This should shock the hell out of anyone

It was yesterday morning, checking out AOL.com on the laptop, as AOL is now its home page on the internet.  AOL news in connection with CNN; and the Political Machine blog was providing breaking news of McCain at a biker’s rally. That is, an event they hold yearly at Sturgis, in South Dakota.  Among other things that McCain said, in his oh so very clumsy way, was to invite his wife to a “beauty pageant.”  According to the author of the blog report, that was a topless beauty pageant.  I put the word out to a blogger who works for local paper, The Spokesman-Review.  He then checked the link for himself and later, posted both the original post and the accompanying video at Huckleberries on line.  That was yesterday.  Before going to work, I had turned on CNN.  While there is no question that the CNN news team had indeed provided sound bites from the video, they also turned away, and I am sure deliberately at that, from discussing what could only be McCain’s most embarrassing moment.  But apparently, Keith Olberman of MSNBC did not and neither did “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.”  So it begs the question, did McCain have any idea what so ever who exactly he was addressing?

Bikers are known to cultivate an outlaw image.  They also tend to exploit their ladies in what can only be described as debauched beauty pageants.  Saw the video on “The Daily Show,” that the nubile young ladies come out in nothing but underwear, bras and panties.  And then display their attributes to a cheering crowd of leering bikers.  Was McCain well aware of this, or not?  At the least, I would make the argument that McCain was dredging for votes at the bottom of the barrel.  Offering his wife up for a few hours of debauchery that would humiliate anyone who was the wife of a politician—that is not cool.  Nor is it “presidential.”  Informing a few people after the fact about McCain’s less than presidential statements, he was referred to as a, uh …[donkey] and a jerk.

The video of his most improper statements found its way to YouTube, where HBO’s blogger found it and pasted it onto his news blog.

It should also be known that blogs inviting comments, a South Idaho religious activist who happened to be checking out the local paper on line; declared that McCain was working hard to offend the “conservatives.”  I believe that was the whole idea of planting the link to the original source to begin with.  So that people could check it out, and knowing biker gangs for their outlaw tendencies, could only come away appalled at what McCain was inviting his wife into.  Not what you would call “family values” by any stretch of the imagination.  And they vote.  Not only are they going to vote, but they will also blog about McCain’s “dirty old man” attire.

CNN admitted that McCain was hard at work trying to take the focus off of himself and placing it squarely on his presidential contender:  Senator Barack H. Obama.  As long as he could do that, then he could begin matching Obama in the polls.  Now the focus, at the worst possible time, is back on McCain.  Fellah, did you have any idea just who you were addressing?  Do you know what sort of debauchery you were willing to invite your wife into?  McCain did it to himself.

What was amazing, as I watched some of Wolf Blitzer yesterday, that he steered clear of any mention of Cindy McCain starring as Ms Buffalo Chip in a biker style beauty pageant and also serving as first lady.  Right.  From porn to the White House.  No, we at CNN as of 5 August 2008 wouldn’t want to show the world how much McCain humiliated himself before those bikers and his family.  But CNN never had a problem working over time humiliating Obama at every turn.  Esp. Lou Dobbs.  But, once the video of McCain stumbling and bumbling and encouraging his wife into an exploitative “beauty pageant” hit YouTube; the world, already knows.

Wonder if we should revisit that NY Times article that had alleged McCain hitting on a female lobbyist/friend?  Seems it would be of a piece about this 71 year old fool who wants to be president.  He humiliates his marriage at one instance, and his wife in front of bikers some months later.  Does he want to be president?  Should we actually vote for him?

Two letters

Clark has no place to criticize

Re: Mr. Chris Jordan’s letter, “Clark comments were correct” (July 6): He agrees with Gen. Wesley Clark’s statement that Sen. McCain riding in a fighter plane isn’t a qualification to be president.

Mr. Jordan did you forget that Clark ran for president in 2004? What qualified him to be president? Is it because he is an expert “Monday morning quarterback” when he appears on television discussing the Iraq war? He has all of the solutions to the war after the fact.

