Unless you have your head in the sand you have likely seen a picture of the front cover of the latest issue of The New Yorker. The issue that was released yesterday was titled "The Politics of Fear" and just in case you have not seen it, it depicts Barack and Michelle in the Oval Office seeming to be in a celebratory mood. They are doing the "fist tap" and smiling at each other.
Obama is dressed in a robe (like the Mid East kind not the bath kind), sandals, and a turban on his head. Michelle is wearing camouflage, combat boots, and has an assault rifle in her hands. On the wall, above the fire place is a picture of Osama bin Laden and in the fire place burning, is the American flag.
I find this cartoon completely tasteless and sick.
The magazine commented that the cover "combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that is the spirit of this cover."
I am always up for satire and humor, but I see very little that is humorous in this picture. Have these people forgotten that we are in a war? Our men and women are continuing to die in Iraq and Afghanistan and we think that it is funny to show a presidential candidate not just supporting the enemy, but being the enemy.
Would it have been funny to have a cartoon with Hitler's picture in the Oval Office during World War I? At least Hitler did not attack the US on it's own soil as bin Laden did.
The Obama campaign responded with this statement, "The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right wing critics have tried to create, but most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."
Senator McCain even came out from under his rock and said the cover was "totally inappropriate and frankly I understand if Senator Obama and his supporters would find it offensive."
Barack Obama is not a Muslim, he is a Christian. He never attended a Muslim school, and he did not place his hand on the Koran when he was sworn in as a Senator. He placed his hand on the Bible.
The cartoonist, Barry Blitt, took a fear that some Americans have spread as rumors and gave color to that image. The first amendment protects him and allows him to draw and publish things like this. Although it is protected, this cartoon, just like pornography, is ugly, disrespectful, and repugnant. He owes Senator Obama an apology as well as the friends and families of our solders who are fighting against the Taliban.
This just shows how far removed we are from the front lines of war. Something has to change.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Out of the Mouths of Babes
Last weekend, the Obama family sat down and did an interview as a group. The interview, that was meant for one show, has created a sensation and every major network has aired clips of the interview as part of their news shows. When asked about the interview yesterday, Barack admitted that he and Michelle probably got carried away by allowing the interview and that no other interviews including the children would be taking place.
Now, I understand the need to protect your children and allowing an interview really puts them out there for the world to see, but I think that the interview has shown yet another side to Barack: the family man. I really think that it was a positive thing, but I do understand his hesitancy to do anymore like it.
Growing up in church, and seeing the process of hiring new preachers a few times, I understand how a church hires "the whole family, not just the preacher." That makes sense to me. I see some similarities when electing a president. I really think that it is important to see the potential candidates family and to see how the family interacts together. We are not just electing the president, we are electing the whole family.
There is no question that first ladies play a huge role in the years that their husbands serve as president. They have the potential to do many good things and I think everyone would agree that a good partnership between the first lady and president is a huge plus. The children of a president don't play such a role, but the way people interact with their kids gives a lot of insight to their character.
During the interview, the Obama girls, aged 10 and 7, spoke candidly about their dad, and things he does around the house that bug him. For example, his 10 year old spoke of being mortified when her dad shook the hand of a friend of hers instead of just "waving to her." The family laughed and teased each other, all in good fun. You could tell that this was the way the family acts when they are together, there was no acting or putting up a front. The girls were typical children, but were very polite, well mannered, and respectful. Both Obama and Michelle were also respectful of the girls which showed a really good family dynamic.
In a world where a "functional" family is uncommon and a two parent home is rare, isn't it nice to see a family that respects one another and loves each other? What a great example.
While I agree that children should not be exploited or exposed to the media unduly, I don't believe that this was big mistake on the part of the Obama's. I think it showed another side to the family that was very pleasant and well received.
Now, I understand the need to protect your children and allowing an interview really puts them out there for the world to see, but I think that the interview has shown yet another side to Barack: the family man. I really think that it was a positive thing, but I do understand his hesitancy to do anymore like it.
Growing up in church, and seeing the process of hiring new preachers a few times, I understand how a church hires "the whole family, not just the preacher." That makes sense to me. I see some similarities when electing a president. I really think that it is important to see the potential candidates family and to see how the family interacts together. We are not just electing the president, we are electing the whole family.
There is no question that first ladies play a huge role in the years that their husbands serve as president. They have the potential to do many good things and I think everyone would agree that a good partnership between the first lady and president is a huge plus. The children of a president don't play such a role, but the way people interact with their kids gives a lot of insight to their character.
During the interview, the Obama girls, aged 10 and 7, spoke candidly about their dad, and things he does around the house that bug him. For example, his 10 year old spoke of being mortified when her dad shook the hand of a friend of hers instead of just "waving to her." The family laughed and teased each other, all in good fun. You could tell that this was the way the family acts when they are together, there was no acting or putting up a front. The girls were typical children, but were very polite, well mannered, and respectful. Both Obama and Michelle were also respectful of the girls which showed a really good family dynamic.
In a world where a "functional" family is uncommon and a two parent home is rare, isn't it nice to see a family that respects one another and loves each other? What a great example.
While I agree that children should not be exploited or exposed to the media unduly, I don't believe that this was big mistake on the part of the Obama's. I think it showed another side to the family that was very pleasant and well received.
And What Are You Doing For The Black Community Rev. Jackson?
It should come as no surprise that Jesse Jackson is not best friends with Barack Obama. Jackson eludes some of the very stereotypes that Obama has broken down or is attempting to, not to mention Jackson accusing Obama very publicly last September of "acting like he's white."
Sunday, as a guest on "Fox and Friends", Jackson made some rather crude, to say the least, comments about Barack Obama to another guest during a commercial break when he assumed the mic was turned off. Unknown to Jackson however, not only was the mic still live, the camera was on as well. The guest apparently asked Jackson what he thought of the recent speeches Obama has made to predominately black churches on morality, to which Jackson began by saying he believed that Obama was talking down to blacks and was not speaking about issues that are important to black communities. Then he made the unbelievable remark, "I wanna cut his male genitals (remember, I try to stay G rated) off." Of course he did not say male genitals, but if you have not seen this clip on TV just use your imagination.
Kind of harsh words coming from Jackson, especially since he was referring to speeches where Obama talked about issues such as absent fathers, opportunity, and responsibility. According to Jackson, Obama's speeches sound as if he is talking down to black people. He believes that Obama should talk to black people about "unemployment, the mortgage crisis, and the number of blacks in prison. Sounds like the same issues, just different subjects within those issues.
When Jackson found out that Fox planned to air the video, he quickly apologized for what he said were "hurtful and wrong" remarks. He said through a written release yesterday, "For any harm or hurt that this hot mic private conversation may have caused, I apologize. My support for Sen. Obama's campaign is wide, deep, and unequivocal." Said as if someone did this on purpose to try to catch him. Good grief!
Jackson also called Obama's campaign to apologize and the campaign released this statement, "He (Barack Obama) will continue to speak out about our responsibilities to ourselves and each other, and of course he accepts Rev. Jackson's apology. Campaign spokesman Bill Burton also emphasised that, " Obama has spoken for many years about parental responsibility as well as jobs, justice, and opportunity for all."
So what prompted these comments from Jackson. My first inclination is to say jealously. Jackson has run unsuccessful presidential campaigns and obviously still craves any media attention that he can get. I also think that Obama poses a threat to Jackson's "plight of the black man argument." If Obama proves successful in November, a black American will have broken down walls, and will have achieved the top position in the country. Any argument about hardships that black people have succeeding will sound weak.
Regardless of the reason, I think Jackson should slink away and lay low for a while. His true colors have been shown and it is doubtful that many people have too much respect for him at this time.
Sunday, as a guest on "Fox and Friends", Jackson made some rather crude, to say the least, comments about Barack Obama to another guest during a commercial break when he assumed the mic was turned off. Unknown to Jackson however, not only was the mic still live, the camera was on as well. The guest apparently asked Jackson what he thought of the recent speeches Obama has made to predominately black churches on morality, to which Jackson began by saying he believed that Obama was talking down to blacks and was not speaking about issues that are important to black communities. Then he made the unbelievable remark, "I wanna cut his male genitals (remember, I try to stay G rated) off." Of course he did not say male genitals, but if you have not seen this clip on TV just use your imagination.
Kind of harsh words coming from Jackson, especially since he was referring to speeches where Obama talked about issues such as absent fathers, opportunity, and responsibility. According to Jackson, Obama's speeches sound as if he is talking down to black people. He believes that Obama should talk to black people about "unemployment, the mortgage crisis, and the number of blacks in prison. Sounds like the same issues, just different subjects within those issues.
When Jackson found out that Fox planned to air the video, he quickly apologized for what he said were "hurtful and wrong" remarks. He said through a written release yesterday, "For any harm or hurt that this hot mic private conversation may have caused, I apologize. My support for Sen. Obama's campaign is wide, deep, and unequivocal." Said as if someone did this on purpose to try to catch him. Good grief!
Jackson also called Obama's campaign to apologize and the campaign released this statement, "He (Barack Obama) will continue to speak out about our responsibilities to ourselves and each other, and of course he accepts Rev. Jackson's apology. Campaign spokesman Bill Burton also emphasised that, " Obama has spoken for many years about parental responsibility as well as jobs, justice, and opportunity for all."
So what prompted these comments from Jackson. My first inclination is to say jealously. Jackson has run unsuccessful presidential campaigns and obviously still craves any media attention that he can get. I also think that Obama poses a threat to Jackson's "plight of the black man argument." If Obama proves successful in November, a black American will have broken down walls, and will have achieved the top position in the country. Any argument about hardships that black people have succeeding will sound weak.
Regardless of the reason, I think Jackson should slink away and lay low for a while. His true colors have been shown and it is doubtful that many people have too much respect for him at this time.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
To Be Fair, John McCain Likes Animals Too
With all the attention focused on Obama and his "Presidential Pup Search", McCain supports should relax to know that if John McCain is elected (Ha!) there will also be the sound of little paws in the White House for the next four years.
The McCain's actually have quite the zoo around their house with a total of 23 pets. The "McCanies" include an English Springer Spaniel named Sam and two Yorkshire Terriers named Lucy and Desi (yes, many voters are too young to even know who Lucy and Desi are). The family pets also include a cat, two turtles, a ferret, 3 parakeets and 13 salt water fish. Do you think John puts on his flippers and cleans out the fish tank?
To John McCain's credit, it does seem that he wins points for being an animal lover. I wonder if the ASPCA has researched if his animals were rescued........
The McCain's actually have quite the zoo around their house with a total of 23 pets. The "McCanies" include an English Springer Spaniel named Sam and two Yorkshire Terriers named Lucy and Desi (yes, many voters are too young to even know who Lucy and Desi are). The family pets also include a cat, two turtles, a ferret, 3 parakeets and 13 salt water fish. Do you think John puts on his flippers and cleans out the fish tank?
To John McCain's credit, it does seem that he wins points for being an animal lover. I wonder if the ASPCA has researched if his animals were rescued........
Dog Days Of Summer in the Obama House
Have you heard the latest news about the Obama Campaign? It seems that the Obama girls have been wanting a dog for a long time and mom and dad have finally relented, telling the girls after the November election, the family can get a dog. The conservative press has had a field day with this sarcastic commenting about the importance of the "dog search" over the war or economy. They are right, but in a way, this dog search makes the Obama's more likable and more reachable to the American public. This could actually help him reach more voters.
The American Kennel Club has set up a poll (as have I) to determine what dog the Obama's should choose for their family pet. The options were chosen based on several criteria. First, evidently the Obama girls have some allergies so the AKC had to choose breeds that were anti-allergy. Since the girls are 10 and 7 breeds had to be child friendly and since part of presidential duties (assuming the Obama's become the first family) include frequent travel, the pet must be a good travel companion. Probably most important, the dog must have a stable and social temperament since he or she will be meeting a plethora of people from White House staff to heads of state. No need to take the Prime Minister's hand off.
The breeds that were chosen include:
Bichon Frise - the fluffy curly haired dog. I think that this is the kind Jessica Simpson has.
Chinese Crested - skinny almost hairless dog that has long hair on it's face.
Poodle - everybody knows what a poodle looks like.
Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier - hair is always in his eyes - the dog on Disney movie "The Shaggy Dog".
Mini Schnauzer - adorable little dog - always has a little bow on top of its head.
(Sorry - the extend of my talent does not allow me to upload photos - I tried)
Although family dogs have little to do with running the country, they make the president more real, more down to earth. I can almost see the minds of Americans working, "Well if he picks up dog poop just like me......."
Of course, as with any move a potential president makes, there are critics. The web is full of sites urging the Obama's to adopt a dog from a shelter rather than buying a fancy expensive breed. Of course he will get grief either way I'm sure.
We will see in November who our next president will be and more importantly, what kind of dog the Obama's will welcome into their home.
The American Kennel Club has set up a poll (as have I) to determine what dog the Obama's should choose for their family pet. The options were chosen based on several criteria. First, evidently the Obama girls have some allergies so the AKC had to choose breeds that were anti-allergy. Since the girls are 10 and 7 breeds had to be child friendly and since part of presidential duties (assuming the Obama's become the first family) include frequent travel, the pet must be a good travel companion. Probably most important, the dog must have a stable and social temperament since he or she will be meeting a plethora of people from White House staff to heads of state. No need to take the Prime Minister's hand off.
