Let's tackle this incendiary question of a vote for McCain.
The democrats are painting such a vote as one for Lucifer himself. Heck, they're prophesying the end of civilization as we know it. Surely, if McCain is elected president, heaven and earth will tremble in the final throes of a decimation begun almost a decade ago and all we hold dear will finally disappear....poof!
Poppycock.
First of all, we still have three branches of government. The next president is not the be all and end all of our republic. A president can do a lot of damage—witness Bush—but Bush couldn't have wrought a tenth of his misery without the overwhelming, sycophantic aid of Congress.
And McCain won't be able to do so, either. Not if we have a decent Congress. THAT is where all the hoopla and pleas and threats should be focused. Why is it continually lost on the populace that we have THREE branches? That they do a sort of wobbly balancing act? That it is critical to vote in senators and representatives to whom integrity is integral? Instead of the attention draped ad nauseum over the presidential election, what if we heard from each of the individuals running for almost 470 seats this election? Imagine the downright democracy that would flow from that.
Secondly, McCain is not Bush. No matter how vehemently the democrats want you to believe that. (I fervently hope NO ONE is EVER like Bush. This man is one sorry ass mistake of the human race.) Nor is McCain propped up on all sides by the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice, Mukasey, and Ridge. (Perhaps he'd offer an array worse than that, but I can't imagine anything quite so horrifying.)
Before I continue, let me set one thing very straight here. I don't like McCain. I don't agree with him on most things and I really disagree with his war stance. I don't even know if I'd call him an honorable man, though he was unquestionably an honorable soldier.
(Aside: I was shocked and infuriated yesterday when I heard Mike Malloy on Air America rip into McCain. He said, 'yes, he was a POW but did you also know he was rat? Yeah, he ratted out everyone including his mother'. Then Malloy launched into a grammar school attack on physical McCain, 'he has cancer on his face and he can't raise those useless little arms...' All I can say is, better useless arms than a hateful, awful soul, Mr. Malloy.)
But the question is whether McCain is Bush, and all that entails. And I do not believe that to be so. For many reasons. But that's another blog, perhaps.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the Democratic Party is mincemeat. Funny, all the prognosticators claimed the Republican Party was slowly expiring, having reached its apex and squandered it. But from where I sit, I can barely hear the heart of the Democratic Party.
It started fluttering in 2007 when the dems voted more money to kill people in Iraq. It went into respiratory jolts each time the democrats demurred from doing anything to stop the Bush Humvee obliteration of rights, lives, joys. But it checked into the cardiac ward in January 2008. That's when it became apparent that our party, the one we've worn like a badge next to our kids' pictures, had already decreed the presidential nominee. Everyone else was dirt.
We didn't know it, though. We all thought we were still in a game with rules and sidelines and goals and cheering sections. But as the game went on, slowly, many of us started to realize our voices were being silenced. The fix was already in. Dorky us.
The party we'd loved had moved on without us. At least all of us who didn't jump on the designated nominee bandwagon. Not only were we cast aside, but all the rules and regulations and cheering sections were jettisoned, too (I miss those cheering sections! It was a good thing being a part of a party that was going to fix the world, instead of using and misusing it...)
So, back to my point. Our party is mincemeat. And as a particularly astute commenter on my blog pointed out, if John McCain wins this year, we can 'ensure that the current Democratic party dies, and along with it all those who took our democratic system and flushed it away'.
That about says it all.
Getting pretty dark here. It will be at its darkest when I vote for McCain. That'll be just before the dawn.
28 August 2008
27 August 2008
As We Bid Farewell, Let's Not Forget the Facts
I note the stunned reactions of those who watched Senator Clinton's stunning speech last night, and I'm not at all stunned.
Not by the depth and breadth of Hillary Clinton's intelligence, competence, and magic; nor by the media's bewilderment at those qualities. She's never been given her due and we can all argue about the reasons why, but chief among them, in my book, is her gender.
But that's not the focus of this blog. Before the one candidate for president who could have truly pulled us back from the brink slips out of our grasp, I'd like, one last time, to remind everyone of the principal reason why she's not being nominated tonight.
The caucuses. And the mangling of them.
