stimulus package.  The GOP has not presented any better ideas besides the Bush tax cuts that helped put us in this situation in the first place.  This is an American problem and we need to address it as Americans.  The economy is in a downward spiral and something needs to be done and done quickly.  The Obama administration appears to be very open to GOOD ideas as long as they are not the same ideas that were implemented throughout the last eight years.  This past election was a referendum on the GOP agenda….not wanted.  The GOP not voting for Obama’s redevelopment and reinvestment in America plan is an attempt to make the Democrats take the fall for any backlash that may come from it yet they have not offered up anything better.

The GOP and John McCain are saying that voters should vote for either so that Democrats don’t win the particular branch of government that the person speaking at the time is not running in.  This is the argument that the GOP is using to urge voters to vote for their candidate to stop the Democrats from winning the majority in Congress and also winning the Executive office.  Yes, this is what the congressional candidates have in their arsenal to try and prevent their democratic rivals from winning their Senate and House seats on Nov 4th.  Don’t vote for my opponent because John McCain is going to lose.  Sen. McCain’s closing argument, don’t vote for Sen. Obama because my congressional colleagues are going to lose all the seats in contention in their States and Districts on Nov 4th.  Neither the GOP nor McCain offer any real solutions to the real problems facing Americans but again are trying to use the same scare tactics that they used in 2004.  They are hoping that Americans have a short memory, and by short I mean nonexistent.  They hope Americans will forget that it was GOP policies, endorsed wholeheartedly by Sen. John McCain,  and the policies of  its leader George W. Bush, who McCain voted with 90% of the time, that caused our current crisis. 

This is a losing argument for Sen. John McCain and the GOP and it just shows how both are completely out of touch with the American people. They are basically admitting that either is going to lose so vote for me.   We have absolutely nothing in terms of policies to help you and the policies proposed by our democratic opponents are far superior than anything we can come up with so vote for us because we don’t want them to be successful.  Rediculous closing argument. 

To be effective, a Democratic president needs the support of a Democratic congress.  We need a real break from the last eight years and a completely new direction.  Lets do what we need to do in order to make that happen.  This will be a very close race, so please VOTE and encourage others to vote.

Well it appears that the the GOP refuses to let anything stand in the way of their need to party.  Several lobbyists threw parties that GOP politicians attended in light of the anticipated devastation that hurricane Gustav threatened to provide to an American city. One party goer pretty much said tough luck.

GOP members are acting out an alleged protest in the House during this Congressional recess.  The GOP and Sen. John McCain are insisting that House leader Nancy Pelosi call Congress back from recess to vote on its “drill now” bill proposing off-shore drilling.  The GOP or McCain fails to mention that the leader of their party, Pres. George W. Bush, also has the power to call Congress back from recess to vote on the GOP proposed bill.  The grand old party consistently and conveniently forgets to mention that GOP House members asked Pres. George Bush to call Congress back from recess and the president refused.  So, ask yourself…..why would they expect a member of the opposing party to do what the leader of their own party has refused to do?  Also, why is the GOP not protesting against Pres. Bush, he has more power than Pelosi?  Why…..because it is a political stunt, nothing more, nothing less.

Further, for those tourist who are venturing down to the nation’s capitol to witness the GOP spectacle…..ask questions to those GOP members claiming that the domestic oil drilling will help make us energy independent.  One good question would be…..ask them if they will guarantee that such domestically produced oil will remain in the United States and not be sold to the world market?  Ask them if they can mandate that all the oil drilled domestically by the oil companies will remain here at home.  I bet you that they will either attempt to dodge the question or brush you off.  And by brushing you off I mean, they will say “that is a great idea, I agree with you.”  Then they hope that voters will forget that they asked the question.  Further, the GOP will not incorporate such restrictions because such restrictions would be against the interest of the oil companies and they do not want to lose out on all those oil company campaign contributions.  Second, they will not restrict the oil leases in such a way because oil companies are not going to allow the government to dictate to them where they can sell their product, even though said oil leases are granted by the United States government.  Such a requirement would probably reduce their profit margin significantly.  Oil companies sell to the country that logistically reaps them the most profit.  Republican members of the House are hoping that this little glitch will go unnoticed by American voters.  The GOP is well aware that drilling domestically will do very little to reduce energy dependence, but it will provide oil companies with significantly more profit potential.  Finally, ask those GOP House members whether increasing domestic production will cause OPEC members to decrease their production thereby eliminating any gains domestically except to oil companies?  They are attempting distraction to detract from real solutions that will help the majority of the American people instead of greasing the palms of a few oil companies……call them on it.