This nation is fortunate that we didn’t have generals and admirals with the mentality of Wesley Clark during World War II; otherwise we would be living under the swastika and/or the rising sun.

Gene Scolavino
Spokane

While trying to defend McCain, Mr. Scolavino steps into the middle of something that demonstrates an utter ignorance. That is, to use a World War II scenario as a means to be highly dismissive of General Clark. It can not be said that Clark served in World War II, but it can be said that he had been in the service certainly long enough to have known about Vietnam, where presidents and politicians micromanaged the war rather than allowing the generals to do their work. It is Vietnam after all that flavors Senator McCain’s approach to Iraq. If we just hadn’t left Vietnam so precipitously, then Vietnam would be a thriving democracy today. McCain’s “Vietnam syndrome” is to ignore the fact that we couldn’t make the Vietnamese military forces fight for freedom against the communist Viet Cong. Nor could we curtail the corruption that would ultimately help bring down the South Vietnamese government. Vietnam was a war we lost because we assumed that we knew what was best for a culture quite alien to our own. That all we had to do was assist the French colonialists in handing them back a nation called Vietnam and on the way deal a death blow to the spread of communism. It is what we didn’t know about an Eastern culture and its nationalistic aspirations that made it entirely possible for us to lose Vietnam. Our collective mentality helped us to lose that war. And a much embittered McCain spends years in office thinking in terms of what if. Even further, as he goes on the campaign trail, exercises the same what if for Iraq.

What Mr. Scolavino also has a problem with is that Senator McCain himself was a “Monday morning armchair quarterback” who offered his opinions on the war and solutions after the fact. That is, while he was in the Senate. And was among those in Congress that GW simply preferred to ignore until he got dragged kicking and screaming into producing a “surge” in the better late than never category. Until the “surge” the insurgents that GW and Veep Cheney were in denial about pretty much had the upper hand. With the “surge” there was also a corresponding uptick in violence. And how many months did it take for the “surge” to quell the violence? But, how about the sort of political progress that the “surge” was supposed to produce? And why is McCain so insistent that an American presence should remain in Iraq well into his own presidency? Do remember, that in 2004, we presumably had handed back to the Iraqis, their sovereignty and therefore their right of self-determination. It is not up to us to determine the future of that people. That was our mistake of Vietnam. They don’t share our beliefs, they don’t have our concepts of Democracy. And if they have decided that we can do the heavy lifting (shades of Vietnam) while they sit around refusing to fight for their own nation; well, there isn’t much we can do then but to walk away and let them figure out their own futures. World War II was different in that we were western cultures doing battle against fanaticism. We had to win, no question about it. But now that we are dealing with a more amorphous fanaticism that can pop up anywhere and give guys like Cal Thomas a panic attack; how do you fight this fanaticism that will use your means of dealing with it as a weapon against you? Religious fanaticism is the hardest of all to fight and win against.

Patriotism isn’t poison

Putting patriotic and poison into the same sentence(”Patriotism poison needs warning label,” July 4) tells a lot about this character. Stomping on the flag, stomping on soldiers’ graves and clobbering religion in one article isn’t enough for this liberal; he mentions all the liberties taken away from Americans.

From where I sit, I have not lost one liberty, but I have been spared another attack from extremists, and that makes me comfortable enough to wave “Old Glory” from the highest point I can. I am proud everyday of the people in the armed forces, who protect me and protect the right to print this unpatriotic drivel from the left. I am proud of this president’s protection.

If everyone hates America, then why are there lines of millions trying to get in? No sir, you are way off base, as is the S-R for printing such garbage on a national day of patriotism. The only religion you bow down to is socialism and that takes away patriotism, self-esteem, honor and feeling proud.

I also have no superiority complex. I am proud of all the democracies that America has started and supported in the World since World War II.