By their nature, they're unrepresentative but a smart tactician (or campaign) could game the system with knowledge, numbers and strategies set in place at each location. And that's exactly what Senator Clinton's opponent did. With the eager aid of the Fourth Estate, Senator Obama gloriously gamed the flawed system.
His campaign knew that those who could spend the rigorous hours of daylight at the caucuses could largely be targeted as the young, male, college-educated. Hmmm. Those aren't the segments of population that are likely to favor Senator Clinton...
So his campaign expounded on that fact and then pulled out the dirty deeds. They bussed people in to the caucuses. They locked others out. They bullied the Clinton delegates and told them to go to the wrong rooms. They ran out of ballots...too many standing for Clinton? Imagine that!
Then, a funny thing happened on the way to state...Clinton delegates were often intimidated and sent letters with reasons why they shouldn't attend. So lots didn't. But the Obama delegates did, so numbers out of counties that looked like this—13 for Obama, 12 for Clinton—became this at the state level—14 for Obama, 11 for Clinton.
Another funny thing happened on the way to national...out of Iowa, there were 15 Clinton delegates, 16 Obama delegates, and 14 Edwards delegates. When the counts went national, magically, Obama had 25, having been given 10 of Edwards, while Clinton lost one.
Finally, two interesting facts: Senator Obama won 13 of 14 caucuses. He lost 21 of 28 primaries. Fascinating thing that when people could step up to the voting machine and cast private, safe ballots...they chose Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton, you are stunning. Your courage and determination are surpassed only by the strength and grace with which you've gifted us at the close. I'm not surprised, but I'm proud.
Live to fight another day.
Not by the depth and breadth of Hillary Clinton's intelligence, competence, and magic; nor by the media's bewilderment at those qualities. She's never been given her due and we can all argue about the reasons why, but chief among them, in my book, is her gender.
But that's not the focus of this blog. Before the one candidate for president who could have truly pulled us back from the brink slips out of our grasp, I'd like, one last time, to remind everyone of the principal reason why she's not being nominated tonight.
The caucuses. And the mangling of them.
By their nature, they're unrepresentative but a smart tactician (or campaign) could game the system with knowledge, numbers and strategies set in place at each location. And that's exactly what Senator Clinton's opponent did. With the eager aid of the Fourth Estate, Senator Obama gloriously gamed the flawed system.
His campaign knew that those who could spend the rigorous hours of daylight at the caucuses could largely be targeted as the young, male, college-educated. Hmmm. Those aren't the segments of population that are likely to favor Senator Clinton...
So his campaign expounded on that fact and then pulled out the dirty deeds. They bussed people in to the caucuses. They locked others out. They bullied the Clinton delegates and told them to go to the wrong rooms. They ran out of ballots...too many standing for Clinton? Imagine that!
Then, a funny thing happened on the way to state...Clinton delegates were often intimidated and sent letters with reasons why they shouldn't attend. So lots didn't. But the Obama delegates did, so numbers out of counties that looked like this—13 for Obama, 12 for Clinton—became this at the state level—14 for Obama, 11 for Clinton.
Another funny thing happened on the way to national...out of Iowa, there were 15 Clinton delegates, 16 Obama delegates, and 14 Edwards delegates. When the counts went national, magically, Obama had 25, having been given 10 of Edwards, while Clinton lost one.
Finally, two interesting facts: Senator Obama won 13 of 14 caucuses. He lost 21 of 28 primaries. Fascinating thing that when people could step up to the voting machine and cast private, safe ballots...they chose Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton, you are stunning. Your courage and determination are surpassed only by the strength and grace with which you've gifted us at the close. I'm not surprised, but I'm proud.
Live to fight another day.
26 August 2008
Slip-Sliding Away
With my son duly college-enrolled, my daughter to follow in what seems like a blink of time, and the world to inherit them both so very soon—I'd like to weigh in on the historic presidential election upon us.
I say 'historic' because it's the first one in which I won't be throwing a democratic vote for president the nominee's way. Had the Democrats followed the rules, distributed delegates fairly, allowed the voters to honestly choose whom they wished to represent them, I'd have ante-ed up. Whether I liked the nominee or not.
However, all this business about unity and coming together and getting behind the nominee only works if we got to the goal with integrity. I vehemently refuse to validate cheating and lying and sliming with my vote.
