It's less than a 10 days until the final presidential elections in the U.S. At this point it looks like Obama is favored to win, but as was the case in 2000 and 2004, we know that it's not over until the fat lady sings. It will be interesting to see if the Republicans will continue to steal the election like they had in 2000 and 2004 they are surely going to try, after being successful the last two elections it is hard to believe that it will be a clean election this year, but we can hope.
America deserves better than what it has been getting for leadership the last eight years. The last eight years have been filled with scandals and illegalities of and from the Bush administration. First the Republicans steal the elections and put and keep in office a puppet that has been one of the worse in history for America, and then he has continued to commit crimes against the American people and the world community, so far with impunity of being held accountable. History will record this time as one of the darkest times in American politics for Americans and the view held of Americans around the world. We have lost our reputation we have had in the world as champions of what's right and fair and the defender of the down trodden. In a way I'm glad that I haven't been fortunate enough to travel the world, because I'm embarrassed of what it has become to be an American. We have a nasty reputation with the rest of the world and frankly we deserve it. No matter who wins the bid for the White House it is our duty to demand from them actions that will improve our image in the world and address the failures of the past.
For people who know me, it is no surprise that I don't hold any hope that a Republican will be one to fix what's wrong with America, what might surprise them is I also don't hold much hope that a Democrat will either. It's fine and dandy to claim that it's the American people who are accountable for the failure of the government to be fair and honest and address the problems of our country and our image in the world, but it would be a false claim. These last few years I think the American public has called for the right things to be done in government but short of starting a revolution their pleads have been falling on deaf ears of the occupants of both major parties. Two years ago the public voted mostly for Democrats who promised to end the war in Iraq and hold the administration accountable for it's crimes, it didn't happen.
I don't share the belief of Republicans that we can blame all the problems that have came to a head these last couple of years on the Democratic majority in Congress. For one thing, the biggest, the Democrats have held the majority, but they didn't hold a 2/3rds majority that it would have taken to push bills to address the burning issues through the House and Senate to overturn the president's veto. I do believe, as I think many other people do, that the Democrats caved in too easily to the demands of the president and his Republican party. Democrats for the most part are afraid to hold there ground over fears that they will lose the support of the American people and they will get voted out of office. I'm not sure what could be more a sign of support as they got from the last election where Americans voted almost entirely to put Democratic leaders in any open spot they could to represent them. The Democrats promised to hold the administration accountable for it's illegal activities and get us out of an expensive illegal war in Iraq that was approved for under false pretenses. Once in office though the Democrats developed the jitters to do anything decisive fearing their re-elections. Time and time again they would make a stand only to cave in later to the demands of the administration and Republicans, the Democrats had no balls.
Although I may be disheartened by the Democrats, I totally disagree with the Republican's agenda and views on how the government should be run. How many times in history do we have to have proven to us that trickle down economics does not work? Those who don't learn from the mistakes in history are destined to repeat them same mistakes, again, and again, and again. I think that trickle down economics was ever really intended to work for the common people, it's more of an instrument for the greed of the rich to get richer. Lets face it, our country has always been lead by a small handful of the super rich and famous, and they don't make a point of giving away power or money. Sure, if you know anyone who has a lot of money, I mean a really lot of money, they will say that they give to charity, and/or that they support various groups to help the unfortunate, but would they pay their workers a fair wage so that they are not the unfortunate ones? No. When they defend their wages and profits it's supporting their families, but when a common person uses the same argument for needing more money, the well to do claim it's not their problem that their workers have large families to support. To the elite, the common man is still looked down upon as breeding stock to replenish their workforce, a commodity to be managed to keep us high enough in numbers to ensure a cheap workforce without being too high in numbers so as to risk an revolt and a risk of the toppling of their empires.
This election we have two of the major parties claiming to represent change, will either one of the follow through on it? I really doubt it, not the way or intensity they hope or we need anyway.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
Got Lipstick?
