In an interview with the Rocky Mountain News on Monday, Independent Party presidential hopeful (it is hard to type that without believing it should be followed by a punchline), Ralph Nader, made some very interesting statements.
When asked what is different about Senator Obama relative to other democrats he has run against, he stated that the only difference was that Senator Obama is “half African-American.” Oh yes he did. He went there.
He also said that Senator Obama is trying to (are you sure you are ready for this, hold on to your chair) “talk white.”
Did a person running for president actually accuse another candidate of talking white? Seroiusly?
It is interesting that the other candidates have mostly relied on their supporters and spouses to say incredibly stupid things, but not Mr. Nader. He doesn’t need others to do his “stupid” work, he is perfectly capable of doing that himself.
This crazy candidate (I will avoid the other descriptive terms that come to mind) even took a shot at Jessie Jackson while trying to explain why Senator Obama is talking white. He stated that one of the reasons he is talking white is (hold on, I have to compose myself) he doesn’t want to “appear like Jessie Jackson.”
Holy smokes!
Is this guy for real? I seriously think he has come to believe that he can gain more support than he has gotten in past elections by getting the racist vote.
Remember all of the talk about voter who said race mattered in the elections mostly voting for Senator Clinton. It seems he heard that and decided that being a racist was his best bet in trying to get support.
I have looked at comments on several blogs and some chats on the subject and this foolishness seems to have some support.
As for me, a person who does not belong to political party, I have to say I hate to have to refer to myself as an independent voter for fear that I will be associated to such an person (I’m being politically correct and nice instead of using many of the other descriptive terms that come to mind for this person).
Just to leave us with a thought, what exactly are the implications of saying that a person of color or of mixed origin can attempt to “talk white?”
Is he referring to that fact he does not use slang or “Ebonics” or sound like any of the rap stars on the television. That would mean that he is saying that those who are white and “talk white” are okay in sounding educated, but any person of color or mixed origin who “talks white” is faking it to distance themselves from someone (as Mr. Nader implies) as stupid as Jessie Jackson or other persons of color.
Is he saying that “talking white” speaks of people who have money and that he is avoiding talking about those in the inner cities and poor neighborhoods of our country. As if there are no people of color in these better neighborhoods and only people of color live in poor areas and inner cities.
Need I go on? How dare anyone who is not a publicly proclaimed racist support this man. This is an assault on our sensibilities and the Independent party has a responsibility to all of us who call ourselves Americans to pull the plug on this racist madman.
]]>Another blogger recently made some very good comments about third party candidates on one of my blogs. The basic point was that having a competitive third party candidate most often will not get that person elected but slip the votes between that person and the other party closest to what they stand for.
If that third party candidate leans a little left the votes would split between that person and the Democratic candidate. If the third party candidate leans a little to the right the votes would be split between that person and the Republican candidate. The split would allow the unified vote on the other side of the spectrum to win the election and reduce that third party candidate to the role of spoiler and never really lead to a successful candidate.
In thinking about this, I find the evidence to support this hypothesis to be very strong. This is worrisome to me. The party system we have in place is clearly broken and these facts clearly show that there is no hope otherwise.
Maybe if there were to just be one other serious party (along with all of those minor parties that get like one to two percent of the vote every four years) that represented the area closer to the middle. Not too right, not too left, just in the area near the middle.
Obviously, there would be conflicts within this party on some issues and some areas that members of this party could possibly never agree upon, but this party would best represent the average American.
I also think that two serious contenders for the title of president is clearly not enough. The only alternatives we are left with are ridiculously irrelevant and a waste of our time.
The only way there will really be change is if the voters come together and vote for someone else from another party who represents the overall values of the people. That would first require a highly qualified candidate that would attract all of these voters form both ends of the spectrum and was different enough from the other candidates to really represent change.
The sad fact id that I personally have not seen a person even close to this and I think that the other candidates who are running are in fact simply the spoilers who will devour the campaigns of the parties they used to belong to.
]]>Swiftboating has been resurrected and again has raised concerns or at least questions.
Senator Barack Obama separated himself from a statement made by retired General Wesley Clark, while Senator John McCain went on the defensive against this comment. General Clark made several statements on the “Face the Nation” show on CBS’, but I must admit that that most memorable comment was “I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.” Although, rude, unnecessary, and possibly outright stupid, there is a valid question raised here.
The real point of the conversation or the real question raised is: “Does his individual military experience make him any more qualified to be president of an entire country?”
