Economic stimulus by Democrats?

by: Peddler

Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:54:32 AM EST

Oddly enough, Bush introduced tax cuts early in his administration but they were villified as nothing but welfare for the wealthy and only the top 1% or so actually benefited from them.  It seems odd to me that the "tax cuts for the rich" helped stimulate an economy out of a recession and into a long running growth period because he added other cuts and breaks along with the check.  Clinton's years in the 90s were ones of rapid growth with the dot.com explosion.  Everyone was making a lot of money and the gap between the haves and have nots was growing.  But, the dot.com explosion exploded and sent us into a recession.  The housing market of the 2000s has collapsed and with the subprime fiasco, we are facing an uncertain future.  

The internet is producing some rather spectacular instant millionaires and billionaires but they are few and far between but what is created does not translate into very many actual jobs available for the average person.

Another curious observation about the wealthy and privileged class is that Democrats apparently make up the majority now, not the Republican "Scrooges".  Don't see too many of them lining up to redistribute their wealth to the poor and underprivileged do you?  Oh well, I guess owning a sports team for entertainment is enough of a contribution to the good of the people don't you?

Like it or not, admit it or not, we are in a serious downward turn in the economy.  Some say we are in a recession and I don't necessarily disagree.  We need something to kickstart the move out of the recession and maybe a tax rebate is the answer but without other incentives to go along with a $250 check, all we will have is a quick influx of short term money much like a "back to school sale".  Once it is over, what then?  Will there be anything in place to maintain any momentum the economy might gain?  

I would like to see some honest answers about the economy from the candidates, not another attempt to buy votes with my tax money.

What does it really mean?

by: Peddler

Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:10:28 AM EST

The rumor mill has already started on some blogs about the Huckabee campaign planning to go negative in SC.  Ed Rollins it seems is the subject of the rumors based on conversations which were supposedly overheard in a small diner in Iowa.  For once, I sincerely hope the information is erronous but considering the track record of some Republican strategists, I fear for the worst.

Hillary may take NH but I don't believe at this time she will take SC.  Is she does, it will be by the smallest of margins.  After doing my research on Obama and reading his feel good speech over at Not Very Bright's blog, I have come to the conclusion that he has taken a page from a past president who inspired a generation of young activists, JFK.  Not a bad idea especially if you consider the acrimony and anger over the past fifteen years involved in American politics.  Clinton and Bush have been the objects of hatred fostered by extremist elements in the radical wings of their respective parties.

Hillary has been and until proven otherwise is still my first choice as the winner of the Democrat Party nomination.  The upcoming dogfight between the two camps will be interesting since Obama drew first blood and that can be a dangerous move considering his opponent.  John Edwards may have finished second in Iowa but that won't hold for very long.  Tonight cleared the table of all other candidates except for Hillary and Obama with Edwards trying to hold on but in the end, to no avail.

Huckabee apparently tapped into the emotional side of the spectrum with evangelical voters and if it holds up which is becoming more and more likely in SC with tonights victory, he will either be the Republican candidate or have enough influence over whoever is to insure his agenda is included in the party platform.  Unfortunately, the Mormon issue will probably play in his favor in SC just as Guliani's negative press about his private life will work against him.  Unless history completely fails, the ultimate victor in SC will go on to be the Republican presidential candidate.

If what Huckabee said about Obama is accurate, a race between the two will be nothing short of a total sweep by Obama.  It seems that Obama is the person he admires most on the Democrat side since both of them share similar political ideologies.  Taking into account Obama's rock star status with the young and his appeal to the more positive side with the older generation and his appeal with women voters, it will take a miracle for him to lose if he is the candidate.

I believe the conventional wisdom that gives the Republican nominee a good chance to win the White House if Hillary is the Democrat choice but if Obama is the nominee, he will be elected with ease.  If anything will bring the primary voters to his side, it will be a conviction of his ability to win the election in November.  I am a little surprised that this has not been a more prevalent theme in his campaign.  Yet, in a column writen by George Will on December 30, he explained more fully why Obama transcends the normal under-expectations of African Americans in politics especially in this presidential campaign.  It was a very good read on the man and peels away some of the mystique of who he is.  In the end, he is a man who refuses to let the status quo define him.  Like Clinton, Obama has no foreign policy credentials and no experience with military matters and still the voters took a chance with Clinton over GWHB serving a second term.  Remember we had just come from a successful campaign in the first Gulf War and the voters gave no free pass to Bush I for his victory there.

