Idaho politics, the strange

Found this commentary linked to on the Spokesman-Review hosted HBO and deem it a worthwhile read.

---

Idaho politics is getting stranger and stranger, to be sure. An Idaho Republican politician who holds that hunger is a great motivation for people to get up and go to work. Now that is probably one of the most demeaning arguments about work that I have ever heard. You get up and go to work so that presumably you can buy a slice of that American dream: your own home, a car, some of the finer things in life such as that 60″ HDTV, vacations to Florida, a Harvard education for your son or daughter. It’s when you don’t make enough that hunger is going to be a factor in what deprives you of the American dream. You can’t afford rent + food, car + insurance, health care + education, then work isn’t sufficient if what you get paid for it isn’t sufficient. That is an extreme callousness from a fellow who undoubtedly claims “Christian” moral values.

---

A Doug Clark column was also featured on Huckleberries on-line regarding the “bobble foot” Larry Craig doll. That has to be about the funniest aspect of the Senator Craig saga, that after he got caught “soliciting sex” from an undercover cop in an airport bathroom, “wide – stance” Craig jokes began flying hot and heavy, he fought and fought to take back his “guilty plea” and finally decided to leave the Senate completely. Well, that was the best news that the state of Idaho could have gotten, was the news of Craig’s resignation. Myself, I offered to buy such a doll for 50¢. And a $5.00 contribution to putting an end to GOP silliness in the state of Idaho by putting more Democrats into state-wide offices.  Yeah, I am a Republican, and my party is embarrassing me.

The McCain pander

I was watching Senator McCain’s speech to the Cuban-Americans in Miami and saw a whole lot of pander in his comments. His speech was broadcast on CNN at 8:30 or so PST. He took whacks at Senator Obama in particular for wanting to sit down with Raul Castro “unconditionally.” In order to elicit boos from the Cuban-American community who’s representatives had come to hear him speak. Problem was, McCain had used exactly the same language about Obama and Iran just a day or so earlier. Embedded in that speech to the Cuban-Americans was the same saber rattling as he gave about Iran. So are we to take it then that McCain would bomb, bomb, bomb Cuba like he once stated that he would bomb, bomb, bomb Iran? Or how about Venezuela since he shook a fist at Hugo Chavez as well. Never mind that Venezuela is an oil producing country whether Chavez is in power or not. But as long as he is, until we have made some very necessary transformations in our energy consumption, Chavez can use his oil as a weapon against this country. He made that a very public warning some months ago. I would, if I were the presumptive presidential nominee take such a warning seriously. And until I were actually the president, I wouldn’t make what comes down to particularly rash statements. And that sounded exactly what McCain was doing.

He said that the American consumer would benefit greatly from a Columbian trade deal, which of course, Senators Clinton and Obama opposed. In what he said, he sounded exactly the same as GW Bush when he attacked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for stalling a crucial vote on the Columbian trade deal. The American consumer is supposed to benefit huh? The American consumer is at this time:

• Facing massive job lay offs. Or lacking job security where they do have work.
• Facing massive debt.
• Facing a home foreclosure crisis.
• Facing increasing costs of basic necessities inclusive of food and fuel.
• Competing with “pro-Amnesty” McCain’s “guest worker” program in support of illegal aliens for available jobs.
• As reported on CNN business interests themselves are starting to see a very real effect in higher costs of fuel and as a consequence…

That is not an argument that a “seasoned politician” should be making. What it does suggest is that McCain is very clueless about the nation he wishes to be president of. So just like GW, McCain should be given this little reminder, the American consumer may not see the benefits of a Columbian trade deal if it hurts them in the jobs market. The Columbians themselves may get hurt as did Mexico’s citizens if ultimately multi-national business interests decide to look for cheaper labor markets somewhere else. And isn’t it time to remember that a president represents all Americans not just those who seek gvt’s assistance in global trade?

And by the way, Columbia only happens to be home to some of the most violent of drug cartels and narco-terrorists. The Columbian gvt had only been very corrupt. It took decades of heavy carrot and stick diplomacy from the U.S. to make Columbia a “beacon of hope” in South America. Now what is the real story on the situation on the ground in Columbia that politicians such as McCain are not prepared to discuss while touting what’s good for Americans—businesses?