But that conviction places me in the minority. And that's what alarms me. Here's why:
When we say the system is corrupt, or it's faulty, or it rewards the undeserving, and yet we must do the best we can to work within it—it continues it! It validates it. It negates what came before.
But you, the voter, see no other way. So you shrug your shoulders, take a deep breath, and vote the party line. With that action, you erase what you know to be right. You accept the flawed process and you bow to the inevitability of an increasingly flawed and corrupt system for each and every time to come.
But here's something to think about. WE are the system. WE are the party, the voters, the delegates. We are not, contrary to the democratic leaders of a wrecked party, puppets on a string. WE ARE THE SYSTEM. So when we vote to validate, we vote to degenerate.
I get this picture...we're sitting on a long seat in a subway train. 'We' are the system, the voting populace, the families that want to hand a good world over to their children. And each time we accept the adulteration of our rules and our integrity, we get shoved down the bench.
...the Supreme Court has the right to step into an American election...oops...slipped down that bench a bit...
...habeas corpus can now be withheld by the president....oops...slide a little farther...
...three equal branches of government can be negated by signing statements and executive orders issued from one branch...oops...slip-slidin' here...
...Iraq did not attack us and yet we did not rise up in the streets, even when that knowledge was officially confirmed...oops...
...Geneva Conventions? Archaic!...oops...
...one contender for president gets all the marbles, regardless of votes—sorry, other contender! (Women just aren't yet ready for prime time, or so we're told in relentless, countless ways)...oops....
....and so on....
So here we are, in my little picture. Hanging off the subway bench. On every one of the bullets above, the Democrats had the chance, no, the responsibility, to speak up. To right us. To shove us back down the honorable bench. They didn't.
We're just hanging there. Almost on the floor. And our next move is to vote for the product of stealing delegates, lying unabashedly, cheating to be the nominee?
OOPS.
I say 'historic' because it's the first one in which I won't be throwing a democratic vote for president the nominee's way. Had the Democrats followed the rules, distributed delegates fairly, allowed the voters to honestly choose whom they wished to represent them, I'd have ante-ed up. Whether I liked the nominee or not.
However, all this business about unity and coming together and getting behind the nominee only works if we got to the goal with integrity. I vehemently refuse to validate cheating and lying and sliming with my vote.
But that conviction places me in the minority. And that's what alarms me. Here's why:
When we say the system is corrupt, or it's faulty, or it rewards the undeserving, and yet we must do the best we can to work within it—it continues it! It validates it. It negates what came before.
But you, the voter, see no other way. So you shrug your shoulders, take a deep breath, and vote the party line. With that action, you erase what you know to be right. You accept the flawed process and you bow to the inevitability of an increasingly flawed and corrupt system for each and every time to come.
But here's something to think about. WE are the system. WE are the party, the voters, the delegates. We are not, contrary to the democratic leaders of a wrecked party, puppets on a string. WE ARE THE SYSTEM. So when we vote to validate, we vote to degenerate.
I get this picture...we're sitting on a long seat in a subway train. 'We' are the system, the voting populace, the families that want to hand a good world over to their children. And each time we accept the adulteration of our rules and our integrity, we get shoved down the bench.
...the Supreme Court has the right to step into an American election...oops...slipped down that bench a bit...
...habeas corpus can now be withheld by the president....oops...slide a little farther...
...three equal branches of government can be negated by signing statements and executive orders issued from one branch...oops...slip-slidin' here...
...Iraq did not attack us and yet we did not rise up in the streets, even when that knowledge was officially confirmed...oops...
...Geneva Conventions? Archaic!...oops...
...one contender for president gets all the marbles, regardless of votes—sorry, other contender! (Women just aren't yet ready for prime time, or so we're told in relentless, countless ways)...oops....
....and so on....
So here we are, in my little picture. Hanging off the subway bench. On every one of the bullets above, the Democrats had the chance, no, the responsibility, to speak up. To right us. To shove us back down the honorable bench. They didn't.
We're just hanging there. Almost on the floor. And our next move is to vote for the product of stealing delegates, lying unabashedly, cheating to be the nominee?
OOPS.
18 August 2008
...Got Tons to Say....Just Around the Schoolhouse Corner...
Just a note to any dear readers who check my blog and find I've not no new posts after a day or so...