I know my comments may ramble a little but this election is so much different that the past four.  As has been mentioned, there is not one incumbent among the entire group unless you count Hillary.  The race is still open to a surprise but again, conventional wisdom does not indicate a dark horse candidate suddenly appearing on the scene.  We have the group we have and the choices are scary indeed.

Based on events of today, if Hillary regains momentum and takes NH and SC, she will be the nominee.  If not and Obama comes close in NH and takes SC, he will be the nominee.  If Huckabee can continue to tap into the evangelical block and come close in NH and win in SC, he will be the Republican nominee.  Otherwise, it will be a long drawn out fight between the frontrunners and there may be a surprise winner coming from the lower ranks of candidates.  At this point, I have no clue as to who it will be and that alone is a little disconcerting because in the past since picking JFK the first time I have been pretty successful picking the candidates and ultimate winner early on.

More erroneous intelligence on the Middle East?

by: Peddler

Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 11:39:46 AM EST

Now, the pile-on is beginning once again and Bush is being held up as the idiot who is "crying wolf" over a non-existent nuclear threat.  I think it is time for these shells of their former selves namely our "intelligence" gathering agences to have the bulk of the blame placed squarely on their shoulders.  And if as I suspect there is an agenda within the organizations political in nature, the offenders should be summarily dismissed with prejudice.

We do not have the luxury of being wrong anymore.  We do not enjoy the former prestige we once had in the international community and after all is said and done, Democrats and Republicans are equally to blame.

Our intelligence community was decimated along with the military during Clinton's presidency.  And, if we should forget, there were enough Republicans out there to raise enough of a stink to prevent Clinton from destroying both.  We had no way of actually knowing what our enemies were doing and the intelligence sources we had were provided mostly from allies in other countries.  When you don't use in-house resources for information and depend on those whose political winds blow in a different direction, you are subject to embarrassment and ridicule when your source is faulty and inaccurate.

I am convinced deep inside that if Bush knew for sure WMDs did not exist in Iraq and he had truthful information, we would not be there today.  Saddam Hussein would still be in power, creating problems for everyone else but without the destructive biological and chemical weapons everyone thought he had.  Saddam himself perpetuated the myth in order to maintain his position as the strong man of the Middle East.  That lie not only cost him his dictatorship but his life.  Now we are engaged in a war that no one really wanted except for a few neocons who live for conflict.

Sometimes I wonder just how the group of candidates vying for the White House would have reacted to the same information Bush was given under the same circumstances surrounding 9/11 and the terrorist threat that was very real at the time and still is.  Would they have taken the same road?  If you go by some of the comments some Democrats deniers made then denied, I think we may have been in Iraq under their administration too.  

This brings me to my point.  How will our current group of candidates address the intelligence issue confronting us now?  Will they take steps to improve and expand or will they do the ostrich thing and hide their heads in the sand?  Will they depend on foreign sources the way Bush had to do?  Will they send operatives and I use that word loosely considering the fiasco with the Plame outing to secure verifiable facts or just depend on a casual meeting that had no real substance?  Will they trust other governments to be truthful and be upfront in sharing dependable intelligence?

The war in Iraq is still a flashpoint with the majority of voters.  The surge has been working and it looks as if some real gain has been made with the general population of Iraq and maybe, just maybe we can get out in a reasonable time frame and save some face.  Otherwise we will have to honestly address the possibility of a withdrawal much in the same manner as we did in Vietnam.

Fortunately the news about Iran came out before any action could be taken against them.  We were lucky to be able to avoid another conflict and further alieniate our so-called allies in Europe and other parts of the world.  

I think it would be an interesting exercise in 20/20 hindsight to ask each candidate, Democrat and Republican what would you have done under the same circumstances.  The answers would be interesting to say the least.

Cuddly Teddy Bear named Muhammed - a crime?

by: Peddler

Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 13:18:23 PM EST

And to make matters worse, Britian is falling all over itself to apologize for the offense.  Damnation - if a religion is so sensitive and the followers so insecure that they react in such a manner over naming a toy Muhammed which is one of the most popular names in all of the Muslim world, how can we ever expect Muslims to ever live in the real world?

The government expects to release the teacher soon even though they found the act an insult.  Well - as Steve Martin says - Exxcuuuuse Me!!!  Muslims have no problem blastpheming God and Jesus Christ or torturing and murdering anyone who converts to Christianity in their countries.  They have no problem calling for the total annihilation of Jews and Israel.  They have no problem making fun of our faith but let an innocent act such as naming a teddy bear Muhammed and the whole damn religion goes into hysterics.  I am suprised that Khartoum didn't have street riots with signs calling her the teacher's death.