Cliff Borns
Spokane

Obviously, the editorialist on 4 July 2008 managed to thoroughly gore Mr. Borns ox.  So while he is lathering up and getting hot under the collar that there can be people out there who’d dare disagree with his world view and he determines that the Spokesman-Review is repugnant for daring to publish something so disagreeable as this fellow’s editorial, he manages to do two things in his letter:  prove his “superiority complex” and then play victim at the same time.  That is, a victim of the fact that this is, believe it or not, a democracy.  There can’t be a greater “socialist” argument than proclaiming that the “day of dissent” that made all men free, also means that he would like nothing better than to censor the dissent that is disagreeable for purposes of consumption.  As presented loudly and clearly in his letter.  There can be nothing patriotic or flag waving with meaning, if he harps, whines and complains about the fact that not only is he free to read what he likes and publish as a letter what ever he wishes, but that others of opposing views can do the same.  And thus, the crude attacks and name calling found in his letter.  Nor do I see an ounce of “self-esteem” or pride in what he writes.  Not if he fears so much the fact that an American democracy can indeed protect the right of people to express their views “without reprisal.”  As obviously, Mr. Borns wishes no less than to engage in reprisals against the editorialist in question, by again, name calling and crude attacks.  So, what does he love about this nation, anyway?

A different kind of politics

I watched a bit of “Reliable Resources” today, before taking a gander at “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer” special 10 year anniversary. Seems that somewhere in that myriad of news media info coming from CNN, that the GOP such as Lindsay Graham were hollering about Senator Barack Obama’s “flip flops” on Iraq. Precisely, that when Obama said that he would visit Iraq, consult with the Generals and learn the situation there, that he might, on the basis of new information, “refine” how he would eventually pull out U.S. Troops in 16 months. Well, if I were the one running for president, got elected and intended to shut down G.W.’s war, I am quite certain that I would indeed consult with the Generals in charge of the operation and begin determining the hows and whens of ultimately removing troops from Iraq. That would seem to me to be a very wise answer that a guy who is running for Commander in Chief would have to give. What does it take to exit a war that your predecessor got started? So, what flip flop? I fail to find a flip flop. But I did see in earlier CNN broadcasts that a claim of a “flip flop” was started by a CNN staffer filling in for Wolf Blitzer. Post Obama’s live news conference. And like an echo chamber, the GOP lined up with their little red books and started shouting the same thing. You have to wonder where there is any intelligence or individual thinking among the current party.

---

Watching the 4^th of July parade Friday morning, downtown Coeur d’Alene, Idaho; I was struck by the fact that the GOP carried a lot of political signs for local candidates for Idaho offices, and almost none for Senator McCain. Wondered why that was? By the way, a lot of the crowd stood silent as the GOP walked by. And there was a lot more clapping as the Dems walked by. All of Idaho went GOP on the presumption that they would be better represented in Southern Idaho, Boise. What ended up happening was that the GOP majority began demonstrating how much they loved taxing and spending, introducing too much government, and representing their own versions of the special interests but not the constituency that actually voted for them. As for the Dems, they weren’t ashamed to demonstrate that Senator Obama is their presumptive Democratic nominee for the presidency. And that may be exactly what has got Congressional GOP and media talking heads in a full throated fury.

---

As for GOP attempts to paint Obama as “just another politician.” I truly find that laughable. Not really, when they weren’t prepared to paint him as an American and rightfully so in the first place. It upsets them that he is the first credible black politician to make a run for the presidency with a good chance of making it to the oval office. Or even to respect the fact that he is also a God-fearing individual. Or that he too can be greatly concerned for the welfare and safety of this nation. Or even that he may truly desire new approaches to solving old problems. So the attacks come about Iraq, a 527 ad from obviously Republican “veterans” of Iraq who make the same talking points that have come from Congressional Republicans and even the White House about all of our “successes” in Iraq. But having seen the ad, I also notice just how deleterious those who crafted it are at arguing, why, with all those successes, are we still a presence in a “Sovereign state?” That is their vulnerability that this Cold War veteran can exploit on this blog. We don’t have a reason to stay in a sovereign country once we have succeeded in our mission. Unfortunately, while this ad might preach to a choir of GW supporters, it won’t help elect McCain. And it can only serve to remind the general voters why they no longer care to be in a war that we were supposed to have “won” once the “surge worked.” The “change” touted in this ad, is to keep war wearied troops in Iraq indefinitely. To what purpose?