Among other things, my son is beginning college imminently and my daughter is just as imminently off to her sophomore year in high school, so I'm lately lost in a flurry of beginning school year sorts of things.
Nevertheless, I'm listening daily to accounts of the run-up to the democratic convention--including the ongoing and never-ending berating of Hillary Clinton beside the incessant and stomach-turning idolizing of Barack Obama,--the explosive situation in Georgia, the mounting meaningless deaths in Iraq, the daily lawless stunts by Bush and company, the increasing evidence that the democratic 'presumptive' nominee has gotten there through a massive campaign of bullying, intimidation, disenfranchisement, and more--that continues right down the line to the staged convention...
...stay tuned.
I'll explode soon.
Among other things, my son is beginning college imminently and my daughter is just as imminently off to her sophomore year in high school, so I'm lately lost in a flurry of beginning school year sorts of things.
Nevertheless, I'm listening daily to accounts of the run-up to the democratic convention--including the ongoing and never-ending berating of Hillary Clinton beside the incessant and stomach-turning idolizing of Barack Obama,--the explosive situation in Georgia, the mounting meaningless deaths in Iraq, the daily lawless stunts by Bush and company, the increasing evidence that the democratic 'presumptive' nominee has gotten there through a massive campaign of bullying, intimidation, disenfranchisement, and more--that continues right down the line to the staged convention...
...stay tuned.
I'll explode soon.
16 August 2008
C'mon and Play 'Foreign Relations, American Style'!
"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 20th century."
No, they're not acceptable. I must like the individual quoted here. Wonder who it is?
"I've expressed my grave concern about the disproportionate response of Russia and that we strongly condemn the bombing outside of South Ossetia."
Yep, I agree again. Who IS that?
"The world has watched with alarm as Russia invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatened a democratic government elected by its people. This act is completely unacceptable to the free nations of the world."
Uh oh. Qualifications? ...'a democratic government'...unacceptable to the free nations of the world...
Now who is it that qualifies everything in that manner? At first it sounded like an intellectual sophisticate, dismayed at uncivil responses in a striven-for civil world. But then the hint that only 'democratic' nations deserve not to be bullied. And I can hear an undercurrent of authoritarianism, can you feel that? Or is it a touch of moral authority, rooted in religion...?
Ummm. Let me think.
Who might opine on a foreign stage about his or her adoration for democratic governments?
Who uses the word 'free' so freely that 'freedom' no longer really means the state of being free or at liberty?
Who thinks he or she has the right to tell other countries what is unacceptable?
Oh, I've almost got it! It's on the tip of my pen. Blast, who could that be? Give me one more hint.
"Russia's signing of a cease-fire plan with Georgia [is]'a hopeful step'. At the same time, HE (Aha! It's a guy!) warns Russia not to make claims on two disputed parts of the former Soviet republic. HE says there's 'no room for debate' on the matter."
Ohhhh! Who is that guy who thinks he can dictate to other nations?
I've got it! I've got it! The idea that someone can 'warn' another nation not to do something and declares 'there's no room for debate'...that gave it away.
Couldn't be anyone but our self-crowned king, George.
No one else can...preemptively start a war on someone else's land,
invade that country's governmental offices,
dismiss its standing army,
depose the leader,
lay claim to billions of dollars of oil for himself and his cronies,
murder thousands of Americans under the guise of freedom,
neglect the veterans he creates,
cause hundreds of thousands of civilians to die...
...and then tell someone else they can't do it.
No, they're not acceptable. I must like the individual quoted here. Wonder who it is?
"I've expressed my grave concern about the disproportionate response of Russia and that we strongly condemn the bombing outside of South Ossetia."
Yep, I agree again. Who IS that?
"The world has watched with alarm as Russia invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatened a democratic government elected by its people. This act is completely unacceptable to the free nations of the world."
Uh oh. Qualifications? ...'a democratic government'...unacceptable to the free nations of the world...
Now who is it that qualifies everything in that manner? At first it sounded like an intellectual sophisticate, dismayed at uncivil responses in a striven-for civil world. But then the hint that only 'democratic' nations deserve not to be bullied. And I can hear an undercurrent of authoritarianism, can you feel that? Or is it a touch of moral authority, rooted in religion...?
Ummm. Let me think.
Who might opine on a foreign stage about his or her adoration for democratic governments?