What a sad state of our times when we reduce the presidential elections from platforms from which to preach solutions to our country's biggest problems, to the point of arguing about lipstick on a pig. I kind of doubt that my life will change much either way whether that pig, or pit bull, has lipstick or not.
I think that there are many more, more important issues than lipstick on a pig. Maybe the legalities of fighting a war in Iraq, illegal wiretapping, with holding and destroying evidence before they can be subpoenaed, picking people off the street in foreign countries without that country's knowledge or permission, keeping prisoners in foreign prisons, and we still don't know about the illegal firings of prosecutors or the big one, torture of prisoners in the war against terrorism. These are past failures of the present administration that no one wants to tackle.
Instead of lipstick on a pit bull or lipstick on a pig, why don't the candidates tell us about how they are going to tackle the problems we face in our government and the problems that are affecting the American people? I could give a rat's as* about lipstick on any kind of animal, doesn't strike my fancy, but apparently it's high on the Democrat and Republican list of important things that the American people need to know. How about letting me know how I'm going to afford to heat my house, or put gas in my car, how are they going to improve our infrastructure, how will we move into the future as a provider of high paying technology jobs in our own country instead of providing low paying jobs for people in third world countries? Apparently none of these things are very high on either candidates list as being important to the American people.
I would think that the first candidate that comes up with a workable budget plan for our country, the first candidate that speaks truth and shows out unfounded lies, the first candidate that promises to run the government openly in front of everyone for all to criticize and debate, that candidate should be our clear choice for president, not the candidate who tells the biggest or the most lies.
I think that there are many more, more important issues than lipstick on a pig. Maybe the legalities of fighting a war in Iraq, illegal wiretapping, with holding and destroying evidence before they can be subpoenaed, picking people off the street in foreign countries without that country's knowledge or permission, keeping prisoners in foreign prisons, and we still don't know about the illegal firings of prosecutors or the big one, torture of prisoners in the war against terrorism. These are past failures of the present administration that no one wants to tackle.
Instead of lipstick on a pit bull or lipstick on a pig, why don't the candidates tell us about how they are going to tackle the problems we face in our government and the problems that are affecting the American people? I could give a rat's as* about lipstick on any kind of animal, doesn't strike my fancy, but apparently it's high on the Democrat and Republican list of important things that the American people need to know. How about letting me know how I'm going to afford to heat my house, or put gas in my car, how are they going to improve our infrastructure, how will we move into the future as a provider of high paying technology jobs in our own country instead of providing low paying jobs for people in third world countries? Apparently none of these things are very high on either candidates list as being important to the American people.
I would think that the first candidate that comes up with a workable budget plan for our country, the first candidate that speaks truth and shows out unfounded lies, the first candidate that promises to run the government openly in front of everyone for all to criticize and debate, that candidate should be our clear choice for president, not the candidate who tells the biggest or the most lies.
Monday, July 14, 2008
The Push for Oil
The Northwoods Politic
President Bush today has lifted the executive ban on offshore oil drilling. He's been pushing Congress to allow for the drilling of offshore oil deposits on the U.S. continental slopes. There are both executive and Congressional ban on drilling offshore, but he's hoping that by lifting the executive ban he can push Congress into lifting theirs.
There are two parties that both have fundamental differences in opinion on how this will affect energy prices. One party says this will bring the high cost of fuel prices down. The other side says this is mostly hype and it is just a matter of the first party taking advantage of people's fears that we need to do anything and everything to bring these prices down, because they just can't afford to pay these prices for fuel. What the true facts are is hard to tell. If you read about the companies that make these big drilling platforms needed to extract the oil from our continental slopes, they state that they are already backlogged 5 years on orders for other countries so it would be 5 years before they would even be able to start building the oil platforms to use in the U.S. On top of that, some say that the oil companies hold leases on all kinds of land with viable oil reserves that they are not drilling already.