The hysterical rantings…

Kathleen Parker topped the list today with her:

With endorsements like this…

That proceeds to attack former presidential candidate John Edwards for even daring, daring to endorse Senator Obama. Well after her obviously racist position as described in her last editorial republished in the Spokesman-Review, I am quite frankly not surprised. And so I can only wonder, that if Edwards had instead endorsed Senator Clinton, would Ms. Parker remind potential voters of his 400 dollar haircuts? How much his home is? And all that regardless of the fact that he happens to be the son of a steel worker? Used to be that people didn’t have a bad opinion about those who happened to make their lives a success. Now if you are a Democrat, and you make your life a success story, there must be something wrong with you.

Or would Ms. Parker instead decide that Senator Clinton should now be the subject of her ire if Edwards had endorsed her instead? Well, Senator Clinton was before. Ms. Parker had nothing nice to say about Senator Clinton, just because well, she happened to be Senator Clinton. If today I don’t have something nice to say about Senator Clinton, it is how she has run her campaign, it is what I disagree with her on the issues. But I am not going to disagree with Senator Clinton that she has earned her personal millions, undoubtedly through book sales. That she has gained a cushy job in the Senate. That she had come from somewhat poorer circumstances—just like Edwards himself. So she got lucky and made good, I don’t have a problem with that. So why are all of a sudden the GOP and their sympathizers in the news media suddenly getting all lathered up over the Dems who make good anyway? Looks like a type of class warfare if I ever saw it.

Then Susan Estrich proceeds to practically call:

Pro-choice group chose wrong

NARAL a traitor for backing Senator Obama instead of Senator Clinton. Well I have a bit of news for Estrich on this. It is because of how Clinton had run her campaign that I am not so certain that NARAL had made a mistake. Consider this: Since Lyndon Baines Johnson first signed on to the Civil Rights act in the 1960s, the Dems have been known for their support for minority causes. Senator Clinton proceeded to trash that Dem legacy with her run for the White House. Even more unfortunate, was the news media’s willingness to do the same.

Quite frankly, I don’t think that as a pro-choice Republican, I’d ever care to back someone who could make use of those Dem “entitlement programs” to an advantage, then proceeds to attack at will a Democratic challenger to the White House who was himself a beneficiary of the better of what Dems offered. Just because he is blocking her “easy race” to the White House? I’d wonder just what else she’d throw over board next?

Some things can’t be “explained away.”

Kathleen Parker writes for the Orlando Sentinel. She occasionally gets republished in the local Spokane, Washington newspaper, The Spokesman-Review. In her republished editorial, what she said was utterly hideous. What defines “made in America” as to how long a person has lived here, has “roots” here or even how long ago his or her ancestors moved to this country. My own ancestors had after all come to this nation as German immigrants well over a hundred years ago. Settling first in Virginia before moving on to Arkansas, where my now late father was born.

But my family wasn’t “made in America” by Parker’s reasoning today. They were German immigrants who had to over time and however many generations later, to establish their American bonafides as Parker insists the people of W. Virginia argued that Senator Barack Obama had not. According to Ms. Parker, then, Obama is only “half-American” because his father was born a Kenyan. Wow! Now this you gotta love.  Apparently it isn’t enough that Senator Obama was born in this nation, that according to the U.S. Constitution, he is an American by birth. Talk about people who suddenly demonstrate a real lack of understanding of the document that gave them not only their rights but also put certain constraints on government.

Now here is the real kicker, the opposition that those who voted for Clinton had to the whole idea of multic-ulturalism. Wonder if they argued the issue while sitting down to a nice bit of Almond Chicken in the local Chinese restaurant?!? Or bought a jar of sauerkraut at the supermarket? You see, “multi-culturalism” isn’t only as it affects minorities, but also European immigrants who came to this country from every where in that vast land. The Celtic dancing school wasn’t “made in America.” Neither did Bratwurst originate here. Nor did the pizzas and bagels. The American (not English) language is a hodge-podge of differing languages. If we say “pasta” as opposed to “noodles” then we have added Italian to our language base. How about Rodeo? Spanish. Lasso, also Spanish. A large percentage then of what we speak and from what geographical area that we come from, was also never made in America. It came from France, Germany, Russia, China, etc. We’ll find our foods as well to have never been made in America if we sit down some time to a bowl of Borscht. We have been multi-culti from the get-go. So what I am thinking is, that those who voted overwhelmingly as Democratic blue-collar voters for Clinton, voted out of pure ignorance and hatred as a consequence of that ignorance.