The breeds that were chosen include:
Bichon Frise - the fluffy curly haired dog. I think that this is the kind Jessica Simpson has.
Chinese Crested - skinny almost hairless dog that has long hair on it's face.
Poodle - everybody knows what a poodle looks like.
Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier - hair is always in his eyes - the dog on Disney movie "The Shaggy Dog".
Mini Schnauzer - adorable little dog - always has a little bow on top of its head.
(Sorry - the extend of my talent does not allow me to upload photos - I tried)
Although family dogs have little to do with running the country, they make the president more real, more down to earth. I can almost see the minds of Americans working, "Well if he picks up dog poop just like me......."
Of course, as with any move a potential president makes, there are critics. The web is full of sites urging the Obama's to adopt a dog from a shelter rather than buying a fancy expensive breed. Of course he will get grief either way I'm sure.
We will see in November who our next president will be and more importantly, what kind of dog the Obama's will welcome into their home.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Um, Senator McCain, Did You Forget About the Election?
It seems through John McCain's actions of late, he has completely forgotten that he is (or rather should be) actively engaged in the general election. It is any one's guess as to what is going on in a candidates mind, but many are starting to wonder what the plan is for the GOP. Just this week McCain has re-organized his team, but seems to still be lacking in a plan of any kind.
I would not criticize McCain on his patriotism, as some have done, but I do question his reasons for spending time in South American discussing trade agreements just four months from a general election, during the July 4th holiday, no less. Trade is important, essential for our country, but it seems that other topics, (war, food prices, health care) would be much more important for McCain to be exploring at this time. I would also think a couple of well planned "4th of July Picnic" pictures of McCain visiting with the "normal folk" would have been a nice touch to increase likability. Sure he might not have had a child's soccer game to attend this week, but just about every town had something going on yesterday.
When I think about qualities that I would like to see in a president, leadership, organization, and good communication are some that come to mind. These have been missing as of late from the McCain camp. The complete lack of any kind of organization for a general election campaign is a scary start. Any campaign needs a leader who can get things done and we are not seeing that from John. Getting things done starts with good communication.
Sorry John, but this week goes to General Clark, you are a war hero, but it does not mean you will be a heroic president. (I think I said it a little softer than Wesley did, maybe?)
I would not criticize McCain on his patriotism, as some have done, but I do question his reasons for spending time in South American discussing trade agreements just four months from a general election, during the July 4th holiday, no less. Trade is important, essential for our country, but it seems that other topics, (war, food prices, health care) would be much more important for McCain to be exploring at this time. I would also think a couple of well planned "4th of July Picnic" pictures of McCain visiting with the "normal folk" would have been a nice touch to increase likability. Sure he might not have had a child's soccer game to attend this week, but just about every town had something going on yesterday.
When I think about qualities that I would like to see in a president, leadership, organization, and good communication are some that come to mind. These have been missing as of late from the McCain camp. The complete lack of any kind of organization for a general election campaign is a scary start. Any campaign needs a leader who can get things done and we are not seeing that from John. Getting things done starts with good communication.
Sorry John, but this week goes to General Clark, you are a war hero, but it does not mean you will be a heroic president. (I think I said it a little softer than Wesley did, maybe?)
Does America Get a Pinata?
When you are three and live in South Texas, no birthday party is complete without a pinata, so it should have been no surprise when my three year old asked when we got to hit America's pinata yesterday. After explaining that America was not going to have a pinata, but she would have fireworks and sparklers, which seemed to satisfy the toddler curiosity, I tried to explain the birth of a country. I tried to talk about freedom and rights, but it remains to be seen just how much of it make an impact.
I took a few moments yesterday under the beauty of a small town fireworks show to reflect on America and I said a prayer of thanks for the many who made our country what it is. I am so thankful for those men and women who were braver, smarter, and more optimistic than myself who put everything on the line to create a country where people were allowed to say what they wanted to and believe what they wanted to. I am thankful for the men and women who have continued that fight through depressions, wars, and times of segregation so that we could continue to have a wonderful country where we are free to think as we choose.
I pray that God continues to bless America and I pray that Americans remember to thank God for those blessings.
I took a few moments yesterday under the beauty of a small town fireworks show to reflect on America and I said a prayer of thanks for the many who made our country what it is. I am so thankful for those men and women who were braver, smarter, and more optimistic than myself who put everything on the line to create a country where people were allowed to say what they wanted to and believe what they wanted to. I am thankful for the men and women who have continued that fight through depressions, wars, and times of segregation so that we could continue to have a wonderful country where we are free to think as we choose.
I pray that God continues to bless America and I pray that Americans remember to thank God for those blessings.
Monday, June 30, 2008
A Tale of Two Houses
Some of you have probably already seen this. I got it in an email a while back (thanks Lindsay) and have been meaning to post it here. Very interesting.......
A Tale of Two Houses
House #1 A 20 room mansion ( not including 8 bathrooms ) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool ( and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas.In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt"area. It's in the South.
House #2 Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university.This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms ) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Waste water from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore.
HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford,Texas; it is the residence the of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.
An "inconvenient truth".
A Tale of Two Houses
House #1 A 20 room mansion ( not including 8 bathrooms ) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool ( and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas.In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt"area. It's in the South.
House #2 Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university.This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms ) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Waste water from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore.
HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford,Texas; it is the residence the of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.
An "inconvenient truth".
Friday, June 27, 2008
No, Glenn, You Are Not The Only One
Quote of the day by Glenn Beck:
"Am I the only one who goes to the movies to be entertained and church to be preached to?"
Just think about it.......
"Am I the only one who goes to the movies to be entertained and church to be preached to?"
Just think about it.......
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
James Dobson vs. Barack Obama
This morning on his talk show, "Focus on the Family", James Dobson denounced Barack Obama for "distorting the Bible" and pushing a "fruitcake interpretation" of the constitution. Dobson has never been one for mincing words and he has been very liberal with his comments against John McCain, but these latest words focusing on the upcoming election have evoked criticism from both sides of the issue.
The speech which Dobson referred to this morning was given last year in June of 2007 to a liberal Christian group, Call to Renewal. According to reports, the speech was very warmly received as Obama focused on a call to tolerance and acceptance.
I have never really gotten on the whole "James Dobson Movement". I used to listen to him on the radio going to work and liked some of the things he would say. I agree with him when it comes to creating strong families and things like that. I have read a couple of his books and they are okay, but my opinion has really been that he is one of those experts who can talk, but has he really practiced any of the advice? I don't know, maybe he has. I don't know that much about him.
There is a new movement out led by Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell that is calling other pastors and Christians to support Barack Obama. They started a website called: http://jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com
This website outlines the quotes that Dobson used on his show this morning from Barack Obama and what Dobson's problem with the quotes were. I am asking my readers to click on the link and read the page. Then come back and comment about what you think. You don't have to register, just scroll down and read all the points that Dobson made. I will see what you guys think and then share my own thoughts.
The speech which Dobson referred to this morning was given last year in June of 2007 to a liberal Christian group, Call to Renewal. According to reports, the speech was very warmly received as Obama focused on a call to tolerance and acceptance.
I have never really gotten on the whole "James Dobson Movement". I used to listen to him on the radio going to work and liked some of the things he would say. I agree with him when it comes to creating strong families and things like that. I have read a couple of his books and they are okay, but my opinion has really been that he is one of those experts who can talk, but has he really practiced any of the advice? I don't know, maybe he has. I don't know that much about him.
There is a new movement out led by Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell that is calling other pastors and Christians to support Barack Obama. They started a website called: http://jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com
This website outlines the quotes that Dobson used on his show this morning from Barack Obama and what Dobson's problem with the quotes were. I am asking my readers to click on the link and read the page. Then come back and comment about what you think. You don't have to register, just scroll down and read all the points that Dobson made. I will see what you guys think and then share my own thoughts.
"Faith Of My Fathers" - The John McCain Book
I am going to start a short series on some of the books that I am reading to see if I can get to know the two presumed presidential candidates better. I plan on reading several on each man so if you have read any and want to suggest them, please let me know. I am a pro at the "Inter-library loan" process, so I can probably get my hands on a copy of just about anything. I started with the John McCain book, Faith Of My Fathers for no other reason than it was the first one that the library had available.
The book is primarily a memoir of three generations of McCain men. The first quarter of the book focuses on John McCain's grandfather and father, the second quarter, on John's growing up and time at the Naval Academy, and the last half of the book talks about his time as an American POW during the Vietnam War.
When I read a book, I generally will either like it from the beginning or will stop reading after the first chapter. If a book does not capture my attention, I don't waste my time trying to finish it. I had told myself that if I read some books for my blog (and myself) I would have to finish them or risk complete cyberspace ridicule. I had no problem with this one though. It was a really good book.
I have always had a hard time saying nice things about John McCain, and let me affirm as I will throughout this post that I don't think he is presidential material, but this book opened my eyes to another side of McCain, that I knew nothing about. John McCain was (and probably still is) a fun guy. Again, I don't want him as my president, but he would probably be a great guy to go have a beer with. He has got a pretty good sense of humor and actually seems to have a likable personality. Not that I want to help his campaign, but if he would show this side, he might gain some votes.
Though showing a likable side, this side is exactly why we don't need him as president. McCain's grandfather and father were both portrayed as rebels, who, as Naval Officers, followed instructions as long as they served them best. Most of the time their gambles worked, which gave them opportunities to rise in the ranks, both leaving the Navy as Admirals. John inherited this rebellious side which he showed, almost boasted, during the chapters about his education at the Naval Academy,
These chapters in a way really pushed my buttons for dislike of the man. He starts by saying rather arrogantly, that he was in the bottom five in his class during his entire time at the Academy. He makes the statement that he did not want to go there and did not even try to get in, but his father "made a few phone calls" and then "dropped me off for my plebe year". This statement angered me and I continued to think about it as I read about his education.
If you are not familiar with the military academy's here is a summary. The three US Military Academy's (Army, Navy, and Air Force), are the best, most elite education one can receive in the United States. Students must be nominated by their state representatives and must go through a testing process both with academic requirements and physical fitness requirements. The men and women sign a contract of military service after graduation as return payment to their country for providing such a great education. The academy's are military institutions and are run accordingly. There are extremely high academic and fitness standards that must be maintained to avoid expulsion. They are not party schools.
McCain blatantly and arrogantly told of his wasted time at the Naval Academy and boldly makes the assumption that if he was not the son and grandson of two Naval Admirals, he would never have graduated. This is very irritating because he took the place of another student who wanted to go to the Academy. He took the place of someone who might have taken full advantage of their opportunity. The way that McCain described all his pranks and how he broke all the rules "except the honor code" is very telling.
If you have read my other posts, you know that I have great respect and admiration for anyone who wears the uniform of the US Armed Forces. I believe that all of the men and women are heroes, and John McCain is no exception. I found the part of the book about his capture and years as a POW, very interesting and it is probably his rebellious attitude and reliance on himself that allowed him to survive. The POW's are amazing people who survived the worst circumstances, but being a war hero alone, does not automatically make a great president.
I think the ideas that I got from this book that bother me the most about John McCain are his total disregard for the rules, his arrogance, and the way he reacts when dealing with situations (kind of seems to punch first and ask questions later). Now, these are not negative characteristics in all situations. John McCain was a good warrior, no doubt. I do doubt his ability to be a great president.
I am really glad that I read this as it gave me a new side of John McCain to look at. It did however affirm my idea that this is not the guy for the White House.
The book is primarily a memoir of three generations of McCain men. The first quarter of the book focuses on John McCain's grandfather and father, the second quarter, on John's growing up and time at the Naval Academy, and the last half of the book talks about his time as an American POW during the Vietnam War.
When I read a book, I generally will either like it from the beginning or will stop reading after the first chapter. If a book does not capture my attention, I don't waste my time trying to finish it. I had told myself that if I read some books for my blog (and myself) I would have to finish them or risk complete cyberspace ridicule. I had no problem with this one though. It was a really good book.
I have always had a hard time saying nice things about John McCain, and let me affirm as I will throughout this post that I don't think he is presidential material, but this book opened my eyes to another side of McCain, that I knew nothing about. John McCain was (and probably still is) a fun guy. Again, I don't want him as my president, but he would probably be a great guy to go have a beer with. He has got a pretty good sense of humor and actually seems to have a likable personality. Not that I want to help his campaign, but if he would show this side, he might gain some votes.
Though showing a likable side, this side is exactly why we don't need him as president. McCain's grandfather and father were both portrayed as rebels, who, as Naval Officers, followed instructions as long as they served them best. Most of the time their gambles worked, which gave them opportunities to rise in the ranks, both leaving the Navy as Admirals. John inherited this rebellious side which he showed, almost boasted, during the chapters about his education at the Naval Academy,
These chapters in a way really pushed my buttons for dislike of the man. He starts by saying rather arrogantly, that he was in the bottom five in his class during his entire time at the Academy. He makes the statement that he did not want to go there and did not even try to get in, but his father "made a few phone calls" and then "dropped me off for my plebe year". This statement angered me and I continued to think about it as I read about his education.