First, I would like to thank Sen. John McCain for his sacrifice and service to our nation.  He deserves our utmost respect for what he endured and his defense of country.  However, the candidates for President of the United States also deserve our utmost scrutiny before receiving a single vote for the nation’s highest office.  Especially with respect to leadership style and methodology.  Recently, I published a post  listing Sen. McCain’s various approaches to difficult political and personal issues.  As previously stated, I believe that this information is vital in determining whether the Arizona senator should be the next President of the United States.  I have come across additional information profiling the McCain method of dealing with a challenging political issue he faced in his home state of Arizona.  Because McCain is not this writer’s senator, I find illuminating the opinions of the people who know him best.  His fellow Arizona republicans.  This is from the people who have a birds-eye view of how McCain leads.  The leadership of the Arizona GOP have very strong opinions about Sen. McCain and his ability, or inability, to lead.  They are also very dissatisfied with his conservatism.  According to Max Blumenthal of the Nation, Bob Haney, the Republican state committee chairman in Arizona’s 11th District, had this to say:

“People would be calling in to [state committee] headquarters every week, absolutely enraged, threatening to leave the party because of some comments McCain made,’ Haney told me. ‘The guy has no core, his only principle is winning the presidency. He likes to call his campaign the ’straight talk express.’   Well, down here we call it the ‘forked tongue express.’”. .

Dissatisfied with McCain’s commitment to the state, Haney introduced a resolution to censure the U.S. Senator for “dereliction of his duties and responsibilities as a representative of the citizens of Arizona.”  The resolution was introduced before Arizona’s largest GOP county committee and passed by almost unanimous vote.  That was the wrong move as far as McCain was concerned.  Rather then let stand what was viewed by most as a mere symbolic gesture, McCain wanted revenge.  Target:  Bob Haney and his allies.  McCain recruited a  candidate slate to oust Haney and his allies in that November’s state committee election.  Concerned about a loss and potential rebuke by his party, the Arizona senator put himself on the ballot in effort to makeover his image and increase his odds of winning this battle.  Both McCain and his slate suffered a resounding lost.  Arizona republicans gave their take on McCain’s handling of the situation.

Per Blumenthal: “McCain’s botched revenge has solidified his reputation in Arizona’s Republican circles as a divisive, untrustworthy and even dangerous figure. Haney hopes the general public meets this side of McCain before his penchant for angry reprisals is invested with the powers of the presidency. ‘This just shows that McCain is mentally unstable and out of control and vindictive,’ Haney told me. ‘If he is determined to go through that much trouble to attack a district committee chairman, what does that say about his ability to handle real political problems?”

Yes, what does that say indeed.  Is this the way McCain will handle America’s allies and enemies if they happen to anger him?  Will diplomacy or military might be the first line of defense in a McCain administration?  There are too many instances such as this that raise questions as to his ability to handle, not to mention effectively handle, the litany of challenges facing our nation.  In the Senate, checks and balances on each Senator’s power make it difficult for an individual senator to make a catastrophic blunder.  Not so in the Executive Office.  One word…Iraq.

As a voter, this writer is much more concerned that this person has a fifty percent chance of becoming the next President of the United States.