I agree with Stanley Crouch

Stanley Crouch writes for King Features Syndicate and was republished 12 May 2008 in the Opinion Pages of the Spokesman-Review. One of the first issues Mr. Crouch mentioned was Senator Trent Lott speaking before the Council of Conservative Citizens (white racists) preaching about innate white superiority. Mr. Crouch editorialized about him and hoped that the mainstream media would pick up on the fact and hound him until he was forced to resign. Obviously, that was not to be. Indeed, Mr. Crouch noted that Jesse Jackson would have gotten worse treatment as Senate Majority Leader had he wrote a column for the Nation of Islam and spoken at a gathering organized by Louis Farrakhan.

What we were to learn from Mr. Crouch was the obvious double standard of the news media itself when it chose to more heavily play up Rev. Wright’s rants in an attempt to utterly destroy Senator Barack Obama’s campaign. Gave Rev. Wright a megaphone and a stage before the National Press Club in the full expectation that Rev. Wright would go on to deliver the coup de grace to Senator Obama’s aspirations to be president. Of course, Rev. Wright felt so wounded by then by the constant exposure and controversy of his previous remarks, that he played immediately into the news media’s obviously biased hands. We did not see from the news media a desire to be journalists, to report the news. What we did see, was the news media informing Americans in general that it was still possible for “the scary other” to exist in this society. And as long as there exists “scary others,” it isn’t possible for credible black pastors to exist; and at one point, Rev. Wright was probably just as credible as any other. Or for credible black politicians to exist, even though two ran for president. And black politicians now happen to have a presence in Congress, among governors and mayors.

What we also saw was Senator Hillary Clinton undermining why former President Bill Clinton had popularity among the African-American community. Her racism became very apparent in her ambitions to bring the Clintons back to the White House in a win at all costs strategy. She might “win” and lose all respect besides. To shove away that all important “black vote” and seek out “the swing states” that was so very important to Democratic wins by November. Never mind, that what she said in Ohio (while playing up racism) was also what she would say in Pennsylvania (while playing up racism) and has since gone on to say the same thing in W. Virginia (where racism has a receptive audience). The news media has treated such naked ambitions with kid gloves even as they questioned the judgment of Senator Obama for sitting in the pews of a church where the pastor must surely have said some rancid things over the last 20 years. Now if that had not been Senator Clinton’s experience, how has she managed to do and say some particularly rancid things? Her teacher wasn’t Bill, since his father taught him that racism isn’t an acceptable attitude to have. Nor could it have been the Democratic party platform that put aside the acceptability of racism as it began signing onto civil rights for women and minorities among other progressive elements of its ideology. Even if the Democrats brought down on its head the rants of too much government when it came up with safety and health work place regulations, environmental standards, equal opportunity and etc. Yet, this was the better aspect of what made Democrats a viable party. Now, Senator Clinton wants to move in the direction that Senator Trent Lott had gone. How superior she is (more electable) because she is a white woman and can of course attract all that white vote. So? How conceivably more superior?

In 1959, when Mike Wallace did a TV documentary titled “The Hate that Hate Produced,” his focus was on the Nation of Islam and other groups that considered themselves black nationalists. The position that Wallace took was that all of these people were deeply bitter in their reactions to entrenched racial discrimination and had sunk into either a profoundly lunatic black supremacy or radical racial hostility in order to relieve the pain of discrimination.

–Stanley Crouch editorial.

Senator Clinton forgets that she isn’t president of “swing states” only and “white voters” only. That she isn’t president only of states where she won. That is, her seeking the highest office of the land doesn’t give her license to do what GW had done before her, to pick and choose “a base” of those to be catered to exclusively and at the expense of the American people. The news media hasn’t chosen to make that kind of call on that sort of judgment. They should. Because it is a far greater scandal given the last 8 years of GW and what he allowed his office to become in the pursuit of it. And it is surely an equal if not greater scandal, given the recent history of the Democratic party itself. What Crouch begins with his editorial, pulls the mask off Clinton. Even as it shames the news media for playing to naked racism in this society.

Political cartoons

I was reading the local paper, the Spokesman-Review this morning, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 and saw the latest republished Pat Oliphant cartoon that took a major whack at Senator Hillary Clinton. As described by the cartoonist, Clinton is literally talking down to and abusing the guy she expects to vote for her. Among other things, she calls him “dumb.” And goes away, after attacking the fellow, applauding herself for her intellect and laughing. I thought that looked about right. Only Senator Clinton could have that kind of contempt for people that she has certainly exhibited throughout her campaign, especially where she lost to her Democratic opponent, Senator Barack Obama.

---

I watched “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” last night and saw a real funny morphing of Senator Clinton into GW Bush. Well, that would seem apropos too. She seems to have adopted the GW approach to political campaigns.