If you are not familiar with the military academy's here is a summary. The three US Military Academy's (Army, Navy, and Air Force), are the best, most elite education one can receive in the United States. Students must be nominated by their state representatives and must go through a testing process both with academic requirements and physical fitness requirements. The men and women sign a contract of military service after graduation as return payment to their country for providing such a great education. The academy's are military institutions and are run accordingly. There are extremely high academic and fitness standards that must be maintained to avoid expulsion. They are not party schools.
McCain blatantly and arrogantly told of his wasted time at the Naval Academy and boldly makes the assumption that if he was not the son and grandson of two Naval Admirals, he would never have graduated. This is very irritating because he took the place of another student who wanted to go to the Academy. He took the place of someone who might have taken full advantage of their opportunity. The way that McCain described all his pranks and how he broke all the rules "except the honor code" is very telling.
If you have read my other posts, you know that I have great respect and admiration for anyone who wears the uniform of the US Armed Forces. I believe that all of the men and women are heroes, and John McCain is no exception. I found the part of the book about his capture and years as a POW, very interesting and it is probably his rebellious attitude and reliance on himself that allowed him to survive. The POW's are amazing people who survived the worst circumstances, but being a war hero alone, does not automatically make a great president.
I think the ideas that I got from this book that bother me the most about John McCain are his total disregard for the rules, his arrogance, and the way he reacts when dealing with situations (kind of seems to punch first and ask questions later). Now, these are not negative characteristics in all situations. John McCain was a good warrior, no doubt. I do doubt his ability to be a great president.
I am really glad that I read this as it gave me a new side of John McCain to look at. It did however affirm my idea that this is not the guy for the White House.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
American Arrogance Gone Too Far
In case you have forgotten, we are still occupying Iraq. We are still fighting a war. We still have brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters in harms way. We are continuing to send our troops on their 3rd, 4th, and 5th combat tours to Iraq. Our government leaders continue to fight about the war and use politics to force their agendas. I am sick of it.
I consider myself "pro-war". (Keep reading - don't turn away yet....) I believe that there is a time for war and reasons for war. I believe that if American is attacked, we must defend ourselves and our country. I believe that we, as a world super power, must help those who are being persecuted or abused. I believe that if there are evil people in power, we must help their country remove them from power.
I don't believe that we should force American democracy on every other country and remain in their country fighting them until they do it our way.
American democracy works in America (mostly). We have freedom in our country that fits our definition of freedom. Other countries on the other hand have different definitions of freedom. They have different religions, they have different customs. We cannot expect them to welcome us with open arms and allow us to make cookie cutter copies of America. It can't work.
I truly believe that most people want the same things in their lives. They want to have a job, have a place for their children to live and go to school. They want to be able to worship the way they see fit. Most people in the world are happy with a simple existence of basic human rights and dignities. We are no longer protecting the Iraqi people and helping them keep these dignities - we are denying them of their basic human desires. Let me be clear - the US government is denying them the desires. The soldiers are doing their jobs. I support the soldiers 100%, but the government is loosing my confidence.
We love our country, but the Iraqi's love their country too.
We are not allowing Iraq to return to business as usual. There will probably never be one united Iraq. The tribe separations go back as far as history. The American government and its over sized ego is not going to solve the problems of the Iraqi people. We simply do not understand the dynamics and we will not understand the dynamics.
Our soldiers were asked to remove Saddam from power, provide temporary security, and train and advise Iraqis. They have completed this mission and should be allowed to leave. Iraq must pick up and run it's country now.
It is estimated that long term occupation of Iraq will cost upwards of $4 trillion dollars. That is not including the $15 billion dollars that is unaccounted for by the Pentagon, the $9 billion unaccounted for by the Coalition Provisional Authority, and the $1.8 billion in seized Iraqi assets that has disappeared.
Let's just day dream and pretend that we left Iraq and brought our troops home. Where could we spend that earmarked $4 trillion? Well there is that issue with Social Security funds, providing Universal Health Care, alternate energy source research. We could fill a page. Or how about our first priority taking care of the men and women who have risk everything because their country ask them to go.
We need to ensure that disabled veterans are not denied or delayed medical care or funds while they are recovering. We need to ensure that spouses do not loose their jobs while taking care of their injured loved ones. An estimated 20% of troops returning are suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injuries. Up to 1,000 returning troops are attempting suicide each month. Currently those representatives who supported the war are opposing a revised GI Bill that gives veterans enough money to complete a college degree. The current bill only provides a fraction of the cost.
America is broken. How can we justify any more money trying to "fix" another country when ours is in desperate need of repair?
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Matthew 7:3
(Numbers and Facts from Texas Monthly, July edition)
I consider myself "pro-war". (Keep reading - don't turn away yet....) I believe that there is a time for war and reasons for war. I believe that if American is attacked, we must defend ourselves and our country. I believe that we, as a world super power, must help those who are being persecuted or abused. I believe that if there are evil people in power, we must help their country remove them from power.
I don't believe that we should force American democracy on every other country and remain in their country fighting them until they do it our way.
American democracy works in America (mostly). We have freedom in our country that fits our definition of freedom. Other countries on the other hand have different definitions of freedom. They have different religions, they have different customs. We cannot expect them to welcome us with open arms and allow us to make cookie cutter copies of America. It can't work.
I truly believe that most people want the same things in their lives. They want to have a job, have a place for their children to live and go to school. They want to be able to worship the way they see fit. Most people in the world are happy with a simple existence of basic human rights and dignities. We are no longer protecting the Iraqi people and helping them keep these dignities - we are denying them of their basic human desires. Let me be clear - the US government is denying them the desires. The soldiers are doing their jobs. I support the soldiers 100%, but the government is loosing my confidence.
We love our country, but the Iraqi's love their country too.
We are not allowing Iraq to return to business as usual. There will probably never be one united Iraq. The tribe separations go back as far as history. The American government and its over sized ego is not going to solve the problems of the Iraqi people. We simply do not understand the dynamics and we will not understand the dynamics.
Our soldiers were asked to remove Saddam from power, provide temporary security, and train and advise Iraqis. They have completed this mission and should be allowed to leave. Iraq must pick up and run it's country now.
It is estimated that long term occupation of Iraq will cost upwards of $4 trillion dollars. That is not including the $15 billion dollars that is unaccounted for by the Pentagon, the $9 billion unaccounted for by the Coalition Provisional Authority, and the $1.8 billion in seized Iraqi assets that has disappeared.
Let's just day dream and pretend that we left Iraq and brought our troops home. Where could we spend that earmarked $4 trillion? Well there is that issue with Social Security funds, providing Universal Health Care, alternate energy source research. We could fill a page. Or how about our first priority taking care of the men and women who have risk everything because their country ask them to go.
We need to ensure that disabled veterans are not denied or delayed medical care or funds while they are recovering. We need to ensure that spouses do not loose their jobs while taking care of their injured loved ones. An estimated 20% of troops returning are suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injuries. Up to 1,000 returning troops are attempting suicide each month. Currently those representatives who supported the war are opposing a revised GI Bill that gives veterans enough money to complete a college degree. The current bill only provides a fraction of the cost.
America is broken. How can we justify any more money trying to "fix" another country when ours is in desperate need of repair?
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Matthew 7:3
(Numbers and Facts from Texas Monthly, July edition)
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
If Ed McMahon Can't Pay His Mortgage, Things Must Really Be Bad!
It was released this week that Countrywide Mortgage Company filed a notice of default on February 28 for the $4.8 million dollar loan on a home belonging to TV personality Ed McMahon. The media is urging us to feel sorry for McMahon. They are giving plenty of reasons to hate the "big, bad" mortgage company and "save" dear old Ed. Maybe I am callused, maybe I am unable to invoke sympathy, but I have come up with the top five reasons not to feel sorry for Ed McMahon (I would have stayed in true Late Night form and put ten, but then this post would have been too long).
Reason Number 5: Most individuals at the age of 85 don't or can't work any more.
Spokesman, Howard Bragman, has said that the ideal situation would be if McMahon would heal from his neck injury (evidently he fell and broke his neck 18 months ago and has been unable to work) and be able to go back to work. Granted, I am a Dave Ramsey follower, so it makes no sense to me that you don't have any money to pay your bills at 85, let alone have a mortgage at the age of 85. What happened to all that money he has made in the 65+ years he has been working? Was none of it saved? Was none of it invested? I do feel sorry for the man working a minimum wage job who gets hurt and is unable to work to support his family. Ed McMahon has not been working minimum wage jobs. He should not have to work at the age of 85 to pay his mortgage.
Reason Number 4: Hollywood wives don't work.
I watched an interview last night with his wife, third I believe, who has to be at least 30 years younger than him (although it can be deceiving determining the ages of California women). Is her neck broken too? What is stopping her from getting a job? If we were in foreclosure and David was unable to work, do you think that I would be doing nothing? I would be waiting tables, sacking groceries, picking up trash, cleaning houses, anything I could find to make money to keep our heads above water. Maybe she could think of a reality show to pitch.....
Reason Number 3: He has a second mortgage out on the house.
Oh, Ed, never, never use the equity in your home for anything - leave it alone! Evidently in addition to the $4.8 million dollar loan, Ed took out a $300,000 loan against the value of the house. Oh I would love to hear Dave Ramsey talk to a caller with a story like this! That is one of the biggest mistakes a person can make dealing with finances. It would be better to sell everything, cash in 401K's (almost never recommended) or take out a personal loan than to borrow against the equity of your home.
Reason Number 2: He won a $7.2 million dollar lawsuit against a plumber when a bad plumbing job created mold that had to be removed.
I know that he probably spent some of the money to clean up the mold and I know that can be a costly job. I also know that he probably had more than half of the money left after the clean up took place, plenty to pay off the home loan. David and I sit around and day dream sometimes about if we won the lottery (pretty big dreams since we don't even play), but our plans start with giving some to the church, paying off our school loans, paying off our house, setting it up in mutual funds so we will never have to worry about anything, saving for kids college, then we start thinking about new cars, cruises, the really fun stuff. Now, we have never had that kind of money, but I cannot imagine peeing (I try to keep the blog rated PG!) all that money away and having nothing to show for it.
And the number 1 reason I do not feel sorry for Ed McMahon: His house has been on the market two years priced at $6.25 million dollars or half a million over what it is valued at ($5.75 mil).
Yes, I had to read that several times too. The house is valued at $5.75 million dollars. He is asking $6.25 million. Why not talk to Countrywide and negotiate a short sale or maybe listing at the amount owed on the house and see what that does? He is not in a position to gain from his investment. He is $600,000 behind on his loan for goodness sake! Get out from under the house and move on. I will not claim to be a real estate expert, but if a house doesn't sell in two years, isn't lowering the price one of the first things you do to move it?
I tried to put a comic light on this, but I do agree that there are problems in the housing loan industry. Three years ago, buying a home was almost like buying a car from a "no credit no problem" lot. "Do you have a job and a checking account? We can get you moved in this weekend!" Home lenders were offering loans to many people who had no business buying a home. Lenders were offering no money down, interest only, and adjustable rate mortgages that got people in the homes, but took advantage of the situations. Those lenders were wrong and they should have to answer for their actions. But this is not one of those situations. This is someone who did not pay his bills first and now is in a sticky situation. Ed McMahon was not affected by the weak economy or the bad housing market. If someone is working at the age of 85, there should be a plan on how to take care of things if they suddenly become unable to work. He made bad decisions.
Reason Number 5: Most individuals at the age of 85 don't or can't work any more.
Spokesman, Howard Bragman, has said that the ideal situation would be if McMahon would heal from his neck injury (evidently he fell and broke his neck 18 months ago and has been unable to work) and be able to go back to work. Granted, I am a Dave Ramsey follower, so it makes no sense to me that you don't have any money to pay your bills at 85, let alone have a mortgage at the age of 85. What happened to all that money he has made in the 65+ years he has been working? Was none of it saved? Was none of it invested? I do feel sorry for the man working a minimum wage job who gets hurt and is unable to work to support his family. Ed McMahon has not been working minimum wage jobs. He should not have to work at the age of 85 to pay his mortgage.
Reason Number 4: Hollywood wives don't work.
I watched an interview last night with his wife, third I believe, who has to be at least 30 years younger than him (although it can be deceiving determining the ages of California women). Is her neck broken too? What is stopping her from getting a job? If we were in foreclosure and David was unable to work, do you think that I would be doing nothing? I would be waiting tables, sacking groceries, picking up trash, cleaning houses, anything I could find to make money to keep our heads above water. Maybe she could think of a reality show to pitch.....
Reason Number 3: He has a second mortgage out on the house.
Oh, Ed, never, never use the equity in your home for anything - leave it alone! Evidently in addition to the $4.8 million dollar loan, Ed took out a $300,000 loan against the value of the house. Oh I would love to hear Dave Ramsey talk to a caller with a story like this! That is one of the biggest mistakes a person can make dealing with finances. It would be better to sell everything, cash in 401K's (almost never recommended) or take out a personal loan than to borrow against the equity of your home.
Reason Number 2: He won a $7.2 million dollar lawsuit against a plumber when a bad plumbing job created mold that had to be removed.