John McCain was all for talking with Hamas two years ago before he started running for president.  Now the Arizona senator has flip flopped on the double-talk express.  A pattern is developing here.  This was written in response to McCain’s outrageous statement yesterday in support of President Bush’s outrageous and unprecedented comments regarding “appeasement” that Bush made about Sen. Obama on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence.  Bush also violated 60 years of uninterrupted american foreign policy in that you do not criticize american foreign policy on foreign soil.  See interview with James Rubin:

RUBIN: “Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?”

McCAIN: “They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.”

McCain allegedly told the North Carolina republican party not to run attack ads raising the Wright issue.  North Carolina Republican Party response…….not so much.  Sen. McCain, are you not the leader of the Republican Party?  If you can’t control your own party, what kind of leader are you, or more importantly, will you be?  John McCain and the Republican National Committee supposedly expressed outrage along with submitting a plea to the local GOP not to run the ad.  wink…nudge.   Flashback:  When a similar attack ad was run against Harold Ford during his U.S. Senate run in Tennessee, there was also mock outrage from the RNC and from the then republican nominee (now U.S. Senator).  Yet, the ad continued running…….now, Ford is a pundit for MSNBC.  Lucky for Obama, it does not seem that the Wright issue is hurting him like the Playboy issue hurt former Congressman Ford.  The problem that this writer has with the North Carolina situation is that McCain has played this both ways.  The Arizona Senator plays the good cop and gets credit for taking the high road by telling the local North Carolina RNC not to run the ad.  He also wins on the low road because the ad runs and possibly dings the Obama campaign after which McCain benefits.  Somehow, I think this ad will not be going away any time soon.  Even if the ad is not run in North Carolina, the main stream media has ran it 150, 000 times, accomplishing exactly what the GOP wanted to accomplish.  This is despite McCain’s continued, hmhmm…..protestations.  Something else interesting about rejecting and denouncing this ad.  When Hillary Clinton was asked to comment?…….crickets, crickets, crickets.  There has been silence from the Clinton campaign. As a matter of fact, Hillary Clinton has refused to comment on the GOP attack ad at all.  If this had come out against Clinton and Obama had refused to comment, Clinton would have been on every news outlet asking why the silence?  Word to Obama….I don’t know if a knife in a gun fight is your best weapon. 