Again as always, this is an issue that runs along Republican and Democratic party lines, with mostly Republicans wanting the drilling and Democrats not wanting drilling. This is one of the biggest problems in our government. We can't seem to have all these people sit down, look at the facts, and come up with what they think is good or not good. After deciding what their stance is, they should go back to their districts and try to persuade their constituents to what they think is right, but their main job after that is to take what views their constituents decide back to Washington and reflect that in their vote on the issue before Congress. Instead the top person, in this case the president, decides what he wants and all the rest of the people in their party fall in line behind him, they say this is what they want too, and they vote on the issue in Congress to reflect their party's will. Most of these people that we are talking about are addressed as Representatives, the reason they are addressed by that title is that they are supposed to represent the people from their districts. The way this has been working is a major flaw in the way our government is supposed to work.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Bend Over America
In the latest news of the fleecing of America as reported in the New York Times. Charles M. Smith a former civilian overseer for the Army, overseeing the largest contractor of the Iraq war for food services, KBR, said he was ousted from his job because he refused to pay one billion dollars for questionable charges that were not substantiated by KBR. The Bush Administration must hate the New York Times.
KBR is a Houston-based company that provides food, housing and other services to the troops stationed in Iraq. KBR stands for Kellogg, Brown and Root and is the subsidiary of Halliburton, the Texas company that Vice President Dick Cheney previously served as chief executive. Mr. Smith's position was then given to a colleague and KBR received all the money it was asking for, including the one billion that didn't have supporting records for.
So we have a war that support was gotten from Congress and the American people through the lies and misstatements from members of the Bush Administration, which included Vice President Dick Cheney, who has had strong ties with the KBR company. Doesn't this sound a bit like conflict of interest on the part of Vice President Dick Cheney? Hmmm, can we say kickbacks? For someone that came into a very high level of government from being a chief executive of the company in question, it would be hard to not imagine some kind of benefits coming back Cheney's way in some form or another. I suppose we will learn later, as this story breaks, that this is probably another one of the Bush Administration's no-bid contracts. If we are getting fleeced for at least one billion in food services, what about the other services that KBR supplies like in troop housing and other services? We'll see huh? It's a big surprise,not, that in our failing economy the only businesses doing well, extremely well, are businesses that the president and vice president are/were involved in, oil companies and companies involved with supplying services and weapons for the war in Iraq. Now Bush is pushing for the oil companies to be allowed to drill off shore, something that oil companies have been pushing for for some time, coincidence? I think not.
We can count on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will look into this and find in this case, as it has for other cases in the past, misconduct on the part of the Bush Administration. Yet, Hello Democrats, there will be no push by Democrats to follow through on impeachment proceedings against Bush or Cheney as there are already articles of impeachment that have been sent to the Judiciary Committee that are basically sitting on ice. I agree with Democrats on most things, but when it comes to doing their constitutional duties in regards to protecting the American people against a corrupt administration they are nutless. I can't understand why that is? I can't believe that Democrats are so afraid that people, who voted them into office on their platforms of fixing a corrupt government and getting us out of the Iraq war, are going to chastise them during an election year because they would be doing what the American people put them in office for. Where is the justice? Instead they give lame reasons that they have more important things to do during the remainder of their terms.
What is more important than protecting the Constitution? What's more important than impeaching the people in office, who have done so much damage to the American people's constitutional rights. What's more important than making sure that the people who got us into an illegal war with Iraq which cost over 4 thousand American solders their lives and countless Iraqi lives, costs to the American people of trillions of dollars, a failed economy and high gas prices, are brought to justice. Instead the Democrats are content to piddle with trying to pass bills that have no chance to pass because even if they can get enough support from the House and Senate, the crook of a president we have will veto them. What's more important than fixing that?