---

Senator Clinton has progressively lost my respect the further into this campaign she has gone. I don’t find anything “tough” or a “fighter” about someone who thinks that the only way that she can win is by bullying people. The only support she can hope for is through intimidation. This has been noted by other bloggers as well. So if Clinton were to actually get the nomination, and the prospect of going on to becoming president, we would certainly see a continuation of 4 more years of GW. Not necessarily about new dimensions on the “Global War on Terror” but rather of the worst aspects of GW as in character and personality.

Two polar arguments

Reading Robert Herold of (The Inland Northwest) “Inlander;” he isn’t what you would call very supportive of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. And he has an excellent reason. He rightly fears that Senator Clinton, in demanding the nomination, would tear up the Democratic party and assure defeat for the Dems by November.

On the other hand, David Broder makes a rather similar argument and you get the impression from reading his Washington Post editorial, that he expects Senator Barack Obama to “concede” to Senator Clinton as she wrests the nomination from him through the super delegate process. An act of graciousness, I might add, that Mr. Broder expects Senator Obama to exhibit, when he is well ahead of Senator Clinton in delegate count. An act of graciousness that Senator Clinton herself has not chosen to exhibit. In both editorials, you see Senator Clinton’s “winning” strategy. But in only one, that of Mr. Herold’s, do you find a more honest assessment.

---

My take is, David Broder really doesn’t want to discuss Senator Clinton’s winning ugly strategy. He just wants to discuss her “winning” period. For a fellow who once chided President Bill Clinton for a lack of honesty when it came to the Monica Lewinsky story; Broder himself isn’t prepared to take an honest look at Clinton’s “strategy for success.

Herold: Racism was a factor that cost Obama votes in Ohio, Pennsylvania and elsewhere.
Herold: The GOP engaging in cross over votes to try to gain the nomination for Clinton because she makes a better target for the GOP come November. The reason: Bill Clinton.
Broder: The above to be completely ignored.
Herold: The voters in Pennsylvania preferred white woman Clinton over African-American Obama. …Which would certainly argue as Herold did that Senator Clinton’s “big state strategy” would be a delusional act by November. The same people who’d vote for her now; would prefer Senator McCain to her by November.
Broder: Again, let us ignore any of that and focus on what Obama should do in the face of a Clinton nomination. Not that such a nomination is a foregone conclusion.

Conclusion: I highly doubt that Senator Clinton much concerns herself if she destroys her own party. She wants what she thinks she is “entitled to” as a former first lady and now Senator.

Hillary Clinton’s political problem, Part 2…

The GOP are engaging in “guilt by association ads” that tie Senator Obama to his former pastor and of course to any unfortunate Democrat running in states selected by the GOP to use such ads against that political candidate and certainly against the party. Well, the news media only played up Rev. Wright to the hilt. And so the GOP now feel that they can make the Reverend yet another Willie Horton. Why? Because Rev. Wright spoke of this nation’s violent history. Believe it or not, this nation does have a violent history. Because Rev. Wright speaks about this nation being built on the backs of slaves? Up until the 1860s, this nation was indeed built on the backs of slaves. Because this nation might actually have engaged in genocidal activities? Just ask any Native American Indian how the federal government was prepared to treat them. How a people who were certainly here before we Europeans got driven off their lands, denied their culture and etc. Those who survived, at least. Such statements as Rev. Wright gave would hardly be “offensive” to anyone who has an understanding of history.

Did Reverend Wright go off the wall about the government creating AIDS? A little. Would he have gone off the wall by saying that there was a malign neglect by the government in the early days of the AIDS crisis? Not at all. After all, AIDS was, according to the “Christians” at the time, God’s punishment of the gays. And hetero blacks, and drug users, and kids born of AIDS infected parents. So how long did it take before “Christians” could understand compassion as AIDS became an epidemic throughout the world? Decades. Government might indeed have done something for AIDS sufferers if it hadn’t been infused with self-righteous “Christian” bigotry. And yeah, the GOP running the Rev. Wright ads were only too happy to be part of that good ole “Christian” bigotry. As it pertains to Senator Clinton, of course, if her fellow Democrat goes down in defeat because of these “guilt by association” ads, that means she is more electable. Well now, let us examine the ways…