I have to say that in reality the question raised here for me is: “Does any of the past actions of either of these candidates demonstrate their readiness to be president?”
From what I have seen the only thing that we have established about these candidates is that they may be schizophrenic and are terrible at choosing supporters to work with their campaigns.
The person who is elected will as part of the job be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States.
What is there on Senator Barack Obama’s resume that qualifies him for this job? Absolutely nothing!
On the other hand Senator John McCain at least was a military officer. I do have a personal problem with his service however.
He is in my view a great war hero and a better man than most for having lived through what he lived through in Viet Nam.
The problem I have is one of expecting more from the troops than you expected of yourself. When I was a child (in a family where every man served this country during wartime for several generations) I was told that a good leader is on who does not expect more from his subordinates than he or she expects of him or herself.
When I was in the military I was taught that if captured, I was to kill myself rather than to talk or give in to the enemy. The whole “Death Before Dishonor” thing! I was repeatedly fed the fact that I was to remain “always faithful” (Semper Fidelis) to God, country and corps even if it meant killing myself rather that to be dishonored.
The truth is that I am not convinced I could have done this and think few could. The thing is I was raised to believe in an ideal. That ideal is the president should be the best of the best particularly in terms of military service.
While a great man, I do not think it fair to demand such service from those that are under you when you could not do it yourself.
What I am getting at is that I do not believe that either candidate is even close to qualified to command our armed forces, but I do think that Senator McCain is far more qualified as he at least has some experience.
As a side note, I have to add that one of the biggest atrocities that has happened to our men and women in the armed forces was that a man who dodged the draft was allowed to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. This actually was one of the main reasons that I left the military. Think that president (Bill Clinton) was a slap in the face of all of those who have served and those that have died for our nation.
That all being said I think this is a valid discussion, but the punches needs to remain above the belt. The candidates themselves are trying to give the appearance that they are above the fray and not participating in such tactics, but their respective camps are not so “above the fray.”
It seems that that role of Commander-in-Chief has been largely neglected over the past several presidencies and for the past several years. This presidency, far more than most, will need a person of this understanding and that is a motivation to all of those asked to be willing to give their lives to do whatever their country asks of them through the president. That means even if they do not agree with the battle, war, conflict, police action, or whatever.
P.S. Just to make all of this a little more odd a group of Republican senators and military officers jumped to Senator McCain’s defense on a phone call arranged by Senator McCain’s campaign. This group stated that these statement s were “Complete silliness,” “Beyond comprehension,” “A very indecent thing,” and so on. I suppose they wanted to make sure that we all know that the Republican Party is completely opposed to Swiftboating.
The funny thing here is that the Democrats were quick to point out that one of those military officers, retired Air Force Colonel, Bud Day, was actually on the “Swift Boat” add that coined the phrase Swiftboating. For those that don’t remember, those were the adds that cast doubt on the medals earned by Democratic candidate John Kerry in Viet Nam. Now one of the people from that add is crying foul saying that these statements are “A very indecent thing”
Again, the McCain campaign has demonstrated that as a campaign, there is terrible problems in picking people to support Senator McCain publically.
I guess you have to love the irony.
]]>All this talk of “flip-flopping” and supporting evidence from everywhere; can we trust either of these people? What is going on? It’s like there is a flip-flop fever going around.
The camps of both major party’s hopefuls for president have been ramping up the rhetoric about the other candidate’s “flip-flops” and inconsistencies. When one follows the facts, the truth is that both candidates have had major flip-flops over the past year. Flip-flops big enough to make one wonder; “Who the heck are these people and what do they stand for?”
The truth of the matter is that June and July historically are the months when candidates retool their message and their stands to move a little closer to the center and away from the extreme ends of their party’s ideals to appeal to larger voting segments.
What makes it different this year? I think there are two things that are different.
I think with Senator Obama, his voting record shows him to be almost as far to the left as one can be, while his rhetoric, campaigning, and speeches make him appear to be very close to the middle and as “The Candidate of Change.” There a already many huge question marks about who he really is to begin with without him changing the message again.
For Senator McCain, he already has done more and more to alienate the far right within his party over the past eight or nine years and who he really is also warrants a huge question mark from his would be supporters. Many of the things he stands for and represents already is a hard sell to people in the middle or on the right at any level. Keep in mind that he represents the same party as the largely unpopular current president which makes his candidacy a hard sell as it is. He has somehow got to get the support of the right and the middle at the same time when both are skeptical to begin with and he is even going so far as to try to draw from the right betting on the fallout from the Democratic primaries. For those who are not already set on a candidate or a party (voting for a candidate simply because of party affiliation at this point in history with all that could happen over the next four years is not only stupid but grossly negligent) his message seems to be all over the map and makes him even less understandable to us.