Most of this doesn't make sense. About the only way any of this makes sense to me is:
The Democrats don't really want to bring this war to and end as the American public wants. The Democrats think that they will get more support, or more support for a Democratic president, from the American people passing bills that are repeatedly vetoed by a Republican president. The Democrats secretly want to keep the executive powers that President Bush claimed for their own use when they get one of their own in the president's chair. The Democrats are completely clueless as to their jobs in office. What ever their excuses are, they don't make sense. If they don't watch it, it will back fire this fall and the American public will be so fed up with their inaction that they will vote independent or even Republican cause even if the Republican's objectives are different than the people's objectives, they at least know how to get what they want, specially when no one is willing to call them or stand up to them on their illegal procedures and activities.
KBR is a Houston-based company that provides food, housing and other services to the troops stationed in Iraq. KBR stands for Kellogg, Brown and Root and is the subsidiary of Halliburton, the Texas company that Vice President Dick Cheney previously served as chief executive. Mr. Smith's position was then given to a colleague and KBR received all the money it was asking for, including the one billion that didn't have supporting records for.
So we have a war that support was gotten from Congress and the American people through the lies and misstatements from members of the Bush Administration, which included Vice President Dick Cheney, who has had strong ties with the KBR company. Doesn't this sound a bit like conflict of interest on the part of Vice President Dick Cheney? Hmmm, can we say kickbacks? For someone that came into a very high level of government from being a chief executive of the company in question, it would be hard to not imagine some kind of benefits coming back Cheney's way in some form or another. I suppose we will learn later, as this story breaks, that this is probably another one of the Bush Administration's no-bid contracts. If we are getting fleeced for at least one billion in food services, what about the other services that KBR supplies like in troop housing and other services? We'll see huh? It's a big surprise,not, that in our failing economy the only businesses doing well, extremely well, are businesses that the president and vice president are/were involved in, oil companies and companies involved with supplying services and weapons for the war in Iraq. Now Bush is pushing for the oil companies to be allowed to drill off shore, something that oil companies have been pushing for for some time, coincidence? I think not.
We can count on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will look into this and find in this case, as it has for other cases in the past, misconduct on the part of the Bush Administration. Yet, Hello Democrats, there will be no push by Democrats to follow through on impeachment proceedings against Bush or Cheney as there are already articles of impeachment that have been sent to the Judiciary Committee that are basically sitting on ice. I agree with Democrats on most things, but when it comes to doing their constitutional duties in regards to protecting the American people against a corrupt administration they are nutless. I can't understand why that is? I can't believe that Democrats are so afraid that people, who voted them into office on their platforms of fixing a corrupt government and getting us out of the Iraq war, are going to chastise them during an election year because they would be doing what the American people put them in office for. Where is the justice? Instead they give lame reasons that they have more important things to do during the remainder of their terms.
What is more important than protecting the Constitution? What's more important than impeaching the people in office, who have done so much damage to the American people's constitutional rights. What's more important than making sure that the people who got us into an illegal war with Iraq which cost over 4 thousand American solders their lives and countless Iraqi lives, costs to the American people of trillions of dollars, a failed economy and high gas prices, are brought to justice. Instead the Democrats are content to piddle with trying to pass bills that have no chance to pass because even if they can get enough support from the House and Senate, the crook of a president we have will veto them. What's more important than fixing that?
Most of this doesn't make sense. About the only way any of this makes sense to me is:
The Democrats don't really want to bring this war to and end as the American public wants. The Democrats think that they will get more support, or more support for a Democratic president, from the American people passing bills that are repeatedly vetoed by a Republican president. The Democrats secretly want to keep the executive powers that President Bush claimed for their own use when they get one of their own in the president's chair. The Democrats are completely clueless as to their jobs in office. What ever their excuses are, they don't make sense. If they don't watch it, it will back fire this fall and the American public will be so fed up with their inaction that they will vote independent or even Republican cause even if the Republican's objectives are different than the people's objectives, they at least know how to get what they want, specially when no one is willing to call them or stand up to them on their illegal procedures and activities.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
The Presidential Candidates
While I have not been affiliated with any particular political party, the last few years I have come to realize that I tend to agree with the values of the Democratic party more than the Republican party. There are things I don't like about the Democrats like most of their views on gun control, but it seems, especially the last eight years, that the Republicans are fat cats for fat cats at the expense of people who aren't so fortunate. Republicans don't seem very compassionate of the needs or desires of the common people, they are more pro big business insisting on passing laws that benefit big businesses with the insinuation that the wealth will trickle down to the masses, even though they pretty much know it doesn't. I think that it has been shown again and again that this line of thinking is flawed. Those benefits given big businesses don't give any relief to the masses and just serve to fatten the profit margins of those companies as they lay off more and more people and pay the ones they keep less and even to the point of moving their operations outside the US to take advantage of low wages, poor working conditions and lower environmental regulations. I have been totally put off by the secrecy and illegal activities of our government during the coarse of the Bush Administration that has put America in such a bad light to the rest of the world. With that said, here are my thoughts on the major three presidential candidates as I see them.