You may not think this incident has anything to do with the upcoming election but how our candidates view these things is very important in a world view.  Will they join in the apology group or will they stand for freedom of expression and take a stand against extremes of religious intolerance.  It does give one pause to think.

Bloggers and Web Columnists Impact

by: Peddler

Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 11:52:57 AM EST

I try to browse and read through several blog sites each day and the editorials and opinions section on Yahoo which I find to be very good.  When I read through some of the opinion pieces, it amazes me that the liberal left is complaining about the right wing commentators, etc.  Some of the most vitrolic, petulent, and viturpitive writing I have ever read is contained in the writings of the liberal contributors.  One in particular is Ted Rall who is a three time Pulitizer nominee and a winner of the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism awards for cartoonists.  Michelle Malkin pales in comparison to some of his writings and he makes Ann Coulter look like a choir member. 

In his most recent column, he makes some of the most hateful comments I have ever read.  The far right wingers (who are even further right than the most ardent neocon) who post evil on their sites are about the only comparison I can draw.  His recent column has the following paragraph in it.  Read for yourselves: 

"We must elect--by an overwhelming, theft-proof majority--a candidate who promises to renounce Bush and all his works. A reform-minded president's first act should be to sign a law that reads as follows: "The federal government of the United States having been illegitimate and illegal since January 20, 2001, all laws, regulations, executive orders, and acts of commission or omission enacted between that infamous day and 12 noon Eastern Standard Time on January 20, 2009 are hereby declared invalid and without effect." Guantánamo, secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, spying on Americans' phone calls and emails, and "legal" torture would be erased. Our troops should immediately pull out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Somalia; we should apologize to our victims and offer to compensate them and their survivors. Bush should never appear on any list of American presidents. When he dies, his carcass shouldn't receive a state funeral. It ought to be thrown in the trash." 

Some of his previous offerings attack our volunteer army and describes their sacrifice and families in the following manner:

"Four years after the WMDs and liberation flora failed to turn up, people still enlist. After soldiers die, their parents insist that theirs was a noble sacrifice. Tell me again: Why should I care about the war? Why shouldn't I go shopping? " ---and this is the milder comment.

I have no problem with dissent.  Dissent is the reason this country exists today.  There comes a point and this applies to both sides when dissent and discussion plunges to the lowest common denominator possible and any attempt at finding mutual ground is rendered improbable if not impossible.

Many of my friends and corresponders are liberal and we enjoy good give and take.  We respect each other and observe boundaries of good taste.  When I read some of the contributors from both sides, I get a little nauseous at the vile spewed in the name of political commentary.

This site's main purpose is to discuss the upcoming election.  I choose to believe that the content of discussion should involve all things that contribute to how one will make a decision or how aspects of coverge will affect us when we are casting our votes.  Do columnist like Ted Rall have an impact or not?

Brownback endorses McCain

by: jczacher

Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 12:33:15 PM EST

Dear McCain Supporter,

This morning, I flew to Iowa to join and endorse my friend, John McCain, for President of the United States. John McCain is a true American hero and I'm proud to stand with him today. He is the only candidate who can rally the Reagan coalition of conservatives, Independents, and conservative Democrats needed to defeat Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat in the general election next year.

While I respect all of the Republicans running for president this year, John McCain is the only choice to lead our country in the global fight against Islamic fundamentalism. He has the experience, the knowledge, and the courage for this fight. He alone among the candidates for President recognized years ago that our strategy in Iraq was failing and had the guts to call for change. We need that leadership in the White House.

John McCain also represents the values that are the core of our Republican party. He has spent a lifetime standing up for human rights around the world, including a consistent 24 year pro-life record of protecting the rights of the unborn. We do not have to abandon our principles of life, faith and family to defeat the Democrats next fall; we can stand with John McCain.

With momentum growing, we need to rally around John McCain today. Please take the time to contribute to his campaign. With less than 60 days before voting begins, it is important that John have the resources to get his message out in the early primary states. I am standing strong with John and ask that you join me.

Sincerely,
Senator Sam Brownback

New AG confirmation

by: Peddler

Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 17:25:24 PM EST

If it is legal and the opposition is stong enough against it, the new congress should introduce a bill making it illegal and send it through.  With the upcoming change in Washington, no doubt it will pass with flying colors.

But before we journey down that road and parrot the comments that have been made about the practive bringing us down to the level of our enemies, we need to look back at WWII and some of the things we did in the name of fighting for freedom.  An excellent article in the WSJ today outlines some of the things we did in order to end a world war and the casualties are astounding in shear numbers.  The article is by Bret Stephens and the following are three paragraphs that are worthwhile reading.