The other reason I think this is such a big deal this year is the fact that there are more mediums that will verify what they are saying and more people who are apt to research such things.
How many of us have heard something stated by one of the candidates and then by the next day heard and read a firestorm of contradictions stated by the same person as noted on “factcheck.org” or other such organizations.
What I am saying is that the microscope has grown more powerful for this year’s elections and the candidates are under much more focused scrutiny. I suspect that if previous candidates had been under the same level of scrutiny as the current candidates history would be vastly different.
Are the candidates “flip-flopping” and still undefined? Absolutely! Are these candidates distancing themselves from their own past stands and voting records? Absolutely? When I look at both of their past stands and voting records, this is not really a bad thing if we are talking about a true change of heart.
The problem is, will this newly retooled and refined candidate show up in the Whitehouse if elected president or is it all for votes? I for one sure do like the candidates’ campaign faces a lot better than what the facts show.
]]>Recent comments by Charles R. Black Jr., a key advisor to Senator John McCain have sparked a firestorm that is being fanned by the Senator Barack Obama’s camp. Mr. Black merely stated that a terrorist attack during the campaign would strengthen Senator McCain’s presidential bid. The real question in this campaign is what idiot picks these advisors?
This year seems to be plagued with crazy remarks from crazy advisors, supporters, friends, and family members that completely undermine the candidacy of the person they are trying to support. Where are all of these people coming from and how can they be stopped.
I do have to wonder, in light of what I have seen throughout this year if any of the serious candidates for president (Senator’s McCain, Obama, and Clinton) have shown themselves unable to fulfill the office of president simply because they have no ability to appoint the right people, discern which people are good or outright stupid advisors, and control the crazy people that are otherwise involved in their lives.
If the campaigns of these three people are any indicator of what a presidency will look like, I certainly will pass.
A huge part of a presidency finds it’s foundations in whom the president surrounds himself or herself with and appoints to major positions that have influence over the entire planet. The people around the three serious candidates that we had been left with (now two) are amateurish (to put it politely).
The mistakes and stupidity seen this year are not old Washington politics they are best classified as armature Washington stupidity.
Once again, I assert that clearly non e of the aforementioned candidates is ready to be president for the next four years and we need a better candidate from somewhere.
]]>Was I hearing things or did I see a clip of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah telling the world, particularly the United States that we need to better control our oil consumption?
Is he serious? That seems a bit like a crack dealer trying to tell a user that he wants to help him learn how to quit smoking crack but he needs to smoke less crack in the first place. The solution of course, when using this flawed logic, is to produce and sell more crack.
How is this even a sensible discussion much less a part of a sensible solution? The more I hear different political figures from all over the world trying to solve this oil problem the more I begin to feel that I am being hustled from all sides.
This weekend the King of crack…oops I mean oil producers; King Abdullah held a meeting with the other dealers to figure out how they could help us with our crack… I mean oil problems. In other words, this was a meeting to see what they can do to make less money. (Do we all see how ridiculous this all is)
To make this even more ridiculous, where we are in terms of popularity in the world view, particularly with the major oil producing nations, makes it even less likely that any nation that produces oil will truly want to help.
The summit that was help by King Abdullah only produced one nation that has agreed to step up oil production ever so slightly, the king’s own country of Saudi Arabia.
Am I the only one that feels like the king is simply going through the motions with no sincerity? Then this person has the nerve to start to tell us that the real problem is that we use too much of the product he sells and that’s why the price is so high. To top off his nonsense he passed some of the blame off to speculators because of how they invest. (Economists have publicly disagreed with this statement)
It seems that everyone in oil right now is making a fortune at record levels and yet blaming the high prices on someone else. How do these people keep raising prices, making record profits in our faces, and yet telling us there is no connection the problem with the price has to do with something or someone else?
The truth of the matter is that unless our relations with major oil producing nations (or should I say oil cartels or possibly oil mafia) changes dramatically heavy dependence on oil products is one of the most foolish things that happen to us.
]]>Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are to begin campaigning together. The question is will this be a good thing for each one of them and for us who have to watch the whole thing. I am not sure it is the best thing for any of us.