John McCain
In his words and actions seems to be pretty much hell bent on continuing the Bush legacy. Wanting to stay in Iraq for the long run no matter what the cost. Loyal to the Republican party's agendas, in other words, except for some minor differences, pretty much more of the same failed policies as we had the last eight years. If Bush is your hero, John is your man. This is a very sober statement given by McCain, "Presidents have to make judgments no matter how popular or unpopular they may be." This mirrors Dick Cheney's statements on why we need to stay in Iraq even though the vast majority of the people would like us out of there. Another comment that he made in regards to the idea of a "League of Democracies", a plan of his to create an organization like the United Nations except for no communists or dictators to have to contend with, McCain says, "It could act where the UN fails to act." Bush never had much regard for the UN either. Age has to be a factor, look at Bush or any other president that has lasted through a couple of terms of president, now imagine starting off with someone that is that old to start with. Just what America needs after eight years of a president that was in denial, a president that is facing senility.
Hillery Clinton
First woman to run for President a historical event. When it comes right down to it, would you want to have Bill Clinton back in the White House as the nation's First Gentleman? Cigars anyone? "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." With this in mind how strong do you think this candidate would be in the fall elections against McCain? Hillery can't resolve issues with her marriage seemingly content to put up with her husband running around as he probably is still beneficial to her goals or aspirations. Hillery has strong support of women, but a couple things has come out again and again. Hillery seems willing to say just about anything to get the nomination, from dodging sniper bullets to claiming that she can win just by sticking around...remember Kennedy's assassination? Finally the last gripes I have about Hillery are I think her campaign has been a lot more negative compared to Obama's, I think her comment about obliterating Iran was pretty scary, I'm really getting tired of hearing her say that she has the popular vote when the only way that is possible is if you count Michigan's results, a ballot that Obama's name wasn't even on the ticket. Now that I have brought up the matter of Michigan, that is another thing that really disturbs me about Hillery. Everyone involved agreed with the decision of not counting Florida and Michigan because they broke the parties rules, but now as that is the only way Hillery has a chance at the nomination, she counts them as she tells everyone she has the populist vote and she is fighting against the party now in demanding that the rules be changed, this kind of reminds me of the kind of thing Bush does and shows me that a vote for Hillery would be a vote for government as usual without regard for the rules.
Barack Obama
Another historic first, first black man to run for government. What an election, first woman and first black man running for president. This election has set the theme for issues about race and gender, something never really having been an issue in this way in the past. Truthfully I haven't looked back on voting records of either of the three candidates, so except for what I have heard in the news, I am pretty much taking the candidates at their word for what they stand for. Listening to the candidates though I like Obama's style. I believe he is fighting a lot less negative campaign and even defending some of what Hillery has said and done for the good of the party. He has had some troubles with things his paster has said, but I don't ever remember Obama appointing the paster his spokes person. The point is I think Obama has been the most refreshing of the candidates, he is believable it doesn't seem like he is hiding things as in that he spoke of his experiments with drugs in his past, he talks of diplomacy and actually talking to opposition leaders in the world that don't agree with our ideals to try to improve conditions and relations instead of rushing in with an army and the threat of force, I think this is why he has even received good comments from leaders in Cuba and Iran. I believe he will restore America's reputation among other countries in the world that we as a nation really need to do, it's a small world and it gets smaller all the time with new technologies. Obama when he responds to accusations he is thoughtful and reacts in a way that seems to show he does not get carried away with emotions in his comments.