Items of Interest

A discussion about impeaching GW. I was visiting the Spokesman-Review’s web site when I came upon an “Ask the Editors” item regarding the impeachment debate that had recently gone on in Congress. While the comments were “closed” for the session of “Ask the Editors,” what some of the commenters said was highly instructive. Including one individual who was highly dismissive of those supporting impeaching the current president. So, a definite item of interest.

Caught a little of CNN today, and ol’ McCain razzing Obama’s latest bout of “naivety” by declaring that you never broadcast what you are going to do… with reference to eventually pulling our troops out of Iraq. News flash for McCain, when did you get up on your hind legs and inform GW that he should never broadcast:

• Allowing such news media as Fox News to broadcast across the world our weapons capability.
• Thundering about Saddam Hussein and his Weapons of Mass Destruction for months before allowing weapons inspectors into Iraq to “investigate” whether they existed and even if Hussein was “in compliance” with certain U.N. proclamations.
• So of course they didn’t find any, did they? Neither before the invasion or after the invasion.
• GW raising a very public stink about why it was so necessary to go after Hussein. So when the first bombs started dropping in an effort to “take him out,” GW missed, didn’t he? And Hussein was only found down in a hole in December, months after the invasion. And only because our troops there got lucky.

It is too bad that McCain has to “save his firepower” for a Democratic opponent who only entered the Senate years after the invasion itself.  He could have said a great deal about a loudmouth for a president who made a great public display of “taking out” Osama bin Laden—and we have yet to find the fellow today.  Even further, to make public our need to go to Iraq, to pull out the kinds of forces needed to forcefully deal with the Taliban.  Who only had to wait now, while the U.S. was distracted by Iraq and regroup and begin taking over.  Which they did.  So, we shouldn’t have presidents who broadcast to the world what our strategic military intentions are, huh?  Why didn’t McCain have the cajonès to tell GW that in 2002 or 2003?  Well now, GW publicly broadcast our going into Iraq, then I expect his successor can publicly broadcast when we leave.

How do you define “recession?”

Thomas Sowell gets routinely published in the Spokesman-Review and the fellow is way out there any more when it comes to trying to defend the present economy. Even to rehashing “rags to riches” types of fantasies. But when discussing with my sister using “Google Talk” the state of Sowell’s head when it comes to a severe economic slowdown, my sister who lives in Wisconsin has been discussing store closures and plant shut downs. If the economy is so sound, why is that, anyway? You would think that if a guy is going to proclaim how “conservative” he is, that he would at least resort to a few facts.

It is almost like he preaches some kind of economic theory from a university. Well now, families or individuals that make it to the top 1% and are eventually replaced by others from the bottom 5^th and blah, blah, blah.  But is that a fact?  Back in the 1950s, it may indeed have been truer than it is today.  Because at least in the 1950s, the marketplace was likely far more egalitarian than it is today.  Sowell’s problem is that he is continually skating around the real facts of the market, its ins and outs, its ups and downs, and the fact as well that there are those in the market that are truly greedy for as much money as they can get their hands on.  That will mean that “the bottom fifth” won’t rise to the top to replace those who crawl into the lap of gvt to “protect them” from competition. The competition, precisely, from the bottom fifth.  When Sowell can no longer face reality, he is also no longer credible.

Bob Barr–Libertarian candidate

From a recent Political Ticker post comes this little gem: Bob Barr, former Georgia representative to Congress who decided to abandon the GOP two years ago because of too much big government under their watch, is now the Libertarian candidate for president. In the comments section of this CNN blog, many of the commenters seemed to be highly dismissive of Barr and what they regarded as his principles. As a non Christian who served in the U.S. Military, I personally know for a fact that Barr has plenty of negatives to his name. Not the least was his insistence that Military bases should not accommodate witchcraft adherents. Well, that kind of reminds me of Pat Robertson who once declared that only “Christians” could really be patriots. In which case, the witches serving this country voluntarily in any of the U.S. Armed Forces should be denied that they can do their patriotic duty and even further be denied their religious freedom equal to Christians. At least according to Barr. But Barr proved to be unsuccessful. A further negative was the idea that a president could be “impeached” on low level misdemeanors. Yeah, President Clinton had an affair. So? And plenty of members of Congress had affairs as well.

