Blogs

Promoted. Who the heck are you people anyway? -Patrick

First off a confession - I'm an Independent and a McCain supporter, I work online but have not been politically active until this election. That being said I'm fascinated by the role of the internet in politics in its current use and its potential for the future, and have many more questions than answers. The basic question being what makes the difference between the left and the right online? 

I don’t work in politics, I work in Information Technology. As in all project-related pursuits, planning a victorious, successful implementation of an information system is a lot like going to war. Many campaigns are waged in this process, but the bloodshed is usually virtual.  Adaptations and workarounds must be made to accommodate the “facts on the ground”.  There are many ways to do it right, and many ways not to do it. We call the collected consciousness about these ways to do and not do it “lessons learned”. 

Nothing to say today...just posting a first post.

I'm a Conservative from way back.

Democrats have rallied behind state senator and former physician Parker Griffith. He is generally well thought of in Huntsville (the district’s largest city) and has previously run for mayor there before being elected to the state senate. He will be well funded and he’s not spending much because he’s not being strongly opposed in the primary. I could not find the TV a he's running online but I’ll post it when it goes up. Anyway, I’ve seen it and it’s pretty good.

The Republican side is not as clean-cut. There are at least six candidates but probably only two that have a legitimate chances to win. The consensus frontrunner is insurance executive Wayne Parker. He nearly defeated retiring Congressman Bud Cramer in 1994 and had a pretty good campaign structure quickly  fall into place that was in part left over from that effort. Huntsville attorney Cheryl Baswell Guthrie is the other candidate with a reasonable chance to win. She has previously run for the state senate but was defeated by Griffith in 2006. 

[Parker ad]

[Guthrie ad]

Some have said that AL CD-5 is the best GOP pickup opportunity in the country this year and it’s not difficult to make that case. There's a lot of GOP votes and money in the district and it went for Bush twice. The district has been held by the same Democrat (Cramer) since before the Republican Revolution and this will be the first legitimate shot at winning it since Wayne Parker’s  ’94 effort. It will mainly depend on whether the GOP winner can unify everyone and raise the money, but Griffith's message of "party doesn't matter, solutions matter" will be hard to beat either way (my paraphrase). 

WHNT out of Huntsville hosted a debate among all the candidates that’s posted online for anyone that's interested. 

Like many self-proclaimed conservatives I know, the grating, wily “Queen of Tusla” is actually warming the icy layers of my libertarian heart.  There are lots of things to admire in her tenacity, but the Terminator is tenacious too. 

The reason I find myself in stunned admiration is that she is actually striking the professional, principled position in terms of navigating the DNC process governing the Navigation.

I reach this conclusion through my intercept of a dialogue between a representatives of Hillary’s campaign (a “Hillarite”) and a concerned Super Delegate (“Super D”).

Super D:       Cut the BS, why is Hillary still in this race?

Hillarite:      No one has won enough Delegate votes to win the nomination and she’s kicking Obama’s backside by unprecedented margins.  Who quits a race when they are winning states by 35% and 41%?  More importantly, Hillary is FAR more electable in November.

Super D:       But cut the BS.  You know Hillary CAN’T win

Hillarite:      Why not?

Super D:       She’s 200 Delegates down and there aren’t enough Pledged Delegates left to win.  Obama only needs a handful more.

Hillarite:      Not true.  Obama only needs a handful more until Michigan and Florida are seated, because the current counts of what constitutes the “majority” of Delegates doesn’t include these two states.   That issue is getting addressed this weekend, so we’ll all know what is happening soon enough.  But everyone expects MI and FL to have some of their Delegates seated at the Dem National Convention.  When that happens Obama will actually need more Delegates than what he’s likely to win in the 3 remaining contests.  Thus, when all the popular voting is completed, neither of us will have won enough Delegates.

On Michigan and Florida:

Super D:       Cut the BS.  All this pushing on MI and FL is a bit unseemly.  You agreed that those states shouldn’t be counted.  You agreed not to campaign in them.

Hillarite:      Yes, we did agree.  Yes, we did obey the rules and did not campaign in either state.  But, we also stated publically that neither state should be cut out of our process.  They both held legal votes.  In fact, all names were on the ballot in FL and the FL Secretary of State has officially confirmed the popular vote there.  Are you saying a fair, legal election shouldn’t be counted?

Super D:       Well, ok.  Maybe FL.  But Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in MI.  He obeyed the rules.  Hillary did not.