I know that he probably spent some of the money to clean up the mold and I know that can be a costly job. I also know that he probably had more than half of the money left after the clean up took place, plenty to pay off the home loan. David and I sit around and day dream sometimes about if we won the lottery (pretty big dreams since we don't even play), but our plans start with giving some to the church, paying off our school loans, paying off our house, setting it up in mutual funds so we will never have to worry about anything, saving for kids college, then we start thinking about new cars, cruises, the really fun stuff. Now, we have never had that kind of money, but I cannot imagine peeing (I try to keep the blog rated PG!) all that money away and having nothing to show for it.
And the number 1 reason I do not feel sorry for Ed McMahon: His house has been on the market two years priced at $6.25 million dollars or half a million over what it is valued at ($5.75 mil).
Yes, I had to read that several times too. The house is valued at $5.75 million dollars. He is asking $6.25 million. Why not talk to Countrywide and negotiate a short sale or maybe listing at the amount owed on the house and see what that does? He is not in a position to gain from his investment. He is $600,000 behind on his loan for goodness sake! Get out from under the house and move on. I will not claim to be a real estate expert, but if a house doesn't sell in two years, isn't lowering the price one of the first things you do to move it?
I tried to put a comic light on this, but I do agree that there are problems in the housing loan industry. Three years ago, buying a home was almost like buying a car from a "no credit no problem" lot. "Do you have a job and a checking account? We can get you moved in this weekend!" Home lenders were offering loans to many people who had no business buying a home. Lenders were offering no money down, interest only, and adjustable rate mortgages that got people in the homes, but took advantage of the situations. Those lenders were wrong and they should have to answer for their actions. But this is not one of those situations. This is someone who did not pay his bills first and now is in a sticky situation. Ed McMahon was not affected by the weak economy or the bad housing market. If someone is working at the age of 85, there should be a plan on how to take care of things if they suddenly become unable to work. He made bad decisions.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
What Will Politics Do Without Tim Russert?
The political world lost a great asset Friday, when journalist Tim Russert died suddenly from a heart attack at the age of 58. Tim is best known for his strong political insight and his ability to make the complex understandable in the world of politics.
Tim was an extremely talented journalist who hosted the Sunday morning program, "Meet The Press" where he sent often sharp and pointed questions toward political figures and made them squirm with his well researched commentary as well as sound bites from their speeches. Though most candidates had been on his hot seat, he remained highly respected for the work he did.
As the lead political analyst at NBC, his untimely death has created an emptiness in NBC's political coverage that will be hard, if not impossible to fill less than five months from the presidential election.
Tim was a huge asset to the political world and he will be greatly missed.
Tim is survived by his wife, Maureen Orth, son Luke, and his father, Tim Sr.
Tim was an extremely talented journalist who hosted the Sunday morning program, "Meet The Press" where he sent often sharp and pointed questions toward political figures and made them squirm with his well researched commentary as well as sound bites from their speeches. Though most candidates had been on his hot seat, he remained highly respected for the work he did.
As the lead political analyst at NBC, his untimely death has created an emptiness in NBC's political coverage that will be hard, if not impossible to fill less than five months from the presidential election.
Tim was a huge asset to the political world and he will be greatly missed.
Tim is survived by his wife, Maureen Orth, son Luke, and his father, Tim Sr.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
President Obama, Vice President Clinton, and third wheel Bill...
It could be seen as a two for one deal, choose Hillary as your VP and gain Bill for free! Hardly seems the kind of deal anyone looking to be the President of the United States would want. As they say, nothing is free.
There is no way that Barack could ever compete with a vice president who would never respect him, accept his direction, or relinquish her agenda. It would be a disaster from the top and the unpredictable Bill would only cause more alarm. But can Obama clinch the win against McCain without the Clinton machine? Absolutely.
There is a potential deal breaker before the deal even begins. The Clinton's would have to release all financial records beginning with Bill's big donors to his presidential library. He has thus far refused to release those records and the complications that they could pose for an Obama White House. Those include dealings with the governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. That is more baggage than the Obama camp can afford to carry and they would probably, and rightly so, require a full disclosure, before naming Hillary as a VP candidate. It is highly unlikely that Bill would ever agree to that.
Another problem is that the Clinton's have been leaders in the Democratic Party and the Washington scene for more than 16 years. They are deeply meshed in the politics of the city and that completely undermines the Obama message of change and new blood into Washington.
Hillary does have the potential to bring some of her supports who have been reluctant to support Obama, but many believe that her public support for Obama will bring just as much support as a place on the ticket and after a cooling off period, those voters that said they would vote for McCain rather than Obama, will realize that McCain and his policies will only bring them more of the same and they will ultimately decide to remain loyal to the democrats.
It will be a rough next few months for Obama regardless, but I believe that the Clinton's will cause more of a headache and be more of a hindrance than help for his campaign. The democratic party is fragile right now with a lot of emotion, so Obama will have to tread lightly with the next few moves that he makes. He will have to move carefully, he needs the Clinton's, but not as running mates.
There is no way that Barack could ever compete with a vice president who would never respect him, accept his direction, or relinquish her agenda. It would be a disaster from the top and the unpredictable Bill would only cause more alarm. But can Obama clinch the win against McCain without the Clinton machine? Absolutely.
There is a potential deal breaker before the deal even begins. The Clinton's would have to release all financial records beginning with Bill's big donors to his presidential library. He has thus far refused to release those records and the complications that they could pose for an Obama White House. Those include dealings with the governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. That is more baggage than the Obama camp can afford to carry and they would probably, and rightly so, require a full disclosure, before naming Hillary as a VP candidate. It is highly unlikely that Bill would ever agree to that.
Another problem is that the Clinton's have been leaders in the Democratic Party and the Washington scene for more than 16 years. They are deeply meshed in the politics of the city and that completely undermines the Obama message of change and new blood into Washington.
Hillary does have the potential to bring some of her supports who have been reluctant to support Obama, but many believe that her public support for Obama will bring just as much support as a place on the ticket and after a cooling off period, those voters that said they would vote for McCain rather than Obama, will realize that McCain and his policies will only bring them more of the same and they will ultimately decide to remain loyal to the democrats.
It will be a rough next few months for Obama regardless, but I believe that the Clinton's will cause more of a headache and be more of a hindrance than help for his campaign. The democratic party is fragile right now with a lot of emotion, so Obama will have to tread lightly with the next few moves that he makes. He will have to move carefully, he needs the Clinton's, but not as running mates.
What Will He Do With Hillary?
Oh, Barack, I don't envy your position. One of the first points of business for the new democratic presidential candidate will be to figure out what to do with the Clinton's. He will have to decide how Hillary and Bill will give him the least heart burn in the next few months. It is not going to be an easy job.
I applaud Obama though for stepping back and allowing the tide to calm before he makes any major decision or announcement, and it comes with an extreme advantage to him. By waiting to make any announcement he will be forcing Hillary Clinton to make a decision with no guarantee of what she wants - a spot on the ticket. Could he outsmart the Clinton machine yet again?
Hillary has been over confidant from the beginning. Her major campaign financial difficulties started because she was so sure of walking away with an early victory, her campaign was only budgeted through Super Tuesday (February 5). She so believed that she would pull off a win that she offered Barack Obama the VP slot several months ago, while he was ahead, making voters laugh, when Barack responded by saying, "...the second place person doesn't offer the first place person the second place position. It just doesn't make sense."
And now, Hillary is so determined to gain a spot on the ticket that she is demanding some sort of "coalition government" between herself and Obama, something that is highly unlikely to appeal to the president. Because she wants to try to have her cake and eat it too, she has even been reluctant to concede the election and recognize Obama as the victor. If she did that, she would be forced to either throw her support to him or step out as an independent candidate - thus dividing the party and ensuring a McCain victory in the fall.
What a chance she had Tuesday night to speak about the historical primary that she and Obama fought so hard in. What a chance to appear gracious about the contest they both played. What a chance to congratulate such a major party victory and remark about something good in America, that made many including myself proud of our country and how far we have come to see past the racial divisions. No, instead of taking those chances, it was still all about Hillary. She delivered a completely self absorbed and somewhat delusional speech, seeming to still believe that she had a chance.
Hillary is not however going to get her wish to be immediately offered a position on the ticket. She was hoping she would know quickly so she could plan her next move, instead Obama has formed a committee to research a list of qualified people to ask to run with him. He doesn't have to name a VP candidate yet, in fact he can wait until the convention in August. Unlike Hillary, time is on his side, at least for now.
I applaud Obama though for stepping back and allowing the tide to calm before he makes any major decision or announcement, and it comes with an extreme advantage to him. By waiting to make any announcement he will be forcing Hillary Clinton to make a decision with no guarantee of what she wants - a spot on the ticket. Could he outsmart the Clinton machine yet again?
Hillary has been over confidant from the beginning. Her major campaign financial difficulties started because she was so sure of walking away with an early victory, her campaign was only budgeted through Super Tuesday (February 5). She so believed that she would pull off a win that she offered Barack Obama the VP slot several months ago, while he was ahead, making voters laugh, when Barack responded by saying, "...the second place person doesn't offer the first place person the second place position. It just doesn't make sense."
And now, Hillary is so determined to gain a spot on the ticket that she is demanding some sort of "coalition government" between herself and Obama, something that is highly unlikely to appeal to the president. Because she wants to try to have her cake and eat it too, she has even been reluctant to concede the election and recognize Obama as the victor. If she did that, she would be forced to either throw her support to him or step out as an independent candidate - thus dividing the party and ensuring a McCain victory in the fall.
What a chance she had Tuesday night to speak about the historical primary that she and Obama fought so hard in. What a chance to appear gracious about the contest they both played. What a chance to congratulate such a major party victory and remark about something good in America, that made many including myself proud of our country and how far we have come to see past the racial divisions. No, instead of taking those chances, it was still all about Hillary. She delivered a completely self absorbed and somewhat delusional speech, seeming to still believe that she had a chance.
Hillary is not however going to get her wish to be immediately offered a position on the ticket. She was hoping she would know quickly so she could plan her next move, instead Obama has formed a committee to research a list of qualified people to ask to run with him. He doesn't have to name a VP candidate yet, in fact he can wait until the convention in August. Unlike Hillary, time is on his side, at least for now.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Like A Puppet On A String
Hillary Clinton has announced that she will not concede the election immediately, stating that she believes she has "earned" the right to reflect on how to proceed. What is there to reflect on? She lost.
I'll tell you what she is reflecting. She still wants in the white house. She is just trying to decide if she has a better chance as a vice presidential candidate or as an independent presidential candidate. She wants to keep her options open so she can have leverage to negotiate with Obama. She has publicly announced that she would "consider the vice presidency if it was good for the party." What she meant was she would "consider the vice presidency if it was good for her."
Obama has a hard job ahead of him. If he does choose her as a running mate, it would almost ensure the big win in November by gaining the votes of Hillary supporters. If he does not, it will be a hard road to November and the win.
Sounds easy if you want to win right? Wrong. Would you want Hillary Clinton as your Vice President? I picture it something like a ventriloquist with a puppet. Hillary would stand behind Obama, moving his mouth and telling him what to say. Obama would truly become a "status president" with the VP taking charge. Hillary is not going to take a back seat to anyone. It would get ugly.
If she decides to run as an independent candidate, it will be the end of the democratic party as we known it. McCain will win in November. She will divide democratic supporters and probably cause irreparable damage to the party. If she loves her party and country, she will join with Obama either as a running mate or as a supporter.
She needs to make a decision and she needs to look at the best interest of her party and country, not herself, when she makes that decision.
I'll tell you what she is reflecting. She still wants in the white house. She is just trying to decide if she has a better chance as a vice presidential candidate or as an independent presidential candidate. She wants to keep her options open so she can have leverage to negotiate with Obama. She has publicly announced that she would "consider the vice presidency if it was good for the party." What she meant was she would "consider the vice presidency if it was good for her."
Obama has a hard job ahead of him. If he does choose her as a running mate, it would almost ensure the big win in November by gaining the votes of Hillary supporters. If he does not, it will be a hard road to November and the win.
Sounds easy if you want to win right? Wrong. Would you want Hillary Clinton as your Vice President? I picture it something like a ventriloquist with a puppet. Hillary would stand behind Obama, moving his mouth and telling him what to say. Obama would truly become a "status president" with the VP taking charge. Hillary is not going to take a back seat to anyone. It would get ugly.
If she decides to run as an independent candidate, it will be the end of the democratic party as we known it. McCain will win in November. She will divide democratic supporters and probably cause irreparable damage to the party. If she loves her party and country, she will join with Obama either as a running mate or as a supporter.
She needs to make a decision and she needs to look at the best interest of her party and country, not herself, when she makes that decision.
He's The Man!
Tonight America will go to bed having made history. For the first time in it's history, America has an African American presidential candidate. Barack Obama has gained the magic number of delegates and is now the presumptive democratic nominee for the 2008 Presidential Election.
The count is as follows:
Total Delegates:
Obama 2129
Clinton 1910
Pledged Delegates:
Obama 1750
Clinton 1624
Super delegates:
Obama 379
Clinton 286
In the next 24 to 48 hours remaining uncommitted super delegates are expected to make their choice known. Many, especially current senators, have been reluctant to publicly show their support for either candidate to avoid pushing voters one way or another.
History has been made.