"......In a recent article in Commentary, essayist Algis Valiunas recounts that when war broke out in Europe in 1939, Franklin Roosevelt "issued a plea that all combatant nations do the decent thing and refrain from bombing." And yet, he continues, "President Roosevelt's high-mindedness did not count for much once the action was under way." The Nazis, for whom terror from the skies was no more anathema than every other form of terror they practiced, were the first to bomb civilian targets, beginning with Warsaw and moving on to Rotterdam and London.

Within a couple of years, the Allies were retaliating in kind, which in current parlance would be known as "lowering oneself to the level of one's enemies." At the Casablanca conference in January 1943, Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill promised to undertake "the heaviest possible bomber offensive against the German war effort." Six months later that terrible promise was fulfilled over Hamburg by 700 British bombers. In Mr. Valiunas's telling, it was a scene from the Inferno: "Oxygen starvation and carbon monoxide poisoning killed many; bomb shelters turned into ovens and roasted the persons inside, so that rescue workers days later found the bodies seared together in an indistinguishable mass; the molten asphalt of the streets engulfed those who fled the burning buildings."

An estimated 45,000 people died this way in Hamburg. U.S. and British air forces would repeat the procedure over Dresden, Tokyo, Yokohama, Hiroshima, Nagasaki--cities of real or at least arguable military significance. Hundreds of smaller cities and towns of doubtful strategic value were also reduced to ash and rubble, bringing the total civilian death toll to about 600,000 Germans (including 75,000 children under 14) and a roughly equal number of Japanese. How can this be justified? Does it not greatly diminish Allied claims to moral superiority?....."

There is more to the article but I think these paragraphs convey the horror inflicted on civilians during war time conditions.  I do not advocate killing innocents during a war especially when an immoral dictator uses them as civilian shields.  There has always been loss of life in the civilian sector during any war.  To purposely choose to bomb factories and cities in civilian areas is a bad choice but under the circumstances, it was the choice Roosevelt thought the best of all evils confronting him at the time.

I do not advocate torture as a means of intelligence gathering but when and where do we find a realistic balance between civility and barbarism?  If your enemy is willing to behead a civilian in public and put the execution on the internet, do you honestly think asking them nicely about upcoming operations will actually work?

These issues are ones we must make as informed citizens and determine for ourselves where we stand on them.  I watched some video on a news show and the reporter went through a demonstration of waterboarding and explained how it affected him.  He held out for about 10 seconds or so and that was it.  One of the sheiks who was captured earlier and was a key player in terrorist activities was able to hold out for about 2 minutes.  If you have ever felt like you are drowning, imagine being placed in such a mental state of mind over and over again.

I think I might tell you everything you wanted to know and then some.  I came close to drowning as a teenager when I saved a buddy from drowning and the feeling of panic stayed with me for a long time.  The helpless feeling and sensation of losing control can cause panic if you don't have a strong will.  The adrenaline kicks in and that deep primordial self preservation defense mechanism takes over in an instant.

We played a game when I was a kid where we would blindfold someone, stand them on a board held up at about 3-4 inches by two people.  A third person would stand next to you with your hand on their shoulder.  The people holding the board would start lifting it very slowly while the person next to you would start to bend slowly at the knees creating a sensation of the board actually being raised to great heights.  Then, at the opportune moment, they would pretend to lose control and tilt it to one side.  Believe me when I tell you that you think you are falling and some of the screams evoked from participants was ear splitting.  Some were affected to the point of having a fear of heights instilled when there was none before.

Parlor games or torture methods?  College level fraternity initiation or inhumane treatment of another human being?  One is more severe than the other and most of us has a demon we fear deep inside.  Is tapping this demon a source of torture or is it an effective tool to gather useful information during a time of uncertainty and war? 

The upcoming elections will have an impact on how we conduct future hostilities against an enemy with declared borders or a faceless enemy hiding behind masks and striking at random with no regard for who is a victim or not.  In the interim, the new Attorney General will have a lot to say about our current interrogation practices. 

The Colbert flap

by: jczacher

Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 15:08:56 PM EDT

Should anyone be allowed on a ballot?  Sure.  If they meet certain qualifications.  I think the Republicans' price tag was a little high, but a committee of party leaders deciding who can and cannot be placed on a ballot?  That's not democracy, if you ask me.

And if you're only certifying "viable" candidates, you can scratch 2/3 of all the candidates... on both sides.

There were many good posts written about this on other blogs.  I encourage you to take a look at them.

Lord knows, this is the most interesting thing that's happened in the S.C. Presidential Sphere in the past couple of weeks.