Hillarite:      Wrong.  No DNC rule required candidates to remove their names from the ballot.  Obama jumped the gun and limited his options by removing his name.  Hillary showed more political judgment by leaving her options open.  No one has filed an accusation that she broke ANY rules.  In fact, watching how the two campaigns handled this issue provides another excellent insight as to why Obama won’t make a good national leader.

On Obama as Frontrunner:

Super D:       OK, I’ll grant you MI and FL, but we Super D’s HAVE to vote for him.

Hillarite:      Why?

Super D:       Cut the BS.  Obama has won more states.

Hillarite:      Number of states won is not a criterion for success under ANY measurement system.  North Dakota is just not that important. 

Super D:       Cut the BS.  Obama has won more popular votes.  The voice of the voters must be heard.

Hillarite:      No he hasn’t.  Hillary has won the popular vote if MI and FL are added.  As we already discussed, there is really no argument that FL shouldn’t be added and it isn’t Hillary’s fault that Obama mistakenly removed his name from the MI ballot.  Besides, forecasts of the remaining contests show that Hillary will further increase her popular vote lead.  It is very, very likely that Obama will NOT have won the majority of the popular vote when everything’s done.

Super D:       Ok, but cut the BS.  Delegates are what matter and Obama is WAY ahead in Delegates.

Hillarite:      Yes, Obama is ahead in Pledged Delegate count, but we don’t know that he will be ahead once Super Delegates cast their votes in August.

On the Popular Will:

Super D:       Cut the BS.  Super D’s are mostly elected officials.  They have to vote according to the will of their constituents.

Hillarite:      Wrong on 2 counts.  First, if this were true, why are Senators Kennedy and Kerry supporting Obama?  Hillary soundly won Massachusetts.  If what you are saying is true they MUST support me.  Second, if what you state was true, why would we even have a Super Delegate system?  The ENTIRE purpose of having Super Delegates is to allow consideration beyond the foundational proportional distribution of Pledged Delegates.

Super D:       Ok.  I’ll grant you this in concept.  But come on.  Cut the BS.  Super Delegates must follow the popular will.

Hillarite:      What popular will?  Hillary has won, is winning and will win the popular vote!  The only “popular will” Obama is winning is the will of the Media.  Are you suggesting the Media should select our candidate?  Not the voters?  And not other considerations?

Super D:       There you go again, mentioning “other considerations”.  What “other considerations” would justify overturning a major lead in Delegates?

Hillarite:      What “major lead”.  If you remove the Super Delegates, wait for the MI and FL decision and forecast the final 3 primaries – then Obama is still ahead in Pledged Delegates, but not by more than 2 or 3%.  At that point, Hillary may be ahead by 2 or 3% in the popular vote.

Super D:       Cut the BS.  You know Super D’s have already stated their support for Obama.  So you can’t just separate them when you look at Obama’s Delegate total.

Hillarite:      There are several more months until the Convention.  No Super Delegate votes until then.  Until the Convention, they are free to change their mind.  After all, there are several Super D’s who changed their stated support from me to Obama.  Why isn’t it ok for Super D’s to switch their votes from Obama to me?

On “Other Considerations”:

Super D:       Ok, but you haven’t answered, what “other considerations” would justify such a switch.

Hillarite:      I’ll tell you, but first, please remember, there isn’t some MAJOR justification needed for a Super D to support someone who is winning the popular vote.  Now, that being said, this cycle is compressed to an unprecedented degree.  We’ve never seen this before and will be studying it when all is done to learn from mistakes made.  Voters may already be doing this.  Consider, since March 4^th, Hillary has massively won the popular vote and in Pledged Delegates.  So, the longer voters have to think, study and assess their options, the more they vote for Hillary.  We even saw this in early primary states.  Late deciders nearly always broke for Hillary by a huge percentage.

Super D:       Is that all?  Hillary’s done a better job of campaigning, finally, so she’s performing better.  That’s your argument?  Vote for Hillary because she finally fixed her campaign?

Hillarite:      No, there’s much more.  Hillary is winning all the states Democrats must win in November.  She is polling ahead of McCain while Obama polls behind or even with him.  And she has the larger, more stable coalition of supporters.  Obama’s is very narrow in terms of the general election.  If it wasn’t for Hillary’s admitted mistake not to contest the primaries in a few small states (most of which McCain is guaranteed to win anyway), she would be even or ahead in Pledged Delegates as well.

Super D:       Interesting.  But cut the BS.  Super D’s can’t go against the will of the people. . .