The count is as follows:
Total Delegates:
Obama 2129
Clinton 1910
Pledged Delegates:
Obama 1750
Clinton 1624
Super delegates:
Obama 379
Clinton 286
In the next 24 to 48 hours remaining uncommitted super delegates are expected to make their choice known. Many, especially current senators, have been reluctant to publicly show their support for either candidate to avoid pushing voters one way or another.
History has been made.
Friday, May 30, 2008
How Can I Join The Rules and Bylaws Committee?
The "Rules and Bylaws Committee" of the DNC will be meeting Saturday to determine if and how delegates from Florida and Michigan will be seated in August. Doesn't that sound like a fun group? The Rules and Bylaws Committee - Master's of the Universe. Honestly, I had never even heard of the RBC before this week, but evidently, they are in place to make decisions when there seems to be some confusion in rules or procedures of the DNC.
I am having a hard time understanding why the group must give up a Saturday and make a decision on something that all interested parties signed off on last year. The states of Florida and Michigan knew that there would be sanctions against them and that they would loose all voting power at the DNC if they held their elections early. They broke the rules, they must face the consequences. Black and white to me.
So what is the problem? Well when Hillary Clinton and her supporters approved and voted for the sanctions she did not think that she would desperately need those delegates to hold on to a shred of hope to win. In fact, right after voting (prior to the Michigan primary) Hillary said this,
"I personally do not think it makes a difference whether my name is on the ballot. You know it is clear the election that are having in Michigan is not going to count for anything."
My how times change. Hillary is now insisting that she has always been outraged that the "innocent" people of Michigan and Florida will not have voice. Last week she said this,
"I have consistently said that the votes cast in Michigan and Florida in January should be considered."
Really? What about the agreement that she signed in January to uphold the decisions of the DNC about Florida and Michigan? What about the past four months when nothing was said about those poor left out states? Could it be that Hillary could have cared less about Florida and Michigan until she was desperately pulling for every delegate and vote? Could it be that the feeling of being entitled to be president is a little shaky and Hillary thinks this makes her look like she is fighting for the "little guy"? Could it be that the 11 page letter she recently sent to every super delegate telling them just why she was the better choice didn't change anyone?
The RBC will sort things out tomorrow, but they will be doing so amid protests and demonstrations that are being encouraged from Hillary and her campaign. Clinton campaign manager, Terry McAuliffe, said yesterday, "I like excitement, lets all join together to show passion!"
Do you think that the RBC members are they types who will be swayed by demonstrations, uproar, and unruly crowds?
Obama's camp however is discouraging any protests or reactions to protests from its supporters. David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manger said,
"We don't think it is helpful to create a disturbance. In the interest of party unity we're encouraging our supporters not to protest." And Obama just keeps smelling like a rose......
Hillary is pulling so hard for these delegates to count, wouldn't it be ironic if the delegates were divided in such a way that Obama gained 40 more delegates tomorrow? He is only 40 delegates away from the magic number needed to claim victory. I can't be the only one who has thought of this.
A concluding thought to leave with Hillary from Proverbs 16:18, "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall." I believe I see some stumbling.....
I am having a hard time understanding why the group must give up a Saturday and make a decision on something that all interested parties signed off on last year. The states of Florida and Michigan knew that there would be sanctions against them and that they would loose all voting power at the DNC if they held their elections early. They broke the rules, they must face the consequences. Black and white to me.
So what is the problem? Well when Hillary Clinton and her supporters approved and voted for the sanctions she did not think that she would desperately need those delegates to hold on to a shred of hope to win. In fact, right after voting (prior to the Michigan primary) Hillary said this,
"I personally do not think it makes a difference whether my name is on the ballot. You know it is clear the election that are having in Michigan is not going to count for anything."
My how times change. Hillary is now insisting that she has always been outraged that the "innocent" people of Michigan and Florida will not have voice. Last week she said this,
"I have consistently said that the votes cast in Michigan and Florida in January should be considered."
Really? What about the agreement that she signed in January to uphold the decisions of the DNC about Florida and Michigan? What about the past four months when nothing was said about those poor left out states? Could it be that Hillary could have cared less about Florida and Michigan until she was desperately pulling for every delegate and vote? Could it be that the feeling of being entitled to be president is a little shaky and Hillary thinks this makes her look like she is fighting for the "little guy"? Could it be that the 11 page letter she recently sent to every super delegate telling them just why she was the better choice didn't change anyone?
The RBC will sort things out tomorrow, but they will be doing so amid protests and demonstrations that are being encouraged from Hillary and her campaign. Clinton campaign manager, Terry McAuliffe, said yesterday, "I like excitement, lets all join together to show passion!"
Do you think that the RBC members are they types who will be swayed by demonstrations, uproar, and unruly crowds?
Obama's camp however is discouraging any protests or reactions to protests from its supporters. David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manger said,
"We don't think it is helpful to create a disturbance. In the interest of party unity we're encouraging our supporters not to protest." And Obama just keeps smelling like a rose......
Hillary is pulling so hard for these delegates to count, wouldn't it be ironic if the delegates were divided in such a way that Obama gained 40 more delegates tomorrow? He is only 40 delegates away from the magic number needed to claim victory. I can't be the only one who has thought of this.
A concluding thought to leave with Hillary from Proverbs 16:18, "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall." I believe I see some stumbling.....
CAT FIGHT!
Nancy P. vs. Hillary C.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has vowed to "step in" if needed to end the primary campaign season. Since Pelosi has already pledged her support to Obama, we must assume that this means she intends to stop the Clinton madness. It is obvious that just about everyone in the United States can see that the election is over, except for Hillary, but I would just like to ask Nancy, what she thinks that she can do about it.
She can't declare the nominee. She could talk to Hillary, but Hillary has yet to listen to anybody, so why would she listen to someone pledged to support Obama?
Maybe Nancy Pelosi should "step in" and get some things done in congress first before she fixes the nomination process. But then again, she has done nothing that she promised when elected to congress, so why would we think she would start now? Sit down Nancy, enjoy the show, it will be over soon.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has vowed to "step in" if needed to end the primary campaign season. Since Pelosi has already pledged her support to Obama, we must assume that this means she intends to stop the Clinton madness. It is obvious that just about everyone in the United States can see that the election is over, except for Hillary, but I would just like to ask Nancy, what she thinks that she can do about it.
She can't declare the nominee. She could talk to Hillary, but Hillary has yet to listen to anybody, so why would she listen to someone pledged to support Obama?
Maybe Nancy Pelosi should "step in" and get some things done in congress first before she fixes the nomination process. But then again, she has done nothing that she promised when elected to congress, so why would we think she would start now? Sit down Nancy, enjoy the show, it will be over soon.
Monday, May 26, 2008
A Tribute To A Fallen Hero
A few weeks ago, I learned of the death of a high school classmate, Army Sargent 1st Class Lawrence David Ezell. David was 30 years old when he died on April 30, 2007. He died while serving his country bravely in Iraq.
David had always shown an interest in serving his fellow man in some way, whether it be through law enforcement or in the military. During high school, he was a member of a special program that allowed students to ride along with local law enforcement officers while on patrol. After graduating from high school, David worked in the Kerr County Jail and was a member of the Army National Guard before enlisting on January 11, 1997.
While in the Army, he served in Iraq from March 2003 to October 2004, Afghanistan from October 2005 to April 2006, and again in Iraq from November 2007 until April 2008. He was asked to become part of a special unit and team and joined with the 71st Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group on March 23, 2007. This team disposes of bombs and other explosive devices, making it one, if not, the most dangerous job in the Army. He received many medals including the Bronze Star Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, and the Senior Explosive Ordnance Badge.
The day of his death, David was called to dismantle two bombs. He along with two trainees arrived at the location and David assessed the situation. He told his trainees that he had a bad feeling about one of the bombs and asked them to return to the Hummer and not to come out. David dismantled the first bomb and as he started the second, it exploded, killing him instantly. His bravery and heroism saved the two men with him as well as others who might have come in contact with the bomb. His wife will receive for him a Purple Heart and Medal of Honor.
David left behind a wife and two year old son. He was laid to rest with full military honors on May 12, 2008 in Arlington National Cemetery.
This is the first obituary of this blog and hopefully the last. I felt it was appropriate to honor this fallen hero on Memorial Day, the day where we honor all of the fallen who have worn the uniforms of the U.S. Military.
If you are one of my readers, you know that I hold all members of our U.S. Military, past and present, with honor. Those who give the ultimate sacrifice are held in the highest honor. They served willingly, without regard to themselves, and gave everything for their country.
I have been told that God takes the best soldiers to guard the gates of Heaven. I like that thought.
Please join with me today as I pray for the Ezell family and all those who are remembering their lost soldiers this Memorial Day. Pray that the current conflicts can be resolved and our men and women can come home.
David had always shown an interest in serving his fellow man in some way, whether it be through law enforcement or in the military. During high school, he was a member of a special program that allowed students to ride along with local law enforcement officers while on patrol. After graduating from high school, David worked in the Kerr County Jail and was a member of the Army National Guard before enlisting on January 11, 1997.
While in the Army, he served in Iraq from March 2003 to October 2004, Afghanistan from October 2005 to April 2006, and again in Iraq from November 2007 until April 2008. He was asked to become part of a special unit and team and joined with the 71st Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group on March 23, 2007. This team disposes of bombs and other explosive devices, making it one, if not, the most dangerous job in the Army. He received many medals including the Bronze Star Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, and the Senior Explosive Ordnance Badge.
The day of his death, David was called to dismantle two bombs. He along with two trainees arrived at the location and David assessed the situation. He told his trainees that he had a bad feeling about one of the bombs and asked them to return to the Hummer and not to come out. David dismantled the first bomb and as he started the second, it exploded, killing him instantly. His bravery and heroism saved the two men with him as well as others who might have come in contact with the bomb. His wife will receive for him a Purple Heart and Medal of Honor.
David left behind a wife and two year old son. He was laid to rest with full military honors on May 12, 2008 in Arlington National Cemetery.
This is the first obituary of this blog and hopefully the last. I felt it was appropriate to honor this fallen hero on Memorial Day, the day where we honor all of the fallen who have worn the uniforms of the U.S. Military.
If you are one of my readers, you know that I hold all members of our U.S. Military, past and present, with honor. Those who give the ultimate sacrifice are held in the highest honor. They served willingly, without regard to themselves, and gave everything for their country.
I have been told that God takes the best soldiers to guard the gates of Heaven. I like that thought.
Please join with me today as I pray for the Ezell family and all those who are remembering their lost soldiers this Memorial Day. Pray that the current conflicts can be resolved and our men and women can come home.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Math Update
I haven't done a delegate count for a while (okay, I have done nothing for a while, but get off my back!) so here are the latest numbers:
Super Delegate Count:
Obama 321
Clinton 280
Total Delegate Count:
Obama 1970
Clinton 1780
Total Popular Vote:
Obama 16,685,941 (+458,427)
Clinton 16,227,514
These numbers are not counting Florida and Michigan, but even if those states get some of their delegates, they are likely to be divided between Obama and Hillary, not making a big change in the numbers and they way they stand.
The magic number is 2026. That is the number of delegates that is necessary for a nomination. Only 57 delegates away, Barack could easily clench that with big wins in the final three primaries. Not to mention the still 175 uncommitted super delegates.
But don't worry Hillary, you still have a chance. Let's make that math work. You currently have 1780 delegates. If you can convince all 175 uncommitted super delegates to vote for you that would bring your total to 1955. I know that you can do this with all the really intelligent, sensitive things that have been coming out of your mouth lately. Then, Hillary you need to win all the remaining primaries. Remember that is Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana. With all 86 remaining primary delegates, you can win with 15 delegates to spare!
Reality Check - It ain't gonna happen. Maybe we should bring in some statistics and probability.....
Super Delegate Count:
Obama 321
Clinton 280
Total Delegate Count:
Obama 1970
Clinton 1780
Total Popular Vote:
Obama 16,685,941 (+458,427)
Clinton 16,227,514
These numbers are not counting Florida and Michigan, but even if those states get some of their delegates, they are likely to be divided between Obama and Hillary, not making a big change in the numbers and they way they stand.
The magic number is 2026. That is the number of delegates that is necessary for a nomination. Only 57 delegates away, Barack could easily clench that with big wins in the final three primaries. Not to mention the still 175 uncommitted super delegates.
But don't worry Hillary, you still have a chance. Let's make that math work. You currently have 1780 delegates. If you can convince all 175 uncommitted super delegates to vote for you that would bring your total to 1955. I know that you can do this with all the really intelligent, sensitive things that have been coming out of your mouth lately. Then, Hillary you need to win all the remaining primaries. Remember that is Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana. With all 86 remaining primary delegates, you can win with 15 delegates to spare!
Reality Check - It ain't gonna happen. Maybe we should bring in some statistics and probability.....
She Said What?
Subtitle: Why Hillary is Still Running - In Her Own Words
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until winning California in the middle of June, remember? Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."
Hillary Clinton spoke these words last week when asked to explain why she was continuing in the election. Those words are some of the first to bring together Republicans and Democrats. It brought them together against her.
We will begin with the less obvious, the first remark about her husband, Bill. Yes, Hillary, we remember that Bill wrapped up in California in '92, but California has already had their primary, remember. Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana do not make California and it's delegate count. The remaining primaries hold only 86 delegates together. Even if you win all of them, you will still fall short of the necessary 2026 delegates to clinch the nomination.