So I guess by now you can probably tell who I'm rooting for, but what's your take?
John McCain
In his words and actions seems to be pretty much hell bent on continuing the Bush legacy. Wanting to stay in Iraq for the long run no matter what the cost. Loyal to the Republican party's agendas, in other words, except for some minor differences, pretty much more of the same failed policies as we had the last eight years. If Bush is your hero, John is your man. This is a very sober statement given by McCain, "Presidents have to make judgments no matter how popular or unpopular they may be." This mirrors Dick Cheney's statements on why we need to stay in Iraq even though the vast majority of the people would like us out of there. Another comment that he made in regards to the idea of a "League of Democracies", a plan of his to create an organization like the United Nations except for no communists or dictators to have to contend with, McCain says, "It could act where the UN fails to act." Bush never had much regard for the UN either. Age has to be a factor, look at Bush or any other president that has lasted through a couple of terms of president, now imagine starting off with someone that is that old to start with. Just what America needs after eight years of a president that was in denial, a president that is facing senility.
Hillery Clinton
First woman to run for President a historical event. When it comes right down to it, would you want to have Bill Clinton back in the White House as the nation's First Gentleman? Cigars anyone? "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." With this in mind how strong do you think this candidate would be in the fall elections against McCain? Hillery can't resolve issues with her marriage seemingly content to put up with her husband running around as he probably is still beneficial to her goals or aspirations. Hillery has strong support of women, but a couple things has come out again and again. Hillery seems willing to say just about anything to get the nomination, from dodging sniper bullets to claiming that she can win just by sticking around...remember Kennedy's assassination? Finally the last gripes I have about Hillery are I think her campaign has been a lot more negative compared to Obama's, I think her comment about obliterating Iran was pretty scary, I'm really getting tired of hearing her say that she has the popular vote when the only way that is possible is if you count Michigan's results, a ballot that Obama's name wasn't even on the ticket. Now that I have brought up the matter of Michigan, that is another thing that really disturbs me about Hillery. Everyone involved agreed with the decision of not counting Florida and Michigan because they broke the parties rules, but now as that is the only way Hillery has a chance at the nomination, she counts them as she tells everyone she has the populist vote and she is fighting against the party now in demanding that the rules be changed, this kind of reminds me of the kind of thing Bush does and shows me that a vote for Hillery would be a vote for government as usual without regard for the rules.
Barack Obama
Another historic first, first black man to run for government. What an election, first woman and first black man running for president. This election has set the theme for issues about race and gender, something never really having been an issue in this way in the past. Truthfully I haven't looked back on voting records of either of the three candidates, so except for what I have heard in the news, I am pretty much taking the candidates at their word for what they stand for. Listening to the candidates though I like Obama's style. I believe he is fighting a lot less negative campaign and even defending some of what Hillery has said and done for the good of the party. He has had some troubles with things his paster has said, but I don't ever remember Obama appointing the paster his spokes person. The point is I think Obama has been the most refreshing of the candidates, he is believable it doesn't seem like he is hiding things as in that he spoke of his experiments with drugs in his past, he talks of diplomacy and actually talking to opposition leaders in the world that don't agree with our ideals to try to improve conditions and relations instead of rushing in with an army and the threat of force, I think this is why he has even received good comments from leaders in Cuba and Iran. I believe he will restore America's reputation among other countries in the world that we as a nation really need to do, it's a small world and it gets smaller all the time with new technologies. Obama when he responds to accusations he is thoughtful and reacts in a way that seems to show he does not get carried away with emotions in his comments.
So I guess by now you can probably tell who I'm rooting for, but what's your take?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)