Hillarite:      Have you listened to anything here?  The ENTIRE purpose of Super D’s is to make decisions on the larger parameters of what will help the Dem Party win in the General Election.  The ENTIRE purpose.  Hillary is the best candidate on all of these parameters.  Obama’s Delegate lead only seems large because of Super D’s which could change their votes.  Hillary is ahead in popular votes by about the same margin as Obama is ahead in Pledged Delegates – Delegates from states which won’t decide the election.

Super D:       Interesting argument, but cut the BS.  Obama is black. This is historic.  We Super D’s can’t deny such a historic moment.

Hillarite:      So, the first female President isn’t historic?  Being “Black” is more important than being “Female”?

Super D:       Well, the media would crush us if we Super D’s reversed the popular will and voted for Hillary.

Hillarite:      WHAT POPULAR WILL??????  Hillary will win the popular vote.  Arghhh!  Cut the BS. As an elected official, you are going to “lead” according to the media’s vote.  Doesn't that make the media unelected  "Supder Delegates" of the Dem Party?

Thus, the feckless Dem’s will nominate Obama because the media won’t “let” them do otherwise. Mainstream Corporate Media - the real Supder Delegates. . . Welcome to the Democrat's version of  democracy.

On Principle,

CBass

As also found here.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Puerto Rico's teachers union seems to have been aced out of their position as the union organizing the teachers of that Island nation by a hostile takeover. It seems that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) cozied up to the embattled Puerto Rican Governor and was able to convince him to simply hand over all the teachers on the Island to the SEIU -- quite regardless of the fact that they already belonged to the existing teachers union, the Federacion de Maestros de Puerto Rico (FMPR).

This reminds me of 1920's Chicago as various Mob bosses battled for control of the Windy City. Seriously, who isn't shocked by the fact that one union (the SEIU) can just roll in the back door of government and steal the members of another union (the FMPR) by arm-twisting a pliant politician? The only thing we lack here is the tommy guns in the streets!

For their part the FMPR is trying to fight this hostile take over of their union by organizing a coalition to oppose this presumptuous attack by the SEIU on their position as the union of Puerto Rico's teachers.

The FMPR has been trying to work out a new contract for three years with the government of Puerto Rico and it appears that the government is using the SEIU to break the FMPR. And, here we have the SEIU stepping in to assist the government to break the union.

According to the New York Daily News, the Governor told Rivera (Dennis Rivera of the SEIU) that the teachers' union is "yours to take." Previously El Diaro-La Prensa reported that Rivera had discussed the teachers union with Acevedo in addition to possible SEIU monetary support for the Governor, who has recently been indicted on corruption charges.

The Puerto Rican government declared the teachers' strike illegal, based on the vote alone -- the actual strike was not called until late February 2008 -- and moved to decertify FMPR. Almost simultaneously, SEIU announced that the Island's union of school principals and supervisors was affiliating with SEIU -- and would attempt to take over the teachers' union.

This shows the rather unethical lengths that the SEIU will go to gather power unto itself. The SEIU is willing to trample on fellow unionists, make sweetheart deals with governments in closed door, back rooms, and steal members from other unions.

With this hostile take over of the Pureto Rican teachers union, it seems as if Andy Stern, president of the SEIU, has seen "The Untouchables" far too many times.

When Republicans began their campaign for the presidency in early 2007, I remember thinking that George W. Bush had thrown the party under the bus by choosing a running mate he knew would not run to succeed him in 2008, robbing us of a strong candidate and giving us the first election since 1928 where neither party had an incumbent president nor vice president seeking his or her party's nomination.

In retrospect, however, I realize that George W. Bush did the Republican party a favor by not saddling us with a candidate inextricably linked to a president with a 28% approval rating.  Even with Bush's low approval, there would have been enormous pressure to nominate an incumbent VP, and the party base, still largely loyal to GWB and the most reliable voters in the primaries, would likely have nominated a candidate much more vulnerable to the charge of being "Bush's Third Term."

Given all the talk about how Bush has weakened Republicans going into the 2008 election, I thought it worth pointing out that if we manage to win the presidency for another four years, it will be thanks in part to a decision made by none other than Bush himself.  The irony never ends.

I'm really interested in knowing the opinions of other conservatives.  Should we effectively kick out the isolationists and the neoconfederates?

I'm of the opinion that as the Democrats swing farther left, we have three options: absorbing the excluded middle (and risking diluting the overall character of the party), seeing a third party filled with Blue Dog Democrats, or else merely winning elections by being the lesser of two evils (hardly an enviable position).

Discuss.

-bishop

Check out my blog: Army of Principles

While this site does have a tendancy to go off the deep end with some truly fringe ideas there are in this mud some true pearls which we must examine about the man who wants to be our next President.