Okay, the fun part. The comment about the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. Oh where to start? What was your first thought when you heard this? Mine was shock that she actually said that she was staying in the primaries in case of an assassination of the front runner Barack Obama. Could that have been what she meant? Is she now keeping her fingers crossed for a national tragedy as a last hope for the nomination? Of course not, she says, she was only making a historical reference to past campaigns that were not complete until the summer months.
She made a public apology, but I believe it is misdirected. See if you get the same thought that I had. She said,
"The Kennedy's have been on my mind lately because of Senator Kennedy and I regret that if my reference of that moment of trauma for our entire nation and particularly the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever. I have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family."
Any thoughts? Here was my first; I don't think that the Kennedy's are owed an apology. I think the Obama's and his Secret Service detail and their families are owed the apology. It is no secret that Obama's campaign and security detail have been very worried about his personal safety. He was given Secret Service protection long before any other candidate due to his historical status as the first African American with a real chance at the White House. She has only created more anxiety on the part of those protecting Obama and their families. Her comments have possible put them in more danger than before. You know what they say about the power of suggestion.
Maybe someone should take her aside and explain how some thoughts are not meant to be said out loud. She might need some help determining which things are "family conversation" and which things are okay to be shared outside the family.
Obama's team responded with this comment, "Senator Clinton's statement was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign."
Obama himself also commented that her remarks, "were careless, but I accept Clinton's explanation that she meant no offense."
That sounded like a very politically correct answer. I would have liked a response more like this, "You crazy woman! What are you thinking. That is a pathetically stupid thing to say. You are on a short path to insanity and you are taking the party with you! Sick! Disgusting!"
That however does not sound very Presidential and right now, those candidates who are smart are doing their best to sound like the next commander in chief.
The real looser in this is the democratic party. What has taken years to create is being destroyed by one woman in one election year. She is sending democrats over to John McCain one at a time and she is risking the Democrats win in November. Hillary, it is time to move on. Stop now.
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until winning California in the middle of June, remember? Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."
Hillary Clinton spoke these words last week when asked to explain why she was continuing in the election. Those words are some of the first to bring together Republicans and Democrats. It brought them together against her.
We will begin with the less obvious, the first remark about her husband, Bill. Yes, Hillary, we remember that Bill wrapped up in California in '92, but California has already had their primary, remember. Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana do not make California and it's delegate count. The remaining primaries hold only 86 delegates together. Even if you win all of them, you will still fall short of the necessary 2026 delegates to clinch the nomination.
Okay, the fun part. The comment about the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. Oh where to start? What was your first thought when you heard this? Mine was shock that she actually said that she was staying in the primaries in case of an assassination of the front runner Barack Obama. Could that have been what she meant? Is she now keeping her fingers crossed for a national tragedy as a last hope for the nomination? Of course not, she says, she was only making a historical reference to past campaigns that were not complete until the summer months.
She made a public apology, but I believe it is misdirected. See if you get the same thought that I had. She said,
"The Kennedy's have been on my mind lately because of Senator Kennedy and I regret that if my reference of that moment of trauma for our entire nation and particularly the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever. I have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family."
Any thoughts? Here was my first; I don't think that the Kennedy's are owed an apology. I think the Obama's and his Secret Service detail and their families are owed the apology. It is no secret that Obama's campaign and security detail have been very worried about his personal safety. He was given Secret Service protection long before any other candidate due to his historical status as the first African American with a real chance at the White House. She has only created more anxiety on the part of those protecting Obama and their families. Her comments have possible put them in more danger than before. You know what they say about the power of suggestion.
Maybe someone should take her aside and explain how some thoughts are not meant to be said out loud. She might need some help determining which things are "family conversation" and which things are okay to be shared outside the family.
Obama's team responded with this comment, "Senator Clinton's statement was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign."
Obama himself also commented that her remarks, "were careless, but I accept Clinton's explanation that she meant no offense."
That sounded like a very politically correct answer. I would have liked a response more like this, "You crazy woman! What are you thinking. That is a pathetically stupid thing to say. You are on a short path to insanity and you are taking the party with you! Sick! Disgusting!"
That however does not sound very Presidential and right now, those candidates who are smart are doing their best to sound like the next commander in chief.
The real looser in this is the democratic party. What has taken years to create is being destroyed by one woman in one election year. She is sending democrats over to John McCain one at a time and she is risking the Democrats win in November. Hillary, it is time to move on. Stop now.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
For The Love Of The Party Hillary, GIVE IT UP!
When I start getting tired of politics, then you know it is getting bad. I love to read about politics, talk about it, write about it, but it is starting to become a chore even to watch the news. Accept it Hillary, it is done, back away from the podium and give your support to your party or you risk hurting the election for the democrats in November.
After yesterday's primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, Hillary is no closer to gaining the most delegates than she was before, in fact, she is farther away. Although she did win the Indiana primary, the margin was so small, she made no gain from it.
It has been reported that Hillary has also loaned her campaign another $6.4 million dollars to continue, bringing the total that she has loaned to $11.6 million dollars. Not a good sign when you are the only one supporting your campaign financially.
Hillary said last night that she would stay in the race until there was a nominee, but the pressure from party leaders is increasing for her to step aside. At least four more super delegates have pledged their support to Obama and many in the past few days have left the Clinton team to join Obama.
Hillary, you have got to step aside or you will risk a loss by the Democratic party in November. It is time to bow out. Do it now while you still have a small amount of dignity (instead of waiting until they have to physically remove you, which would not be a bad idea....)
After yesterday's primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, Hillary is no closer to gaining the most delegates than she was before, in fact, she is farther away. Although she did win the Indiana primary, the margin was so small, she made no gain from it.
It has been reported that Hillary has also loaned her campaign another $6.4 million dollars to continue, bringing the total that she has loaned to $11.6 million dollars. Not a good sign when you are the only one supporting your campaign financially.
Hillary said last night that she would stay in the race until there was a nominee, but the pressure from party leaders is increasing for her to step aside. At least four more super delegates have pledged their support to Obama and many in the past few days have left the Clinton team to join Obama.
Hillary, you have got to step aside or you will risk a loss by the Democratic party in November. It is time to bow out. Do it now while you still have a small amount of dignity (instead of waiting until they have to physically remove you, which would not be a bad idea....)
Thursday, May 1, 2008
They Should Be Ashamed Of Themselves
They have done it again. For the second straight quarter, Exxon Mobil has reported record quarterly earnings of $10.9 billion dollars or 17%. This is the second largest US quarterly corporate ever, the first being Exxon's quarterly earnings for the last three months of 2007.
They announced that they were "slightly disappointed" in the less than expected earnings due to crude prices rising faster than the prices at the gas pumps.
Are they living on Mars? What kind of audacity does it take for someone to boast these profits when the US economy is crumbling? I'm not against companies making a profit, but have some sensitivity for goodness sake.
They are not alone. As I blogged yesterday, bp reported a 63% gain from last year earning $7.billion, while Shell and Conoco Phillips reported $9.08 billion and $4.14 billion respectively. Cheveron reports on Friday.
All of this in the mists of news that unemployment rose from 35,000 two weeks ago to 380,000 last week. Consumer spending is up, but only because of higher food and energy costs. More layoffs are expected from GM and retailers including Home Depot, which is reporting that they will be closing at least 15 stores due to lower construction spending.
They announced that they were "slightly disappointed" in the less than expected earnings due to crude prices rising faster than the prices at the gas pumps.
Are they living on Mars? What kind of audacity does it take for someone to boast these profits when the US economy is crumbling? I'm not against companies making a profit, but have some sensitivity for goodness sake.
They are not alone. As I blogged yesterday, bp reported a 63% gain from last year earning $7.billion, while Shell and Conoco Phillips reported $9.08 billion and $4.14 billion respectively. Cheveron reports on Friday.
All of this in the mists of news that unemployment rose from 35,000 two weeks ago to 380,000 last week. Consumer spending is up, but only because of higher food and energy costs. More layoffs are expected from GM and retailers including Home Depot, which is reporting that they will be closing at least 15 stores due to lower construction spending.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
I Don't Think We Are In A Recession. Do You Think We Are In A Recession?
Well, are we or are we not? Should we start stock piling flour, plant corn in the back yard, and steal the packets of sugar from restaurants? No one in politics or the media can seem to agree whether or not we are in a "recession". Regardless of what anyone wants to call it, times are not great and the future looks a little rough.
First, lets define "recession". I went to Webster's for this and he says a recession is "a period of economic decline when production, employment, and earnings fall below normal levels."
Sounds pretty much like what is going on, except for the earnings. The oil companies are publishing record earnings. This morning bp announced earnings 65% above last quarter. 65% up! No joke - I had to get gas today and the pump stopped at $75; convenient since $75 is my gas budget for the next two weeks - problem was it did not fill my tank up. Someone please explain how an employee making $7 an hour can support his family when one gallon of gas is nearly $4 a gallon. Public transportation is an answer for some, but most communities don't have that option.
I also heard yesterday that some of the cause of the inflated prices at the grocery store is the increased production of corn for ethanol. This has caused a ripple effect in nearly every aspect of food production directly because there is less corn being used for food and because many farmers are not growing wheat, choosing to produce corn (due to the government mandate for ethanol), so wheat prices are getting higher. Indirectly this is effect on milk, beef, eggs, and more because cows and chickens eat corn. Third world countries are also taking a hit, because corn and wheat are some of their staples and the providers can simply not afford to buy the grains.
Unemployment has hit a high, with manufactures (especially vehicle makers) having lay offs because sales are so low and other companies simply not being able to afford to hire due to increase costs else where.
Okay, so the state of our economy: people are loosing jobs and not being able to find others, gas prices are almost above minimum wage, food prices are getting higher, the housing market is down to the lowest it has been in 30 years, and most companies are reporting losses. Call it what you want, but it sounds kind of like what Webster was defining when he wrote "recession"
I have a suggestion. First of all, quit the bio-fuel, environment saving rhetoric, and dig some wells in Alaska. God gave us this planet and all of its resources to use. He governed man to be over the fish, birds, and all other animals. Drilling in Alaska, would provide immediate relief at the gas pump and create jobs. It would also make us far less dependent on other countries for our energy. I know there are downfalls including a breed of moose (mooses? meice?), but we need to do something. Consumers are hurting and if predictions are correct and gas reaches $5 a gallon this summer, there are a lot of other industries that will be hurting too (trucking, tourism, restaurants, any forms of recreation.......). I think our citizens are more important than some moose(s).
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that we should be good stewards of the land and that we should not just carelessly use resources without thinking, but I also believe that God is not going to allow the earth to last one moment longer than his plan, even if I do recycle my cans and plastic.
I would give some comment about what happens will depend on the election, but at this rate, we need to make some changes now, or the next president will have more on his (or her) plate than expected. Not to feed into the media drama, but another depression could be around the corner. Not like the great depression (I hope), but depressions generally follow a recession. (Depression - a period during which business, employment, and stock market values decline severely.) We are not too good for that to happen.
Come on George, this could be your chance to regain some confidence with the American people. Somebody, anybody do something!
First, lets define "recession". I went to Webster's for this and he says a recession is "a period of economic decline when production, employment, and earnings fall below normal levels."
Sounds pretty much like what is going on, except for the earnings. The oil companies are publishing record earnings. This morning bp announced earnings 65% above last quarter. 65% up! No joke - I had to get gas today and the pump stopped at $75; convenient since $75 is my gas budget for the next two weeks - problem was it did not fill my tank up. Someone please explain how an employee making $7 an hour can support his family when one gallon of gas is nearly $4 a gallon. Public transportation is an answer for some, but most communities don't have that option.
I also heard yesterday that some of the cause of the inflated prices at the grocery store is the increased production of corn for ethanol. This has caused a ripple effect in nearly every aspect of food production directly because there is less corn being used for food and because many farmers are not growing wheat, choosing to produce corn (due to the government mandate for ethanol), so wheat prices are getting higher. Indirectly this is effect on milk, beef, eggs, and more because cows and chickens eat corn. Third world countries are also taking a hit, because corn and wheat are some of their staples and the providers can simply not afford to buy the grains.
Unemployment has hit a high, with manufactures (especially vehicle makers) having lay offs because sales are so low and other companies simply not being able to afford to hire due to increase costs else where.
Okay, so the state of our economy: people are loosing jobs and not being able to find others, gas prices are almost above minimum wage, food prices are getting higher, the housing market is down to the lowest it has been in 30 years, and most companies are reporting losses. Call it what you want, but it sounds kind of like what Webster was defining when he wrote "recession"
I have a suggestion. First of all, quit the bio-fuel, environment saving rhetoric, and dig some wells in Alaska. God gave us this planet and all of its resources to use. He governed man to be over the fish, birds, and all other animals. Drilling in Alaska, would provide immediate relief at the gas pump and create jobs. It would also make us far less dependent on other countries for our energy. I know there are downfalls including a breed of moose (mooses? meice?), but we need to do something. Consumers are hurting and if predictions are correct and gas reaches $5 a gallon this summer, there are a lot of other industries that will be hurting too (trucking, tourism, restaurants, any forms of recreation.......). I think our citizens are more important than some moose(s).