First let’s look at how this is bad for Senator Obama. Having Senator Clinton on his side probably will greatly help him gain some support with female voters and add a strong counterattacking voice that will counter the strong attacks of Senator McCain’s camp.
The problem is that there is another part of the package that comes with a Hillary Clinton; former president Bill Clinton. Each candidate has their strange sideline person that in trying to help them just makes him or her look bad. There is a certain Mr. Wright for Senator Obama, Cindy McCain for Senator John McCain, and there is Bill Clinton for Senator Hillary Clinton.
Senator Obama has finally gotten past his and the memories are gradually dying and the effort by the McCain camp and particularly Senator McCain’s wife Cindy McCain to make Michelle Obama Mr. Wright’s replacement is failing.
Is the Obama camp sure it is ready to take on the burden of Senator Clinton’s anchor and husband Bill Clinton. After all they are married and he loves to get passionate about whatever he is supporting politically. The problem that has surfaced over the past few months is that he gets passionately stupid. Why would a candidate volunteer for more obstacles to overcome?
Next let’s look at how this is bad for Senator Clinton. She spent months tearing down the credentials of Senator Obama and convincing the entire planet that he would be one of the worst choices for president of the United States there has ever been. Her campaigning to the contrary confirms the suspicion that she is all rhetoric and she doesn’t mean half of what she says.
The fact is, that if an Obama presidency has half of the problems she stated it may have, it would be better for her political career to have distanced herself from him during the rest of this race and just announce that she is supporting her party’s candidate because she has to. This means if he is elected and all evil breaks loose, she can run four years from now as the “I told you so” candidate and possibly be the better choice for her party.
Finally let’s look at how this is bad for us. Clearly the campaign is going to get ugly. The McCain camp is starting off with a similar campaign mindset that Senator Clinton had; if you keep attacking Senator Obama he will crack (although this seems like the obvious right direction to go with the slight leads Obama has in many polls, it just failed for Senator Clinton). What is going to happen once the Clinton family are on the other side of this manner of campaign. The mud slinging war to end all wars and we have to endure it all. Smear tactics, attacks on family members, rude and often misleading adds, racial divisiveness from both sides, childishness, and on and on.
The worst problem with all of this will be the lack of genuine conversation about real issues and solutions to compare. We will be simply voting for who fights better, not who is the better candidate.
This is a two sided coin. Good in some ways and bad in some grave other ways
]]>President George Bush is pushing congress to allow the big oil companies to drill more in places that are protected from drilling currently. When I hear proposals to allow major oil companies to do more of something from a politician that has much of his wealth and support coming from the oil industry I am a bit skeptical.
In truth I do not agree with much of the bad press that we are forced to endure about the current president, but it is illogical to think that oil and gas prices would be his strength.
To me seeing President Bush tell me how to solve the oil problems we are now having is a bit like having Osama Bin Laden on video telling me how to catch Al Qaeda troops.
The other problem with his proposal for more drilling is when this would help us. Every solution I seem to see for the oil crises and in reality from my perspective gas prices is a long term solution that will take seven to ten years to begin to see any results.
As an average person I have one bottom line question: If the congress allowed all of this drilling, when would the gas prices change? In thinking this proposal through, I am not sure the prices would change if this is the only factor.
The truth about all of this is that if the oil companies can continue to charge more for gas and other oil products, why should they charge less? In other words, if the United States produced more oil, what guarantee is there that the prices would go down a whole lot?
To bee honest, the only guaranteed positive from more drilling on our soil that I can see is less dependence on foreign oil. We seem to depend on too many countries that either doesn’t like us or that there is evidence that they secretly don’t like us.
The fact that this proposal has President George Bush as it’s face man does not help the cause for me because his family, his state, and his support base seems to gain the most from this and seem to possibly be the ones that may be gaining the most now.
I see the need for some more drilling here, but it seems obvious to me that more, less, or the same amount of drilling here will not effect me at the pump at all and the people who are standing to gain from this are trying to tell me it will.
Why is the president or anyone spending more time on solutions for right now rather than on solutions for the distant future that will have minimal effect if any at all? I suppose I should just wait for ten to twenty years and see if we get the alternative fuels worked out so that something is a reasonable alternative while hoping that somewhere there is a level off point to the price of gasoline and it does not just keep rising all of that time.
As for the president speaking on solving an oil crisis, I think this president should have a spokesperson, possibly an economist of some form, speak for him as it would be a little more believable to me.
]]>Over the past few days the McCain camp has hit one of my pet peeves.