Who uses the word 'free' so freely that 'freedom' no longer really means the state of being free or at liberty?
Who thinks he or she has the right to tell other countries what is unacceptable?
Oh, I've almost got it! It's on the tip of my pen. Blast, who could that be? Give me one more hint.
"Russia's signing of a cease-fire plan with Georgia [is]'a hopeful step'. At the same time, HE (Aha! It's a guy!) warns Russia not to make claims on two disputed parts of the former Soviet republic. HE says there's 'no room for debate' on the matter."
Ohhhh! Who is that guy who thinks he can dictate to other nations?
I've got it! I've got it! The idea that someone can 'warn' another nation not to do something and declares 'there's no room for debate'...that gave it away.
Couldn't be anyone but our self-crowned king, George.
No one else can...preemptively start a war on someone else's land,
invade that country's governmental offices,
dismiss its standing army,
depose the leader,
lay claim to billions of dollars of oil for himself and his cronies,
murder thousands of Americans under the guise of freedom,
neglect the veterans he creates,
cause hundreds of thousands of civilians to die...
...and then tell someone else they can't do it.
14 August 2008
You Get What You Vote For...As Well as the Consequences When You Don't
Nevada held its primary two days ago. Voter turnout, statewide, was 20%.
What do you suppose it might take for Americans to understand the criticality of their involvement in their world?
Let's see. I guess these little matters didn't do it:
Our children, and others' children, dying needlessly in Iraq,
People from here and away being held against their will and without recourse in Guantanamo,
The inalienable right of habeas corpus now alienated,
Gas resting at $4 a gallon while oil companies roar with laughter,
Countries around the world having passed the stage of incredulity at a president supremely ill-suited for power,
An education system bound inexorably toward the voucher system as No Child Left Behind creeps to its goal,
Larger and larger swaths of the population joining the ranks of the homeless,
Veterans neglected by an administration that is incapable of understanding the lifelong debt owed to the individuals who offered up their lives for lies,
Americans now left with no alternatives in the political process as the parties have become indistinguishable in their corruptness, self-aggrandizement, and heedless pursuit of their own private agendas,
More and more species of wildlife and tracts of land tossed off the preservation lists,
Crime after crime committed by public officials who sneer at the idea of answering to the citizens who put them there...
And no wonder they sneer. They know their careening, crashing, cataclysmic foray through the Constitution, our pocketbooks, our wildlands, and our honor will never be halted when 20% of the populace votes.
What do you suppose it might take for Americans to understand the criticality of their involvement in their world?
Let's see. I guess these little matters didn't do it:
And no wonder they sneer. They know their careening, crashing, cataclysmic foray through the Constitution, our pocketbooks, our wildlands, and our honor will never be halted when 20% of the populace votes.
12 August 2008
Winning, or Another Name for Not Dying
When I'm not being bombarded by pros and cons about the escalation of troops, oops, I mean SURGE, in Iraq, I'm being inundated with discourses on whether we're winning in that country.
Hmmm.
My first question would be: how does one 'win' an occupation?
My second would be: since when is 'winning' the measure of an advanced society?
As an Air Force intelligence officer, my job was not to 'win' the exercises in which I took part, but to 'accomplish the mission'. If I had a Euro dollar for every time I heard those three all-important words, I'd be manning my own site instead of blogspot blogging.
Now that I think of it, the Air Force tends to love and employ those trios of words often...'attention to detail'...'chain of command'...ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION...(remember that little banner thing on the carrier....)
Unless the military has changed beyond all recognition, there's not a soldier, airman or marine who has been sent to Iraq 'to win' but rather to accomplish the mission.
And yet, today I heard someone claiming the morale is so much higher in Iraq because the troops there feel they're 'winning'.
Perhaps, to play devil's advocate with myself, they are referring to winning against the terrorists, 'Winning the War on Terror'.
So my next question would be: how does one 'win' a technique or method?
And my next question would be: why did we accept such a humvee load of tripe as a 'war' on an amorphous definition of violence practiced by anyone, anywhere, anytime?
You know what? IF the morale is higher it's probably because there's been 'a slight downtick in violence' of late, and more of the troops are LIVING.
So my last question would be: when are we all going to get good and fed up with being fed this kind of crap?
Hmmm.
My first question would be: how does one 'win' an occupation?