I watched Michael Moore on Larry King Live this evening. He really didn’t have anything good to say about Senator Clinton through out the interview. When it came to the invasion of Iraq, he spoke of the 30% opposed to the war, around 100 million people who had no problem recognizing that the GW administration was “playing us.” Indeed Moore was prepared to argue that anyone we should want as president, ought to even be smarter than than the 100 million people who figured out what GW was really after. Let me consider this thought: That Senator Clinton probably did plan on running for office of the President of the United States. But long before she might announce, she would first have to gain some political experience. Voting for the war would put her in good standing with the hawks. It would give her appeal to the hawks. Tough lady, she doesn’t mind sending young people into a war with no clear plan for actually winning the damn thing. That is one hell of an argument to make some 5 years later. Whereas, a truly good president wouldn’t just put boots on the ground to go after an enemy, he would put boots on the ground with a clear plan of action to actually defeat the enemy! By voting for the war, she was putting a very misplaced faith in the ability of GW to actually manage in war time and as Commander in Chief, what he couldn’t manage as a governor in Texas and as a CEO of his own business. His entire track record has been that of disasters whereby people had to step in, rescue him and clean up after him. No you don’t put your faith in such a guy.

The next issue that certainly popped out at me was what Moore said in his interview about Clinton and the last debate she had with Obama. Applying the same “guilt by association” that she would certainly hope the GOP would use against Obama too. Louis Farrakhan, Hamas, etc.? I don’t call anyone “tough” who has to stomp all over other people to try to “win.” We had 8 years of seeing the Karl Rove’s playbook in action and here Clinton wants to do the same thing. What I would call it, is how dishonorable people can be who engage in this level of ugly. Now, how about applying “offensive” to Senator Clinton:

1. Isn’t it offensive to dis minorities whom you would want on your side in a general election campaign? By continually dissing Obama on the basis of race, you would.
2. Isn’t it offensive to make a big deal out of Rev. Wright when even Clinton’s “spiritual adviser” Rev. Billy Graham was shown to have at one point, slammed the Jews of this country? (“The Daily Show with Jon Stewart–30 April 2008″) And here Newt Gingrich was saying that “racist” pastors would have been ostracized. Really?
3. Isn’t it offensive to appeal to the devils of white humanity? Especially when we all have issues in common?
4. Isn’t it offensive to call something “elitist” where the person who said what he did, was speaking nothing less than truth?
5. Isn’t it offensive to no longer believe in one’s own past, the reasons why the Democratic party represents what it does or even the good that one had done years ago?
6. Wouldn’t Senator Clinton’s own offensive behavior merely put her on par with Rev. Wright?

Think about it. Senator Clinton has been doing and saying outrageous things for some time now. And she is going to be offended by Rev. Wright? She would “walk out” at the first sign of offensive remarks by the Rev. in question? Moore spoke of the fact that he had been a Catholic all of his life. He spoke of the fact that he met plenty of priests who had particular views of the role of women in the church, birth control denounced as a “sin.” He sat through such sermons and hadn’t walked out. And isn’t that really the crux of the matter? Who would listen to Pat Robertson and even more join his Christian Coalition? Why lots of people. Even though Pat Robertson had said such offensive things as how much this country deserved the terrorist attack on 9/11. No one stopped contributing to Robertson. And Robertson continues to be a major influence in the GOP. So is Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family. For the GOP to have a generally successful run for their various political offices, they must first have Dobson’s blessings. Well, Dobson’s interpretations of the bible would be called rather off the wall too. His ideas on the family go to the Utopian extremes. How about Rev. Haggee whom Senator McCain actively sought the endorsement of? As I explained to a co-worker, who wanted to fault Obama for sitting in the pews of a highly flamboyant (to say the least) pastor and who “couldn’t figure out” what his pastor believed? Well now, that might be a strike against Obama if it weren’t for the fact that the GOP actively court people who sat in the pews for the last 20 years imbibing the bile, hatred, etc. of guys like Rev. Jerry Falwell. Who’s disdain for people who weren’t 100% in his camp was legendary. And who even regarded a cartoon character as “gay.” A cartoon character? A “gay” teletubbie! Wow. Who was also instrumental in helping to wreck Senator Clinton’s (while first lady) initial health care plan. Who’s followers never had any problem saying the most vile and offensive things about her husband and her. Yeah, millions of people could watch Falwell’s “700 Club” for the last 20 years with no problem. And then go out to vote the way, Falwell wanted them too. Well now, under the circumstances, Falwell and his ilk became the GOP party’s pastors. But suddenly, only Rev. Wright could become “offensive.” And there is some kind of problem with his black congregent who is now running for president, being “that” sort of Christian from “that” sort of church. An intolerance that would have made the Apostle Paul weep with shame. I wouldn’t vote for Hillary as a 54 year old white woman who still doesn’t have a lot of advantages, because she shames me. I want nothing to do with her.