So Barr’s emergence now as a Libertarian candidate has the GOP backing McCain squirming and the Democrats positively gleeful at the prospect.  I say, go for it, quite frankly.  After all, Rep. Barr was a thorough nut case during his four terms in Congress.  He represented what I can only describe as nut cases in his own Georgia district.  Only when he faced a redrawing of the district mapping that put a much better Republican candidate in the same district as himself, then I am prepared to believe that true conservatives had an opportunity to take out what was embarrassing the state and put in someone who might represent them better rather than the radical wing of the GOP.  I could only wish Idaho was so lucky.  So, go for it Barr, peel off enough of the radical votes come November and it is quite possible that McCain will have to compete for the center right along with Obama.  And the center, incidentally, is fully fed up with the last 8 years of Bush.

CNN, a bit wrong on who repudiated public campaign financing

Back in the year 2000 and again in 2004, GW Bush actually decided to opt out of public campaign financing on the basis that he was getting his large donations from big business interests. In 2004, Senator John Kerry followed suit and also opted out of public campaign financing in his race for the White House. So I would certainly suggest that CNN should correct its Thursday 19^th of June 2008 report that Senator Barack Obama is the first presidential candidate to opt out of public campaign financing as part of his fundraising ability. — He is only the first accepts no PAC money and receives tons of small donor money presidential candidate to opt out of public campaign financing.

Senator Russ Feingold demonstrates that yet again there are Democrats who have no spine. Even Bill Bennett agreed that Senator Obama may “not be principled” but “he is” still “smart.” Smart in the fact that Senator Obama will have to fight and fend off the Republican attack machine. He will need much moolah to do it. You can be sure that the GOP won’t be acting on “principle” in going after Senator Obama. So, if he is to gain the White House, he may as well have the means at his disposal.

---

Here is a real laugh for the day:  A fellow selling election year buttons, this according to what is found on CNN “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer;” seems there is a fellow who put what he called a “funny” on campaign buttons by asking if should [Senator] Obama win the White House if we can continue to call it that.  The GOP got into a public huff over what it called “racism.”  Well now, a little reminder for the GOP, they were playing up racism since the creation of “the Southern strategy.”  They were certainly exploiting race as an African-American with a middle eastern sounding name decided to announce for the presidency.  Isn’t it a little late to cry “racism” over some silly button now?

The “Comedy Central” of the McCain candidacy

Now Senator McCain has a certified Dem opponent. So, what does he do in response to making his case to the American public? Engages in the politics of division quite unlike what he was willing to do during his Senate years. And when he isn’t doing that, he decides that fear mongering about taxes, health care and etc. will be his primary platform. So let us take a moment to discuss McCain as presented on CNN, Wolf Blitzer show cased some of his comments.

1. Health care costs are too high, but Obama’s health care plan would be too expensive (and likely increase the size of gvt too). What we must do, so McCain argues, is bring down the costs of health care. How? Through gvt? The much vaunted market place won’t bring down such costs on their own.
2. Obama would increase taxes that would deeply hurt “struggling families.” This would surely include the dreaded Estate tax. How many “struggling families” out there have million dollar estates that would be immediately affected by such a detrimental tax?
3. So the question should be asked of McCain, who does he expect to pay for the wars that he expects to continue well into his presidency? The grand kids?

McCain can be a very funny guy when he shows up on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.”  Too bad he doesn’t accept a permanent stand up routine with that channel.

The Robert Scheer editorial

Robert Scheer often gets republished in the Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Washington. When his editorial appeared, on 7 June 2007, it was titled, “Troubling unpredictability.” Basically, Scheer describes McCain’s flips and flogs between his Senate career and his campaign speeches as he seeks to attain the oval office. Scheer referring to the former as the “principled McCain.”