My second would be: since when is 'winning' the measure of an advanced society?
As an Air Force intelligence officer, my job was not to 'win' the exercises in which I took part, but to 'accomplish the mission'. If I had a Euro dollar for every time I heard those three all-important words, I'd be manning my own site instead of blogspot blogging.
Now that I think of it, the Air Force tends to love and employ those trios of words often...'attention to detail'...'chain of command'...ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION...(remember that little banner thing on the carrier....)
Unless the military has changed beyond all recognition, there's not a soldier, airman or marine who has been sent to Iraq 'to win' but rather to accomplish the mission.
And yet, today I heard someone claiming the morale is so much higher in Iraq because the troops there feel they're 'winning'.
Perhaps, to play devil's advocate with myself, they are referring to winning against the terrorists, 'Winning the War on Terror'.
So my next question would be: how does one 'win' a technique or method?
And my next question would be: why did we accept such a humvee load of tripe as a 'war' on an amorphous definition of violence practiced by anyone, anywhere, anytime?
You know what? IF the morale is higher it's probably because there's been 'a slight downtick in violence' of late, and more of the troops are LIVING.
So my last question would be: when are we all going to get good and fed up with being fed this kind of crap?
07 August 2008
A Link to a Worthy Article
This is a phenomenal article. Do go to this site and read it.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/hillarys_growing_shadow.html
Contrary to the hopes of the ruling democratic echelon, Senator Clinton's shadow truly is lengthening.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/hillarys_growing_shadow.html
Contrary to the hopes of the ruling democratic echelon, Senator Clinton's shadow truly is lengthening.
06 August 2008
Baffled by the Purge, But More Baffled by the Purged
Regarding the 'purging' of Florida delegates...I'm baffled any candidate would reach down into duly chosen pools of individuals--selected through a long and careful process (from precinct to county to state) to honorably represent their neighbors—and arbitrarily replace them.
I'm baffled by the response of the replacements, complicit in the affair by their acceptance of the slots.
But I'm most baffled by the reaction of the replaced. I have to ask myself, would I still support a candidate that had so misused me? One who took my patient climb through the precinct and county and state conventions, faithful to the candidate I'd chosen—and summarily disposed of it?
I think I'd be knocking on the doors of 18 Million Voices, Just Say No Deal, PUMA, the Denver Group, Blue Lyon, Fiery Side....
I'm baffled by the response of the replacements, complicit in the affair by their acceptance of the slots.
But I'm most baffled by the reaction of the replaced. I have to ask myself, would I still support a candidate that had so misused me? One who took my patient climb through the precinct and county and state conventions, faithful to the candidate I'd chosen—and summarily disposed of it?
I think I'd be knocking on the doors of 18 Million Voices, Just Say No Deal, PUMA, the Denver Group, Blue Lyon, Fiery Side....
04 August 2008
It's All About the Money After All, Isn't It, Senator Obama?
I don't mean to keep harping on facts about Senator Obama, but...oh, yes I do. No use trying to skew my intentions as anything else, like someone else we all know...whose name starts with O.
I'm harping because now is the time to do it. If blogs such as mine do harp on the facts, then others will harp, and the circle will widen, and perhaps, just perhaps, real change will win out in time to eclipse Senator Obama's fake Change.
We are all quite aware of the sea tide of superdelegates that washed onto Senator Obama's shores following Senator Clinton's capitulation to what appeared to be a foregone conclusion. What was really foregone was the trail of money that led up to it.
Did you know that a non-partisan study showed that presidential candidates who gave the most money to superdelegates secured those superdelegate votes 82% of the time?
Senator Obama knew that little statistic. And he had the funds to make it a reality.
Did you know that in 2007 Hope Pac, Senator Obama's political action committee, gave out $299,000, compared to the non-existent amount given out by Senator Clinton?
Did you know that as of the end of March 2008, Senator Obama's PAC had given three times more ($711,000) to superdelegates than Senator Clinton ($236,000)?
Do you remember the mantra drilled into us by all who would see the nomination go to Obama: 'The superdelegates MUST vote in accordance with the popular vote and that vote is unarguably with the senator from Illinois”...?
Here are some facts I hope you'll all pass on, and, like widening circles in a global pond, may these facts speak volumes to the foregone conclusion.