I remember when I was in high school that whenever two girls got into a physical confrontation someone would always scream “cat-fight” out loud. There are many negative connotations in the statement “cat-fight” which over the past few days I cannot stop myself from having one person come to mind when I think of the term. That person is Cindy McCain, the wife of presidential candidate Senator John McCain.
I am not a big fan of Senator Barack Obama’s wife Michelle Obama, but I am noting really voting for her so who cares. Her little publicity stunt on the view yesterday didn’t help or hurt her in my view it was just stuff and possibly a wasted opportunity to help her husband’s cause.
As far as Cindy McCain I actually find her to just flat out not be likeable, but I have just ignored that fact because however I vote, I am not voting for her either.
The problem I have had is when Mrs. McCain started her public attacks of Mrs. Obama implying that she hates the country etc. The question I have to ask myself is why am I watching the wives of presidential candidates fight. In reality it is only Cindy McCain who is picking a fight as a political ploy for her husband.
The only defense I have heard for this ridiculous display is that “Senator Obama’s People” (I suppose by that they must mean someone who they perceive not to support Senator McCain) attacked his wife first about the absence of her tax returns.
You may remember when Senator Obama was in a heated competition with Senator Hillary Clinton and was pressuring her to release her tax returns. Both of the Democratic candidates released tax returns that included their spouses. So rather than just stay out of that fight, Senator McCain’s “people” decided to release his tax returns and leave out his wife, Cindy McCain’s tax returns. Now we are hearing that Senator McCain’s camp was so angered by the questions and challenges that this raised that they feel it okay to have his wife attack Michelle Obama.
To be honest, I was not that interested in the tax return issue until I heard that Senator McCain’s wife did not include hers. I heard the explanation and found it plausible, yet I still had doubts and questions. In actuality I am still not sure to this day that there is nothing being hidden there. In my opinion it would have been better not to release anything and say he was refusing to get into the childish games being played by the other party. The releasing of his tax returns without hers was, in my opinion, a bad political move.
The idea that it raised comments and criticism is not to attack his wife; it is to attack a stupid move on the part of whoever in his camp thought they should do this.
That being said, the “She hit me first” defense not only is childish, but doesn’t hold water.
Senator John McCain is trying to kill the image he has of having temper tantrums and childish outbursts and then his campaign allows his wife to do one of the most childish acts in the history of public elections. I would have thought that after the escapades of former president, Bill Clinton and the negative influence he had on Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign, we would have seen the end of the spouse campaigning by attack.
As anyone who reads my posts regularly knows, I am not a huge fan of either of the candidates from the major parties, but attacking candidate’s families is one of my pet peeves. Cindy McCain has managed to tip the scales a little toward the Democrats for me with this childishness. The McCain camp has managed to tip the scales a bit more with their attempts to defend such childishness instead of just apologizing. I am just befuddled by the fact that they try to imply that the Obama camp was out of line to (in their view) attack Cindy McCain and yet they are using that to defend the reason Cindy McCain attacks (yes I mean it to be plural) Michelle Obama.
“She hit me first,” only says that you are as childish as the person you are fighting with. Then when it turns out that that person didn’t really hit you first, you are the only one that is proven to be childish!
]]>
Democrat, Al Gore endorsed Senator Barack Obama yesterday. Wow, what an awesome speech and would have been a huge help to his bid to be the Democratic candidate for president. That is if he had done it before Senator Hillary Clinton “suspended” her campaign.
This is an interesting distraction, and gets Senator Obama’s face in the news, but what is changed because he endorses him now. It is not like some diehard Republican is going to say; “Well, if Al Gore endorsed him, I guess I will too.”
I am also not too sure what weight Al Gore carries with the independent voters either. I have to wonder if this is just another publicity stunt that really keeps us from focusing on the true issues.
To be honest I don’t really care if Al Gore endorses him at this stage in the game or not. What I care about is, what solutions does Senator Obama or Senator McCain have to show for the problems that are at hand.
I think that the time for endorsements and publicity stunts ended at four dollars a gallon, lost homes, and no food. The time is now for beginning to talk issues.
Plus, what does this say about Al Gore. He stayed away from committing to a candidate until one had already been chosen and then he shows up and “endorses that person as if he had supported him all along. As if history should hold that he made the difference in the Obama campaign in 2008.
I do not know Mr. Gore’s motivations, but this does give the impression that he is in it for the publicity.
What a waste of all of our time.
]]>