Will the real John McCain stand up? Actually, I don’t expect him to now that he is the Republican presidential candidate, pandering to the irrationalities that drive his party. Nor is it likely that the fawning mass media will pressure him to the point of clarity.

McCain is the most confounding of candidates, veering as he does from the stance of provincial reaction to sophisticated enlightenment within an almost instantaneous time frame. He did it last week, when he blasted Barack Obama for being soft in appraising America’s adversaries while, in the same moment, calling for sensible rapprochement with Vladimir Putin’s Russia on nuclear arms control. While such unpredictability can be appealing in a senator, it is unnerving in a possible president.

Yeah, I would have to agree. As Scheer goes on to describe Senator McCain: “Unpredictability is welcome as evidence of fresh thinking, but not when it suggests inconsistencies that may be born more of crass opportunism than of insight.” During the extra long campaign season, McCain actually lost some states to Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee was competitive for a while, And the news media such as CNN took considerable note that McCain hadn’t exactly won over the “conservative” vote. So, to “win over” such a vote, McCain flips and flops on what made him a maverick in the Senate and what he argues that he should be as president. As posted before, a continuation of GW’s foreign and domestic policies that he assuredly disagreed with while in the Senate. Literally, “go along to get along amnesty” McCain.

“Then there is the heroic-warrior McCain, who rose above his own wounds to team up with fellow Vietnam war hero Democrat John Kerry to pave the way for normalization of relations with Vietnam.  McCain had the courage to reach out to Hanoi, despite a very strong domestic opposition that accused him of betraying MIAs left behind in Vietnam.”  Further along in Scheer’s editorial, “On a related point, it is difficult to square the ex-POW’s unequivocal condemnation of torture with his accommodation of President Bush’s torture policy.”  Yeah, it sure is, isn’t it.  And makes it absurdly easy for Senator Barak Obama to make the argument that McCain would be a third term for GW.  All to get those “conservative” votes, I suppose.  —  Scheer’s full editorial can be found at Creators Syndicate.

The General election, at last… As GW goes…

Listening to Senator McCain’s speech this morning, I noticed again just how much he sounded like GW Bush in 2004, with just a slight change of wording. GW spent much of his campaign telling his highly select audience how “we were turning the corner in Iraq.” Even as the violence increased daily in that country. Now fast forward 4 years and McCain is trying to label Obama as weak on national security, even in the same manner as GW had made the argument in 2004 Against Senator Kerry. Senator Obama wants to withdraw our troops from Iraq… Well now, if we are succeeding in that country, why on earth would we want to continue to occupy a sovereign state? All Iran and Al Qaeda have to do is lay back and wait… The same “Defeatocrat” argument that Republicans made use of with great relish to prevent the slim Democratic majority of pushing an end to the war. Well now, if Al Qaeda is on the run, then there would be no purpose in arguing that we need to stay there and provide “support” to a nation that should be taking care of its own. Ever hear of Welfare dependency, McCain?

The Iraqi forces… accomplished taking out… but with the support of American troops. Wouldn’t the argument of “succeess” mean that Iraqi troops at the direction of their gvt could quell the violence brought about by Iranian “Foreign fighters” and remnants of militants without the need of support from American troops? What it comes down to is the slip sliding away of an argument that continually lacks consistency or “straight talk.”

Then there is the McCain rant that Obama would meet this nation’s enemies or even tyrants without “preconditions.” And how well did it work out when our allies p.o.ed GW and he made it plain he wouldn’t talk to them at all. Which guaranteed that this nation would get a major disapproval rating. But it also depends on the tyrant, doesn’t it? How about Putin? GW could make common cause with the fellow who decided that Democracy in the nation of Russia isn’t an idea he needs to pursue. The common cause with a Russian tyrant would mean that Putin would help us on the war on terror even as we refuse to look too closely at his own activities closer to home. Until of course, Putin starts putting war planes and ships near our borders. Which would certainly argue that McCain, wanting to be president, has some peculiar national security shoes to fill. Those left him by a fellow who just happens to be very weak on national security — GW Bush.