All the following superdelegates endorsed Obama. I attach the monies received and the vote percentages in their states, not a one in accordance with the endorsement and every one defying the mantra.
Rep. Porter (NH)
$11,500 received from Obama
$ 2,500 received from Clinton
NH vote: Clinton 39%, Obama 37%
Rep. Hill (IN)
$12,500 received from Obama
$ 2,500 received from Clinton
IN vote: Clinton 51%, Obama 49%
Rep. Bingamon (NM)
$4,200 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
NM vote: Clinton 49%, Obama 48%
Sen. Lautenberg (NJ)
$9,500 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
NJ vote: Clinton 54%, Obama 44%
Rep. Klein (FL)
$11,000 received from Obama
$ 2,500 received from Clinton
FL vote: Clinton 50%, Obama 33%
Rep. Donnelly (IN)
$7,500 received from Obama
$0 received from Clinton
IN vote: Clinton 51%, Obama 49%
Rep. McNerney (CA)
$5,000 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
CA vote: Clinton 52%, Obama 43%
Rep. Altmire (PA)
$10,000 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
PA vote: Clinton 55%, Obama 45%
Rep. Tsongas (MA)
$5,000 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
MA vote: Clinton 56%, Obama 41%
Rep. Cardoza (CA)
$4,000 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
CA vote: Clinton 52%, Obama 43%
Rep. Giffords (AZ)
$9,000 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
AZ vote: Clinton 51%, Obama 42%
Rep. Costa (CA)
$4,000 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
CA vote: Clinton 52%, Obama 43%
Now we all know that had Senator Clinton had the same kind of funds to bestow, she'd have spread the wealth, too. Yes, she took money from lobbyists. Yes, she accepted money from corporate giants many of us might find distasteful. And yes, she is no innocent when it comes to the influence of money in campaigns. But I never heard her claim to be doing anything beyond working within the system as it's regrettably grown to be.
Senator Obama, however, has billed himself as the Candidate for Change. He has promised us Change We Can Believe In. He has built his case to the American public on A New Kind of Politics and A New Way of Doing Business in our capitol.
Sounds like the same ol' slimy dealings to me.
I'm harping because now is the time to do it. If blogs such as mine do harp on the facts, then others will harp, and the circle will widen, and perhaps, just perhaps, real change will win out in time to eclipse Senator Obama's fake Change.
We are all quite aware of the sea tide of superdelegates that washed onto Senator Obama's shores following Senator Clinton's capitulation to what appeared to be a foregone conclusion. What was really foregone was the trail of money that led up to it.
Did you know that a non-partisan study showed that presidential candidates who gave the most money to superdelegates secured those superdelegate votes 82% of the time?
Senator Obama knew that little statistic. And he had the funds to make it a reality.
Did you know that in 2007 Hope Pac, Senator Obama's political action committee, gave out $299,000, compared to the non-existent amount given out by Senator Clinton?
Did you know that as of the end of March 2008, Senator Obama's PAC had given three times more ($711,000) to superdelegates than Senator Clinton ($236,000)?
Do you remember the mantra drilled into us by all who would see the nomination go to Obama: 'The superdelegates MUST vote in accordance with the popular vote and that vote is unarguably with the senator from Illinois”...?
Here are some facts I hope you'll all pass on, and, like widening circles in a global pond, may these facts speak volumes to the foregone conclusion.
All the following superdelegates endorsed Obama. I attach the monies received and the vote percentages in their states, not a one in accordance with the endorsement and every one defying the mantra.