Why do you think that the North Carolina republican party is running an attack ad against Senator Barack Obama and nothing against Clinton?  Why do you think Clinton remains in this race even though she, being the very smart woman that she is, realizes that there is no way that she can win this nomination without ripping the democratic party apart?  2012 is the answer to the second question.  By prolonging the race, Clinton helps out her self described “very good friend” John McCain get elected in the fall.  Given McCain’s age, and the current state of the union, it opens up the possibility for another Clinton White House in 2012.  As to the first question regarding the GOP attacks.  The GOP has much more material against Clinton than they do Obama, yet they decide to release two attack ads during a democratic primary.  The GOP continues to spout that they think Clinton will be the harder candidate to beat in a general election….yet they are running attack ads against Obama.  Why not let the candidate that you (GOP) allegedly perceive as the weaker opponent win the primary thereby making a GOP win in the fall much easier?  If I thought that the weaker opposing candidate was about to become my opponent in a general contest, I certainly would NOT put out attack ads against that weaker candidate so as to get the person I view as a stronger opponent nominated.  If I were the opposition, I would try and destroy the stronger candidate before he/she becomes my opponent in the general.  Think about it.  The GOP has issued two attack ads against Obama in a democratic PRIMARY!  Unprecedented!  And please do not drink the kool-aid suggesting that Clinton has been vetted and that the GOP does not have a war chest of Clinton ammunition that has been built up since the idea of Hillary Clinton as President first surfaced six years ago.  The GOP is salivating over the possibility of running against Clinton.  An email was sent last night from Rick Davis, chairman of the McCAIN campaign, pushing Clinton’s candidacy and talking up what a better candidate she is in comparison to Barack Obama.  Clinton is a tremendous fundraising tool for the republican party.  The GOP knows that a Clinton candidacy is a unifier like no other.  What also seems to be a new hot topic for main stream media is the fact that a larger percentage of Clinton than Obama supporters say that they will not vote for Obama in the general election but will instead vote for McCain.  HEY MEDIA!!!……it’s called posturing!  Given the way Hillary has run her campaign, are you surprised that her supporters will consider false threats as a tool in this race?  In other words, use fear to scare up your preferred result.  I very seriously doubt that when McCain puts all his cards on the table with respect to Iraq, the economy, education, etc., that few voters will actually vote McCain over Obama.  Especially for those whose only issue with Obama is that he is not Hillary Clinton.  Give me a break.  Has Obama run the U.S. into a ditch like the Bush policies…which McCain has pretty much vowed to continue?  Really, lets be honest…for democrats, the most important thing is getting a democrat into the White House.  Perhaps initially there will be anger and discontent among some disgruntled Hillary supporters…but I guarantee you that once the plans of Obama and McCain are laid side by side, democrats will have a clear choice.  Not to mention that Obama has played by the rules and won by the rules.  If Clinton were somehow to get the nomination, it would be through favoritism and a subsequent changing of the rules just to give Clinton the nomination.  How do you stay angry because your candidate did not illegitimately gain the nomination when the majority of the electorate legitimately voted for the other candidate?  Supporters may be angry for a second, but there is no sustainable basis for such anger.  The opposite can be said of Obama supporters if Obama were to be denied the nomination at this point.   A real test to the voting public’s resolve in demanding a different kind of politics will be whether it will reject the attacks of Clinton and the GOP attack machine as the distractions that they are intended to be. 

Howard Dean, the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, is very upset with John McCain.  Apparently, when the McCain campaign was not doing very well back in December, McCain was strapped for cash and applied for federal matching funds using the promise of Public Financing as collateral for the loan.  Public financing is funded by taxpayers checking the box on their tax returns indicating that they would like to donate to the Federal Election Commission.  Candidates opting into the public finance system are also subject to public finance regulations.  Public finance regulations set spending limits for candidates in primaries and the general election.  In primaries, the cap is set at $54 million.  McCain has already spent $49 million on his campaign.  Therefore, if he were to abide by the election laws, that McCain is responsible for reforming, the Arizona Senator will only have $5 million left to spend in this primary season ending in September.  Because McCain does not want to be limited by the spending cap, he has formally requested a withdrawal from the program.  McCain’s lawyer argues that McCain is allowed to opt out of the program because it is voluntary.  FEC lawyers announced on Thursday that it may not be possible for McCain to withdraw at this point because he used the promise of federal matching funds to secure the bank loan.  Okay, didn’t McCain attempt to slam Obama for not responding, and according to McCain breaking his word, regarding a pledge Obama signed last year regarding public campaign financing.  Even though the actual wording of the pledge is to “aggressively pursue an agreement” with the GOP to preserve a publicly financed election.  Last I checked, an agreement to “agressively pursue” agreement, does not mean actual agreement.  Participating in the public finance system caps each candidates spend in the general election to $85 million and neither candidate cannot accept additional funds.  But I digress.  Looks like Mr. McCain should be in fact, Mr. Pot calling Mr. Kettle.  Currently four of the six member seats of the Federal Election Commission are vacant so no decision can be made on this issue until the FEC has quorum.  Gridlock between the Bush administration and the Senate is stalling the nominations for these posts.  The reason this is such an issue is because McCain has built his reputation, after the Keating Five scandal (five Senators, including McCain, accused of Savings and Loan corruption in 1989), on being a reformer and the champion of campaign finance reform. 