 

McCain, however, does not think so highly of the POW/MIA families and activists who openly challenge the U.S. government's POW/MIA policy, many of whom walked the halls of Congress during the Vietnam War years demanding America's prisoners of war, including POW McCain, not be forgotten.

McCain, as a member of the 1992 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, took the lead in demanding a U.S. Justice Department investigation of the POW/MIA activists and their organizations. He accused the activists of fraud because in some of their fund-raising literature the activists claimed the U.S. government knowingly left U.S. POWs behind after the Vietnam War and that some remain alive today.

McCain openly attacked the activists telling the press, "The people who have done these things are not zealots in a good cause. They are the most craven, most cynical and most despicable human beings to ever run a scam." The Justice Department did investigate the POW/MIA activists and their organizations and found no reason to charge any POW/MIA activist.

 

John McCain then attacked ordinary Americans for lobbying congress on an issue they believed in. He accused them of committing criminal acts and tried to lean the force of the US government on them. Many of these same people fought for John McCain and his brothers in Hanoi when they were POWs. Did John McCain say "If there were POWS there we would join with you but there is no evidence that there are" if he did we would see a demonstration of character and class from John McCain. Here we see the same John McCain we saw when republicans opposed him on Campaign Finance Reform, Global Warming, And Amnesty for illegal immigrants.

they even paint the picture of John McCain's signature hated issue amongst Republicans (McCain-Feingold) as more crass oppertunism for John McCain

"Republican Sen. John McCain reported a net worth of at least $830,705 but possibly as much as $1.2 million or more, excluding personal residences . . . McCain listed his wife, Cindy, as the source of most of his assets. . . the bulk of McCain's assets consisted of stock in three Glendale firms - Hensley & Co., a beer distributorship headed by his father-in-law; Western Leasing Co., which leases trucks and equipment; and Eagle Enterprises, which invests in real estate and stock." The Phoenix Gazette - May 19, 1987

"So why has Sen. McCain, R-Ariz., gone to unprecedented lengths to block reform of the Senate campaign finance system? Why does he oppose letting this important matter even come to a vote? Perhaps it's because he is a prime beneficiary of the special interest funding of congressional elections. "McCain raised over $2.5 million for his 1986 election . . . more than $760,000 of his campaign funds came from political action committee (PACs) . . . especially disturbing are the contributions to McCain's campaign coffers from PACs outside of Arizona." The Phoenix Gazette - December 8, 1987

"While Sen. John McCain's wife and father-in-law were investing with Charles H. Keating, Jr. in a shopping center, McCain was helping Keating battle federal regulators who questioned his operation of Lincoln Savings and Loan . . . [photo caption] Documents show that Sen. John McCain's wife, Cindy, and father-in-law, James W. Hensley (second from right) are the largest investors in Fountain Square Shopping Center. Their partnership is managed by subsidiaries of American Continental Corp., run by Charles H. Keating, Jr. (right). But John McCain contends there was no conflict in his helping Keating battle federal regulators." The Arizona Republic - October 8, 1989

"Sen. John McCain had more than a constituent relationship with Charles H. Keating, Jr. prior to 1987 . . . the McCains - sometimes with their daughter and baby sitter - made at least nine trips at Keating's expense from August 1984 to August 1986 aboard either Keating's American Continental Corporation's jet or chartered planes and helicopters owned by Resorts International. Three of the trips were for vacations at Keating's luxurious retreat in the Bahamas." The Arizona Republic - October 8, 1989

John McCain when it was to his benefit rolled in the mud. But when he pitched in to help out a major investment partner of his family and got hit on the nose for it he then decided "If I can't play no one else can" this is another aspect of his Character that serves him poorly as a Senator and will serve us poorly if he is a President.

And when Reporters asked that legitimate question, just as when McCain was asked legitimate questions about his Immigration Amnesty Plan John McCain became a bully

"McCain, in a radio talk-show appearance last week condemned disclosures of his family's ties to Keating as "irresponsible journalism." The Arizona Republic - October 17, 1989

" . . . both in telephone conversations with reporters and on a live radio talk show, the Republican senator was far from calm. He was agitated. Angry. And the way he dealt with unpleasant questions was to bully the questioners . . . 'You're a liar,' McCain snapped Sept. 29 when an Arizona Republic reporter asked him about business ties between his wife, Cindy McCain, and Keating . . . 'That's the spouse's involvement, you idiot,' McCain sneered later in the same conversation. 'You do understand English, don't you?' ". . . Not content with just bullying reporters, McCain tried belittling them: 'It's up to you to find that out, kids.' . . . McCain wasn't talking to liars. He wasn't talking to juveniles. The senator was talking to two reporters." The Arizona Republic - October 17, 1989