Rep. Porter (NH)
$11,500 received from Obama
$ 2,500 received from Clinton
NH vote: Clinton 39%, Obama 37%
Rep. Hill (IN)
$12,500 received from Obama
$ 2,500 received from Clinton
IN vote: Clinton 51%, Obama 49%
Rep. Bingamon (NM)
$4,200 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
NM vote: Clinton 49%, Obama 48%
Sen. Lautenberg (NJ)
$9,500 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
NJ vote: Clinton 54%, Obama 44%
Rep. Klein (FL)
$11,000 received from Obama
$ 2,500 received from Clinton
FL vote: Clinton 50%, Obama 33%
Rep. Donnelly (IN)
$7,500 received from Obama
$0 received from Clinton
IN vote: Clinton 51%, Obama 49%
Rep. McNerney (CA)
$5,000 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
CA vote: Clinton 52%, Obama 43%
Rep. Altmire (PA)
$10,000 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
PA vote: Clinton 55%, Obama 45%
Rep. Tsongas (MA)
$5,000 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
MA vote: Clinton 56%, Obama 41%
Rep. Cardoza (CA)
$4,000 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
CA vote: Clinton 52%, Obama 43%
Rep. Giffords (AZ)
$9,000 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
AZ vote: Clinton 51%, Obama 42%
Rep. Costa (CA)
$4,000 received from Obama
$ 0 received from Clinton
CA vote: Clinton 52%, Obama 43%
Now we all know that had Senator Clinton had the same kind of funds to bestow, she'd have spread the wealth, too. Yes, she took money from lobbyists. Yes, she accepted money from corporate giants many of us might find distasteful. And yes, she is no innocent when it comes to the influence of money in campaigns. But I never heard her claim to be doing anything beyond working within the system as it's regrettably grown to be.
Senator Obama, however, has billed himself as the Candidate for Change. He has promised us Change We Can Believe In. He has built his case to the American public on A New Kind of Politics and A New Way of Doing Business in our capitol.
Sounds like the same ol' slimy dealings to me.
03 August 2008
Unity Only Counts When it Helps Obama
I've got to wonder when I'll stop being shocked by the actions of Senator Obama. Reason and a good memory would dictate that point to be sometime well past.
But ZAP! He did it again. Lucky thing no one was in the opposite lane of traffic as I wandered into it while staring incredulously at the radio.
So sit back in your chairs to prevent falling out of them...
Today--after behaving thoroughly intractable, and without allowing even the hint of a compromise in the Florida/Michigan 'Dele-gate' affair--my friend the senator has written a letter to the co-chairs of the Democratic National Convention's Credentials Committee. He'd like, now, to give each delegate a full vote at the convention.
Never mind that his campaign was a full and participating party to the stripping and gifting of four Michigan delegates from Clinton to Obama.
Never mind that he chose, along with four other candidates, to remove his name from the Michigan ballot, then voraciously took not only the four delegates that belonged to Clinton, but the rest of the non-Clinton delegates that, minus the debacle of the name removal, would have been split between him and those other four candidates.
Never mind that, with both Clinton and Obama on the ballot in Florida, OBAMA LOST: Clinton got 857,000 votes to Obama's 569,000.
Never mind that in negotiations with the Credentials committee at the time, he steadfastly refused to accept the granting of full votes to either state.
Now he says, “I believe party unity calls for the delegates from Florida and Michigan to be able to participate fully alongside the delegates from the other states and territories”.
My shock has now been supplanted by sheer revulsion.
And hope.
Hope that this latest mendacious, audacious, outrageous maneuver will shake the delegates to their toes and WAKE THEM UP.
It's not too late!
But ZAP! He did it again. Lucky thing no one was in the opposite lane of traffic as I wandered into it while staring incredulously at the radio.
So sit back in your chairs to prevent falling out of them...
Today--after behaving thoroughly intractable, and without allowing even the hint of a compromise in the Florida/Michigan 'Dele-gate' affair--my friend the senator has written a letter to the co-chairs of the Democratic National Convention's Credentials Committee. He'd like, now, to give each delegate a full vote at the convention.
Never mind that his campaign was a full and participating party to the stripping and gifting of four Michigan delegates from Clinton to Obama.
Never mind that he chose, along with four other candidates, to remove his name from the Michigan ballot, then voraciously took not only the four delegates that belonged to Clinton, but the rest of the non-Clinton delegates that, minus the debacle of the name removal, would have been split between him and those other four candidates.
Never mind that, with both Clinton and Obama on the ballot in Florida, OBAMA LOST: Clinton got 857,000 votes to Obama's 569,000.
Never mind that in negotiations with the Credentials committee at the time, he steadfastly refused to accept the granting of full votes to either state.
Now he says, “I believe party unity calls for the delegates from Florida and Michigan to be able to participate fully alongside the delegates from the other states and territories”.
My shock has now been supplanted by sheer revulsion.
And hope.
Hope that this latest mendacious, audacious, outrageous maneuver will shake the delegates to their toes and WAKE THEM UP.
It's not too late!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