FITSNews: http://fitsnews.com/...
PalmettoScoop: http://www.palmettos...

The crickets are getting louder out there!!

by: Peddler

Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 19:36:41 PM EDT

Recently, some of the older and more faithful contributors have seemingly abandoned the site and no longer do we have the participation we had at one time.  I feel like the shipwrecked sailor on a deserted island with a lone coconut tree for food and companionship.  The last few diaries posted have been mine and I was trying to get some dialog or differing opinions offered for further discussion.  I tried to initiate discussions over topics that may or may not be important in the upcoming election.  Agree or disagree, I was hoping for a response but the silence has been deafening.

I am going to try once again to get some interest generated with another diary.  I would like some discussion for, against, up, down, forward, backward, sideways, or any other way you choose but choose to contribute.

Having a strong indication of who we will vote for in the upcoming primary is important and watching the debates is enlightening (?) to some degree and is important but going beyond the hot button issues is also a vital part of the vetting process when determining who our choice will be. 

Iraq, SCHIP, Social Security, Abortion, taxes, civil liberty issues, wiretapping, immigration, Supreme Court appointees, and a host of other issues affecting our daily lives will be part and parcel of the next administration.  The make-up of both houses will determine the success or failure of the next president's agenda.  If it is a sweep for Democrats as some pundits are expecting, conservatives will lose any voice in governing the country.  We will have a minimum of two years where Hillary will have total control over everything that goes through Washington, DC.  Is this the government we really want to have?  Even under the best circumstances, I cannot imagine a time when it is a good thing to have one political party being in such total control that the opposition cannot muster enough votes to present a legitimate challenge to special interest legislation. 

What are your thoughts about a sweep so thorough that any legislation presented or proposed by one side has no chance of failure?  What are your thoughts of having a Senate with Democrats holding 61 seats, therefore guaranteeing every bill that comes to the floor will be passed?  What happens to honest representation then?  Based on demographics, this country consists of a moderate population with most supporting a lean to the conservative side of moderation.  The far right and far left really do not represent the majority in the United States. 

If predictions are accurate, we are facing a unique situation in American politics.  We are looking at the potential of a congress dominated by Democrats to the point of rendering Republicans ineffective and ineffectual. 

If this is an accurate prediction, after January, 2009, if not already, we will see our troops withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan in 6 months or less;

we will have national health insurance for everyone including illegal immigrants;

illegal immigrants will be granted citizenship with no pre-existing conditions attached;

taxes will be raised and the tax cuts will be repealed;

we will see the resurgence of unions contributing to even higher consumer prices;

we will see penalties for companies buying outside the borders of the USA in an attempt to enact a brand of isolationism;

we will see a lessening of support for our military and funding will be for comforts in lieu of weapons like it was under the first Clinton administration;

we will see a national law passed in support and recognition of same-sex marriages;

we will see an even further erosion of religious freedoms especially for those who are Christians;

we will see a further embrace of political correctness and the speech police will be even more vigilant than they are now, hate speech will be defined and certain words we can use now will be considered criminal;

we will see a gun control law passed restricting gun ownership;

we will see an expansion of hate crime definitions and laws;

we will see a further intrusion of the government into our private lives and personal decisions relating to food choices, exercising, smoking, and other behaviour choices not acceptable by the pc crowd;

we will see the final change from what was once a Christian nation to a secular one much like our European counterparts.

In short, George Orwell had everything right except for the year.

This is my take on upcoming events.  What are yours?

Right on Brother Obama!!!

by: Peddler

Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 10:28:42 AM EDT

But, now we read about growing instances when a local government will go out of its way to accomodate Muslims and their practice of faith.  Some cities are planning to construct foot bath accomodations for Muslims.  I guess as long as it is not connected to the Christian faith, it is acceptable.

But, back to the subject of politicians in pulpits.  Obama attended a church service and spoke to the congregation on Sunday.  He called for a heaven on earth, unity, and all of the appropriate passages utilized by a politician to drum up support among the faithful. 

My question is simple.  What gives a politician the right to go into an African American church on Sunday morning, have access to the pulpit and deliver a "sermon" if you will and not be held accountable?  If the same venue were to be used in a predominantly caucasian church and if the politician happened to be a Republican, you can rest assured that the outcry from the media would be loud, long, and persistent. 

If we are to be a country where separation of church and state is the norm and if churches enjoying a tax free status violate or abuse the privilige, shouldn't the church in question lose this generous status?  Much like the faith based initiative from the Bush administration, I felt this was a move crossing the fine line of separation.