 

Again 1989 John McCain, to the same John McCain who calls fellow Senators Sailor words and tells people who don't like his plans to make their own or shut up. There isn't a change in his character it is just bad character and bad leadership

Nor is there evidence of John and Cindy McCain showing compassion or a drive to help people who suffered in Vietnam

"As a 100 percent, service-connected, disabled ex-prisoner of war, I sought help from John McCain when he was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and I needed help in regard to a claim for back service-connected disability compensation. I did so because I thought that as an ex-POW himself he could relate to my problem. When I could not reach him via letters to his office, I wrote to his home address. That was a very enlightening experience . . . my letter, addressed to the congressman, was opened by his wife, Cindy. She didn't like what she read, so she wrote me a nasty letter. Apparently John McCain isn't even capable of communicating on a one-to-one basis with someone who was a POW and returned from his experience in far worse physical condition than John McCain returned from his experience . . . M. "Shane" Schoenborn." The Phoenix Gazette - November 4, 1989

We also saw back in the 2000 campaign other demonstrations of the temper and lack of character of John McCain

In fact, Major Burch's organization, the National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition, is hardly a "fringe" outfit. Founded in 1983 as the National Vietnam Veterans Coalition expressly to force the federal government to address the Agent Orange fiasco, the Coalition took the lead in writing the legislation and garnering House and Senate co-sponsors. The Coalition was the only non-chartered veterans organization permitted to testify before the United States House of Representatives.

As Burch says, "Our Coalition was then and is now 'cutting edge.' We want results for our veterans 'now' - while they're alive. We don't want or need more phony studies and delays."

Tom Burch is a former Green Beret and a member of the Judge Advocate Corps, who served in Vietnam and received the Bronze Star in 1968. He is a past department commander of the Washington D.C. Veterans of Foreign Wars. The VFW, along with the American Legion, is considered the most "mainstream" veteran's group.

....

1) According to Burch, beginning in 1984 when the coalition sought co-sponsors for the Agent Orange bill, John McCain refused to sign on. When Burch and his men asked other members of the House to co-sponsor, these congressmen would invariably ask, "Has John McCain signed on to this bill?" When told that McCain had not it was believed, as often happens on the Hill in matters like this, that McCain was against the bill.

It was only after more than two hundred congress members expressed their support for the bill and final passage was assured that McCain finally agreed to come on board. But McCain's foot-dragging and initial reluctance made the coalition's work much more difficult and delayed the veterans' final victory.

2) In 1988 the coalition led the charge for "Judicial Review," a new system whereby veterans rejected for benefits by the Veterans Administration would have the same right to appeal as Social Security recipients have. Again, the coalition members working the halls of Congress asking for co-sponsors to the bill found McCain in opposition.

The senator from Arizona never signed on.

3) In 1991 when new evidence of living American servicemen missing in Vietnam surfaced, the coalition - in conjunction with those "mainstream" veterans organizations, the VFW and American Legion - led the charge for a Senate Select Committee to investigate whether or not any American POWs were left behind in Southeast Asia and whether some might still be alive. All these veterans groups wanted a senate panel instead of an executive branch panel because no one believed the executive branch could be trusted to investigate itself.

Senator McCain initially opposed the Senate committee. Later, when the Senate ultimately created the panel, McCain was appointed a member.

4) As a member of the Senate POW Committee, McCain "distinguished himself" by repeatedly insulting wives, mothers and children of POWs and MIAs and accusing many veterans groups fighting for the POW cause of "making a living off this issue." He made similar charges in the South Carolina primary when the National Right to Life Committee endorsed Bush: "It is a shame when they take a cause and turn it into a business."

5) Tom Burch's District of Columbia law partner is Adrian Cronauer, made famous by Robin Williams' portrayal in the movie "Good Morning Vietnam." When the presidential campaign was heating up last month, Cronauer asked for a meeting with McCain to discuss veterans' issues. The answer came back from McCain's office: "The Senator says he will not meet with you."

6) And when word leaked out that Tom Burch and the coalition were going to endorse George W. Bush, McCain campaign operative and fellow former POW, Orson Swindle, called Burch and said, "We will destroy you."

While I am quoting from one source on the Character of John McCain we only need to look at his more recent actions to know that this is the MO he has operated in, and while likely operated on in the future.

So with these prior bad acts in mind why should any republican trust that John McCain has the character to lead us?