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that we should be good stewards of the land and that we should not just carelessly use resources without thinking, but I also believe that God is not going to allow the earth to last one moment longer than his plan, even if I do recycle my cans and plastic.
I would give some comment about what happens will depend on the election, but at this rate, we need to make some changes now, or the next president will have more on his (or her) plate than expected. Not to feed into the media drama, but another depression could be around the corner. Not like the great depression (I hope), but depressions generally follow a recession. (Depression - a period during which business, employment, and stock market values decline severely.) We are not too good for that to happen.
Come on George, this could be your chance to regain some confidence with the American people. Somebody, anybody do something!
Monday, April 28, 2008
With Friends Like That......
Well, Rev. Wright is back in full force. The controversial former Pastor of Barack Obama had all but disappeared from the lime light due to security problems, but was back at the pulpit Sunday preaching to a Dallas congregation.
The media has sent shock waves by showing a clip from Rev. Wright's sermon, where he is making fun of democratic hero, John F. Kennedy. Probably not the best news for Barack Obama who has been compared to Kennedy and is highly thought of and supported by many members of the Kennedy family. Wright was mocking Kennedy's strong New England accent specifically the way he said the word "ask" in his famous quote, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country." Not to stoop to Rev. Wright's level, but if anybody should make fun of the way someone says the word "ask", it should not be an African American. Let me "ax" you a question Rev. Wright.
I think that I have figured out just why Rev. Wright continues to be a thorn at the side of the Obama campaign. If Barack is elected President, it completely negates everything that Rev. Wright has been trying to preach. Having an African American president would be a huge disservice to Rev. Wright's "ministry" that portrays the black man as the mistreated, forgotten stepchild in the United States. If the country elects an African American to the position of Commander in Chief, the highest elected official in the country, it probably means that the majority of Americans don't have deep rooted resentment of the race and is probably a good indication that race relations are not as bad as Rev. Wright would have us believe.
I know that there are still very active KKK groups as well as Black Panther groups, but those groups are a dying breed and the general population has no need for any of that nonsense. Those groups are loud, but very much the minority, and they have little influence or leverage as to what actually goes on in the country.
Go away Rev. Wright. We have all had enough of you, well with the exception of the Clinton's and McCain's. You are helping them, but you are making everyone else sick!
The media has sent shock waves by showing a clip from Rev. Wright's sermon, where he is making fun of democratic hero, John F. Kennedy. Probably not the best news for Barack Obama who has been compared to Kennedy and is highly thought of and supported by many members of the Kennedy family. Wright was mocking Kennedy's strong New England accent specifically the way he said the word "ask" in his famous quote, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country." Not to stoop to Rev. Wright's level, but if anybody should make fun of the way someone says the word "ask", it should not be an African American. Let me "ax" you a question Rev. Wright.
I think that I have figured out just why Rev. Wright continues to be a thorn at the side of the Obama campaign. If Barack is elected President, it completely negates everything that Rev. Wright has been trying to preach. Having an African American president would be a huge disservice to Rev. Wright's "ministry" that portrays the black man as the mistreated, forgotten stepchild in the United States. If the country elects an African American to the position of Commander in Chief, the highest elected official in the country, it probably means that the majority of Americans don't have deep rooted resentment of the race and is probably a good indication that race relations are not as bad as Rev. Wright would have us believe.
I know that there are still very active KKK groups as well as Black Panther groups, but those groups are a dying breed and the general population has no need for any of that nonsense. Those groups are loud, but very much the minority, and they have little influence or leverage as to what actually goes on in the country.
Go away Rev. Wright. We have all had enough of you, well with the exception of the Clinton's and McCain's. You are helping them, but you are making everyone else sick!
Just A Quote.....
Don't ask, I will not tell who said it.
"When the economy is bad, private universities have to do whatever it takes to make sure they make money."
Really. I thought so. I wonder what changes Harding and Freed-Hardman have made. I'll have to check on that.
"When the economy is bad, private universities have to do whatever it takes to make sure they make money."
Really. I thought so. I wonder what changes Harding and Freed-Hardman have made. I'll have to check on that.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Who's Your Daddy?
Can you imagine the daunting task of collecting DNA from nearly 600 people, photographing them, and then putting all the matches together? That is what the Heath Department in San Angelo Texas has been doing for the past couple of days.
Since no body seems to know what children belong with what parents from the FDLS compound, all individuals involved have been ordered to give DNA samples. It seems that the children at the compound call all women "mother" and all men "uncle". I guess that would prove confusing when a stranger asks a 4 year old who his mother is and he names three or four different women.
Reports are however that the testing results will not be available until June or July, ensuring that the children will stay in the states custody until then. That causes me to ask, where is Jerry Springer when you need him? When ever he runs DNA tests, he has results before the show is over. I'm sure that he would help. Someone should give him a call.
Most of the children have been placed in group homes, with some of the girls being placed in San Antonio. On the local news last night, one of the reports was live in the helicopter following the police escorted buses that were coming into town. She made a point of saying, "We know where the children are, but CPS has asked that we not reveal their location." What is that about? It is the old fashioned, "I know something you don't know...." How about, "The children have been placed at an undisclosed local location." That is all those kids need, a bunch of crazies driving around to all the local children's shelters looking for the "compound kids."
This is such an awful situation, I feel for all parties involved, but God bless those adults who went on the Today show yesterday. Their legal counsel should really not let them talk. I think they are hurting their case. It would be interesting to know what generation of this sect the adults are, but I would bet it was either second or third. They had obviously never been off the "ranch" and it brings to light the quality of education that the children are probably getting. I don't mean to be nasty, but wow. The women also seem as though they are in a daze, almost in a drug like haze. Scary stuff.
Since no body seems to know what children belong with what parents from the FDLS compound, all individuals involved have been ordered to give DNA samples. It seems that the children at the compound call all women "mother" and all men "uncle". I guess that would prove confusing when a stranger asks a 4 year old who his mother is and he names three or four different women.
Reports are however that the testing results will not be available until June or July, ensuring that the children will stay in the states custody until then. That causes me to ask, where is Jerry Springer when you need him? When ever he runs DNA tests, he has results before the show is over. I'm sure that he would help. Someone should give him a call.
Most of the children have been placed in group homes, with some of the girls being placed in San Antonio. On the local news last night, one of the reports was live in the helicopter following the police escorted buses that were coming into town. She made a point of saying, "We know where the children are, but CPS has asked that we not reveal their location." What is that about? It is the old fashioned, "I know something you don't know...." How about, "The children have been placed at an undisclosed local location." That is all those kids need, a bunch of crazies driving around to all the local children's shelters looking for the "compound kids."
This is such an awful situation, I feel for all parties involved, but God bless those adults who went on the Today show yesterday. Their legal counsel should really not let them talk. I think they are hurting their case. It would be interesting to know what generation of this sect the adults are, but I would bet it was either second or third. They had obviously never been off the "ranch" and it brings to light the quality of education that the children are probably getting. I don't mean to be nasty, but wow. The women also seem as though they are in a daze, almost in a drug like haze. Scary stuff.
The Clinton Camp Lives To See Another Day
By now you have heard that Hillary did pull out a victory yesterday in Pennsylvania and she has declared that she is the candidate to beat. So the race continues on with the next meeting May 6 in North Carolina and Indiana. Obama is favored to win in both those states and Hillary is already asking for a debate within the next two weeks.
I think that there has been plenty of debating and the last couple have just turned into mud slinging. Lets get on with the show. Obama is still leading leading the delegate count as he gained 70 delegates yesterday. Hillary's winning margin was only 10% so she only picked up about 80, still putting Obama a head by just over 100 delegates.
I can see Hillary's position, how the two are so close and how she truly believes that she will make the best president, but I also can see how frustrating it is to democratic leaders. The are getting restless for this to end so that they can put forth a focused attack on John McCain.
Changing the subject slightly, I had a great comment from a new reader on my last post, challenging the candidates to balance a budget.
Ok, so your last challenge to the candidates regarding the $41,000 budget is already answered. Look at they say Obama's campaign has been run fiscally in comparison to Hillary's. It's night and day. Obama gets small donations and taps the well over and over again. I heard he has $41 million in cash right now! That's amazing discipline, management, and strategy that puts him such a better footing than ANY candidate. Hillary, like you said, is in the big time red. Obama should point to that mismanagement of funds and poor strategy. I think how the candidates serve as the Executive of their campaigns gives a big indication of how they would serve as an Executive of the Government
I thought this was an excellent comment and it makes perfect sense. Hillary started with a huge amount of money and her campaign is, according to reports, about $10 million in debt right now. Obama on the other hand, got thousands and thousands of small donations, $25, $50, probably even smaller than that. He has obviously management his money much better, because as was commented, he is running with about $41 million in cash right now. Although Hillary has advertised that she has pulled about $3 million in donations after last night, that is just a drop in the bucket toward her debt and toward what she will need to compete in the next couple of weeks. Who do you want handling your money? I think this example makes it perfectly clear. Thanks for the comment!
I think that there has been plenty of debating and the last couple have just turned into mud slinging. Lets get on with the show. Obama is still leading leading the delegate count as he gained 70 delegates yesterday. Hillary's winning margin was only 10% so she only picked up about 80, still putting Obama a head by just over 100 delegates.
I can see Hillary's position, how the two are so close and how she truly believes that she will make the best president, but I also can see how frustrating it is to democratic leaders. The are getting restless for this to end so that they can put forth a focused attack on John McCain.
Changing the subject slightly, I had a great comment from a new reader on my last post, challenging the candidates to balance a budget.
Ok, so your last challenge to the candidates regarding the $41,000 budget is already answered. Look at they say Obama's campaign has been run fiscally in comparison to Hillary's. It's night and day. Obama gets small donations and taps the well over and over again. I heard he has $41 million in cash right now! That's amazing discipline, management, and strategy that puts him such a better footing than ANY candidate. Hillary, like you said, is in the big time red. Obama should point to that mismanagement of funds and poor strategy. I think how the candidates serve as the Executive of their campaigns gives a big indication of how they would serve as an Executive of the Government
I thought this was an excellent comment and it makes perfect sense. Hillary started with a huge amount of money and her campaign is, according to reports, about $10 million in debt right now. Obama on the other hand, got thousands and thousands of small donations, $25, $50, probably even smaller than that. He has obviously management his money much better, because as was commented, he is running with about $41 million in cash right now. Although Hillary has advertised that she has pulled about $3 million in donations after last night, that is just a drop in the bucket toward her debt and toward what she will need to compete in the next couple of weeks. Who do you want handling your money? I think this example makes it perfectly clear. Thanks for the comment!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
How Do Your Taxes Compare?
Americans filed their tax returns last week, some with a groan as they wrote checks to Uncle Sam and others with gleeful laughter as they planned how to spend their refund. Even our three remaining candidates filed their returns and although their income was much higher than my own, thanks to tax laws, it is probably safe to say that they paid a smaller percentage of their income than you and I.
So, what did they report and how did they file?
John McCain, who has multiple income sources from his senator's salary, his Navy pension, and royalties from his books filed separately from his wife, reporting a total individual income of $405,409 for 2007.
Barack and Michelle Obama filed joint returns combining his senator's salary, book royalties, and her salary to report $4.2 million dollars of earnings.
Bill and Hillary report that while she does have a salary from being a senator and royalties from her books and Bill has his former Presidential Pension (did you know that we taxpayers pay a pension to former presidents and surviving first ladies for the rest of their lives?), the majority of their income came from Bill's speaking engagements. What was that income? Oh, just $20.4 million. Not bad for two kids from Arkansas.
I think that I have made it clear in previous posts that I have no problem with individuals making a good living or having money, I do wonder how these people who are wanting our votes, can relate to those of us living on a budget. Do gas prices really mean that much to Hillary and Bill? Do you think that they will stick around New York this summer instead of going on a big vacation because of the price of gas? Do you think that the Obama's are considering buying a cow if the price of milk goes up any more? What about John McCain? Do you think that he has researched going to Canada for medical treatment or prescriptions because of the rising cost of health care?
I think it would be a safe bet to say that the candidates have not had to think about changing their live style because of rising costs of gas, groceries, or medication. but these are just some of the items that are hitting middle class Americans hard. Can these three individuals really understand what life is like on $7 an hour?
Maybe we could test them to see how good they really are. Okay, Hillary, balance this budget: Yearly household income $41,000 (average middle class family income), come up under budget for the year. Make sure you include transportation, housing, utilities (think she even knows how much the average electric bill is?), child care, health care, and if there is anything else left you have to feed your family too. Once everything is balanced, remind her that Christmas is in December, tell her that the kid breaks his arm in June, the car needs repaired in September and just for fun, have the air conditioner break, oh, say, mid August. What do you do with that Johnny boy? How about it Barack, can you make a change I can believe in here?
So, what did they report and how did they file?
John McCain, who has multiple income sources from his senator's salary, his Navy pension, and royalties from his books filed separately from his wife, reporting a total individual income of $405,409 for 2007.
Barack and Michelle Obama filed joint returns combining his senator's salary, book royalties, and her salary to report $4.2 million dollars of earnings.