Barack Obama and John McCain has won all three contests within the Potomac primaries.  On the democratic side, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia gave Barack Obama significant victories over Hillary Clinton.  More specifically, Virginia was very significant.  Considered a sort of bellwether state, Obama won over voters that have previously voted for Clinton.  For example, Obama won the latino vote 53% to Clintons 37%.  In Virginia and Maryland, Obama won 59% of the women vote.  Obama split the Virginia overall white vote with Clinton by winning 48% of the total demographic.  Further, Obama also won heavily among white men in Virginia.  In addition, Obama won the catholic vote.  As for Obama’s across-the-isle appeal, republicans represented 8% of the vote in the Virginia democratic primary and Obama won 70% of their vote.  The Senator from Illinois has managed to broaden his coalition by reaching across the isle with a unifying message.  Both candidates were vying heavily for Virginia voters.  Clinton considered Virginia her best chance of a win within this group of contests.  However, Obama won a substantial victories over Clinton in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.  The final tally for Virginia is 64% to 35%, Maryland, 59% to 37% and the District of Columbia, 75% to 24%.  These wins will give Obama eight victories in a row thereby giving Obama a delegate lead over Clinton.  Before this contest, the Associated Press reported that Clinton lead with 1136 delegates to Obama’s 1108.  After the Potomac primaries, Obama takes the lead with 1210 delegates and Clinton falls slightly behind with 1188 delegates.  These AP totals includes Superdelegates.   Additionally, Obama has won a total of 21 states to Clinton’s 10.  The Clinton campaign has said that their focus is on the March 4th primaries of Ohio and Texas.  Clinton is already campaigning in the Lone Star State in hopes of building a firewall against the Obama momentum.  Though, continued wins by Obama could put a kink in Clinton’s strategy.  It will be difficult for the Clinton campaign to spin eight successive wins by Obama as insignificant.   As damage control, Clinton made telephone calls to several of her donors and supporters asking them to hang in there with her until Ohio and Texas.  However, if Obama’s momentum continues to build, Ohio and Texas may not be the result that the Clinton campaign expects. Obama has already hit the ground in Wisconsin campaigning for its primary on February 19th.  As for the Republicans, McCain also won all of the Potomac primaries.  It seems that McCain in winning over conservatives, at least he did so in Virginia and Maryland.  The final tallys were Virginia, McCain 50% and Huckabee 41%, in Maryland McCain 59% and Huckabee 29%. and the District of Columbia, McCain 68% and 35%.  Virginia is especially significant due the large amount of conservatives in that state.  The fact that McCain won Virginia may be an indication that the tide may be turning and the far right of the GOP has begun to rally around the Arizona senator.  Huckabee was hoping to win Virginia to legitimize his continued participation in the race.  However, the former Arkansas govenor is not dropping out and vows to stay in the race uintil McCain hits the magic number of 1191 delegates.   The McCain campaign has labeled the affable Arkansan an “irritant.” After McCain’s win of Virginia, most have concluded that he is the Republican nominee.  There isn’t a math calculation that adds up to Huckabee becoming the GOP nominee for the 2008 Presidential niomination.  As a side note:  Clinton’s deputy campaign manager, Mike Henry, resigns.

If there was any doubt as to Huckabee’s legitimacy and sincerity about continuing his run for president, all doubt has been removed.  Rather than attend the commencement of one of the most influential conferences for any GOP presidential nominee, Governor Mike Huckabee went to New York to be on,  wait for it………..the Tyra Banks show??  That’s right.  The Conservative Political Action Conference boasts over 6000 conservatives in attendance.  But Mike Huckabee chose to go be on a liberal chat show rather than be with family.  Not to mention the fact that Huckabee’s long time friend John McCain will be making his very public plea to the group (see story below).  On top of that, the attendees of the conference are his core constituents, the exact people who gave him his wins in Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, and Tennessee.  Instead of taking advantage of this rare opportunity to reach out to his base, Governor Huckabee made the choice to reach out to a much more significant GOP voting block, viewers of the Tyra Banks Show.  I expect that we will be hearing his concession speech any day now.