Bill and Hillary report that while she does have a salary from being a senator and royalties from her books and Bill has his former Presidential Pension (did you know that we taxpayers pay a pension to former presidents and surviving first ladies for the rest of their lives?), the majority of their income came from Bill's speaking engagements. What was that income? Oh, just $20.4 million. Not bad for two kids from Arkansas.
I think that I have made it clear in previous posts that I have no problem with individuals making a good living or having money, I do wonder how these people who are wanting our votes, can relate to those of us living on a budget. Do gas prices really mean that much to Hillary and Bill? Do you think that they will stick around New York this summer instead of going on a big vacation because of the price of gas? Do you think that the Obama's are considering buying a cow if the price of milk goes up any more? What about John McCain? Do you think that he has researched going to Canada for medical treatment or prescriptions because of the rising cost of health care?
I think it would be a safe bet to say that the candidates have not had to think about changing their live style because of rising costs of gas, groceries, or medication. but these are just some of the items that are hitting middle class Americans hard. Can these three individuals really understand what life is like on $7 an hour?
Maybe we could test them to see how good they really are. Okay, Hillary, balance this budget: Yearly household income $41,000 (average middle class family income), come up under budget for the year. Make sure you include transportation, housing, utilities (think she even knows how much the average electric bill is?), child care, health care, and if there is anything else left you have to feed your family too. Once everything is balanced, remind her that Christmas is in December, tell her that the kid breaks his arm in June, the car needs repaired in September and just for fun, have the air conditioner break, oh, say, mid August. What do you do with that Johnny boy? How about it Barack, can you make a change I can believe in here?
It Is All In The Numbers
Today could be the final day for the Clinton campaign. If Hillary does not pull a huge victory in the Pennsylvania primary, there will be a lot of pressure for her to end her presidential campaign. Here's the math.
Today's primary has 158 delegates up for grabs. Hillary must pull at least 65% of those delegates to even have a hope of staying in the race. While current polls are showing both Hillary and Obama almost dead even, there seems to be little hope for her to pull off a large enough Pennsylvania victory, one that would allow her to have a chance to continue.
She is also out of money. Right now her campaign is running in the red, and unless there is a landslide victory, there seems to be little chance that her supporters will contribute any more funds to continue.
But what will she do? She has avoided that question for days now. Will she back away from the spotlight and pledge her support to Barack Obama or will she fight to the end and hope that the super delegates will ultimately decide to have her run in November? It could be any body's guess at this point.
Many democratic leaders are growing restless and wanting this part of the process to end so they can unite in their strategy to defeat McCain in November. There is no denying that McCain defiantly has the upper hand at this point by being able to focus solely on the November's election rather than continue to fight in each state for the primary. If Hillary does loose today, there will be enormous pressure from her party to concede.
She did seem to lean toward supporting Obama at the last debate when asked if she thought Obama could beat McCain, she answered a definite, "yes, yes, yes, " without elaborating, We would have expected her to follow up with something along the lines of, "He could beat McCain, but so could I and I would make the better president...." or at least talk about her experience verses Obama's to deflect the question, but she didn't. She admitted to the party that she believed he could beat McCain. To some democrats that's all that matters - not who the candidate is, but if they can win in November.
Could Hillary let the parties interest overshadow her own and throw her full support behind an Obama run? That looks like the smart thing if she wants to hold on to any political respect that she has left from her party. I'll be watching in the morning, but I wouldn't count her out yet.
Today's primary has 158 delegates up for grabs. Hillary must pull at least 65% of those delegates to even have a hope of staying in the race. While current polls are showing both Hillary and Obama almost dead even, there seems to be little hope for her to pull off a large enough Pennsylvania victory, one that would allow her to have a chance to continue.
She is also out of money. Right now her campaign is running in the red, and unless there is a landslide victory, there seems to be little chance that her supporters will contribute any more funds to continue.
But what will she do? She has avoided that question for days now. Will she back away from the spotlight and pledge her support to Barack Obama or will she fight to the end and hope that the super delegates will ultimately decide to have her run in November? It could be any body's guess at this point.
Many democratic leaders are growing restless and wanting this part of the process to end so they can unite in their strategy to defeat McCain in November. There is no denying that McCain defiantly has the upper hand at this point by being able to focus solely on the November's election rather than continue to fight in each state for the primary. If Hillary does loose today, there will be enormous pressure from her party to concede.
She did seem to lean toward supporting Obama at the last debate when asked if she thought Obama could beat McCain, she answered a definite, "yes, yes, yes, " without elaborating, We would have expected her to follow up with something along the lines of, "He could beat McCain, but so could I and I would make the better president...." or at least talk about her experience verses Obama's to deflect the question, but she didn't. She admitted to the party that she believed he could beat McCain. To some democrats that's all that matters - not who the candidate is, but if they can win in November.
Could Hillary let the parties interest overshadow her own and throw her full support behind an Obama run? That looks like the smart thing if she wants to hold on to any political respect that she has left from her party. I'll be watching in the morning, but I wouldn't count her out yet.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Well, Actually They Can.......
I thought that I was done with this whole ACU drinking mess and I had decided to move on, no matter what new comment was in my in box, but I guess I am just in the mood to respond to this one.
"Who has the authority to tell us what and what not to do? It is not the Church nor the University. Only God can do this. If the Almighty came today and placed a prohibition on Christian drinking, I would change my stance in a heartbeat, and I hope ACU would too. However, we simply do not have the authority to put words in God's mouth, and it's a very good thing we don't."
Wow! I am sure that I have never said that anyone has the authority to put words in God's mouth and I know that in my blogs at least, I have not really gotten into what the Bible says about drinking. If you must know, I don't believe that the Bible has forbidden anyone to drink, but I do think that God warns against becoming drunk.
Now, on to the authority question. You obviously have only read one of my posts to make a comment like that. Such a "me generation" statement. Only God has the authority to tell you what you can and can't do? Yes, God has the ultimate authority, but, there are other's in our world with authority and this attitude is what is wrong with our society: "Nobody can tell me what to do! Blah, Blah, Blah."
First to address the University. ACU is a private university so yes, if you go to ACU, they can tell you what to do and what not to do. Upon acceptance to the university, every student signs paper work that basically says they understand the rules and will follow them. If a student does not like the rules or policies and does not feel that ACU has the "authority" to have guidelines and rules, they can go somewhere else.
The United States also has rules and guidelines called laws. They make society livable for all of us. If someone breaks a law, they are subject to punishment. Elected officials and law enforcement have the "authority" to tell us what we can and can't do. That is the way our country works. Again, if someone is not happy with the laws of the country, there are ways to work to change those or they are free to reside elsewhere where no one has "authority" over them. I believe that if I am going to reside in the United States, I am going to have to follow the laws or face the consequences. I, like probably 99.9% of all citizens, have on occasion, broken laws (don't worry dad, the only one I can think of is driving too fast), but that does not mean the occasional Highway Patrol Officer did not have the "authority" to correct me and punish me.
"If there is anything we can learn from ACU's decision, it is that we cannot cling to the traditions that detract from what we should really be discussing. Our message is not one of don't (don't drink, don't fight, etc.)it is a message of do (do believe, do be like Christ, do drink responsibly, etc.). The blog is right, we do need to "stand for something," but it does not give us the authority to "stand against something" for which we have no right to condemn in the first place."
I agree that there are a lot of "do's" that are important in Christianity, but I also believe that we have to address the "don'ts" or a lot of people will miss out on the whole truth. There are a whole lot of "don'ts" in the Bible, and God did not put those in to be overlooked or overshadowed, but because he loves us and he wants us to have a good life. A trend in religion has been to make everything happy and loving, and while God is a very loving God, he is also a just God and people have to understand that there are consequences, eternal ones, for sin and disobedience. I think you must have a balance. To tie this back in, God does not forbid alcohol, just drunkenness, but have you ever heard about the snowball rolling down the hill? I don't know many college students who had just a casual glass of wine with dinner. I know about a lot evenings that went like this: the wine led to the beer at the bar, which led to getting drunk, which led to ..........you fill in the blank.
Parents can understand that you have to keep a couple of steps in front of your kids. Put the child safety locks on the cabinets before the kid finds the knives, teach them not to go into the street before they can even walk, pre-act instead of having to react. I think that is what some of the rules at ACU are about. It would be ignorant to think that some college students would not experiment with alcohol. The rules that ACU had did not stop this, but the school took a stand, pre-acted to something they knew some of the students would try, and had consequences when students were caught.
".......the Christian institution cannot be a prison for students whose parents cannot trust them...."
The few times that I thought of ACU as a "prison" were the times when I was doing something wrong. It was simply me not being able to admit that I was in the wrong. ACU was the innocent party when I was looking for someone to blame besides myself. No, parents cannot send their kids to ACU expecting the school to police their every move, although I know families who did just that. Those kids found each other and did what they wanted to anyway, and a lot of them did not return for a second year. The school stood strong and did not back down due to political or society's pressure to change.
"ACU should not be a daycare for college students, it should be a place where the student is prepared to be the "light on a hill."
I could not agree with you more, but having rules and guidelines do not make the school a "daycare", they make it a safe, Christian environment, where students can developer and grow into Christian leaders.
You said you are a "former wildcat". My bet is you have either just graduated or are still at the school. I might have said the same thing 10 years ago.
"Who has the authority to tell us what and what not to do? It is not the Church nor the University. Only God can do this. If the Almighty came today and placed a prohibition on Christian drinking, I would change my stance in a heartbeat, and I hope ACU would too. However, we simply do not have the authority to put words in God's mouth, and it's a very good thing we don't."
Wow! I am sure that I have never said that anyone has the authority to put words in God's mouth and I know that in my blogs at least, I have not really gotten into what the Bible says about drinking. If you must know, I don't believe that the Bible has forbidden anyone to drink, but I do think that God warns against becoming drunk.
Now, on to the authority question. You obviously have only read one of my posts to make a comment like that. Such a "me generation" statement. Only God has the authority to tell you what you can and can't do? Yes, God has the ultimate authority, but, there are other's in our world with authority and this attitude is what is wrong with our society: "Nobody can tell me what to do! Blah, Blah, Blah."
First to address the University. ACU is a private university so yes, if you go to ACU, they can tell you what to do and what not to do. Upon acceptance to the university, every student signs paper work that basically says they understand the rules and will follow them. If a student does not like the rules or policies and does not feel that ACU has the "authority" to have guidelines and rules, they can go somewhere else.
The United States also has rules and guidelines called laws. They make society livable for all of us. If someone breaks a law, they are subject to punishment. Elected officials and law enforcement have the "authority" to tell us what we can and can't do. That is the way our country works. Again, if someone is not happy with the laws of the country, there are ways to work to change those or they are free to reside elsewhere where no one has "authority" over them. I believe that if I am going to reside in the United States, I am going to have to follow the laws or face the consequences. I, like probably 99.9% of all citizens, have on occasion, broken laws (don't worry dad, the only one I can think of is driving too fast), but that does not mean the occasional Highway Patrol Officer did not have the "authority" to correct me and punish me.
"If there is anything we can learn from ACU's decision, it is that we cannot cling to the traditions that detract from what we should really be discussing. Our message is not one of don't (don't drink, don't fight, etc.)it is a message of do (do believe, do be like Christ, do drink responsibly, etc.). The blog is right, we do need to "stand for something," but it does not give us the authority to "stand against something" for which we have no right to condemn in the first place."
I agree that there are a lot of "do's" that are important in Christianity, but I also believe that we have to address the "don'ts" or a lot of people will miss out on the whole truth. There are a whole lot of "don'ts" in the Bible, and God did not put those in to be overlooked or overshadowed, but because he loves us and he wants us to have a good life. A trend in religion has been to make everything happy and loving, and while God is a very loving God, he is also a just God and people have to understand that there are consequences, eternal ones, for sin and disobedience. I think you must have a balance. To tie this back in, God does not forbid alcohol, just drunkenness, but have you ever heard about the snowball rolling down the hill? I don't know many college students who had just a casual glass of wine with dinner. I know about a lot evenings that went like this: the wine led to the beer at the bar, which led to getting drunk, which led to ..........you fill in the blank.
Parents can understand that you have to keep a couple of steps in front of your kids. Put the child safety locks on the cabinets before the kid finds the knives, teach them not to go into the street before they can even walk, pre-act instead of having to react. I think that is what some of the rules at ACU are about. It would be ignorant to think that some college students would not experiment with alcohol. The rules that ACU had did not stop this, but the school took a stand, pre-acted to something they knew some of the students would try, and had consequences when students were caught.
".......the Christian institution cannot be a prison for students whose parents cannot trust them...."
The few times that I thought of ACU as a "prison" were the times when I was doing something wrong. It was simply me not being able to admit that I was in the wrong. ACU was the innocent party when I was looking for someone to blame besides myself. No, parents cannot send their kids to ACU expecting the school to police their every move, although I know families who did just that. Those kids found each other and did what they wanted to anyway, and a lot of them did not return for a second year. The school stood strong and did not back down due to political or society's pressure to change.
"ACU should not be a daycare for college students, it should be a place where the student is prepared to be the "light on a hill."
I could not agree with you more, but having rules and guidelines do not make the school a "daycare", they make it a safe, Christian environment, where students can developer and grow into Christian leaders.
You said you are a "former wildcat". My bet is you have either just graduated or are still at the school. I might have said the same thing 10 years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
