Why do we care again???

I need someone to explain this to me again....

We have this war in Iraq that's costing us billions, a presidential election coming up, a collapsing financial industry, an economy in trouble.

Why do I care again where John Edward's penis goes? So he's a sanctimonious politician that is in denial. Again, who gives a shit? People have been getting laid way before there were Republicans, Democrats and news organizations and it is likely it'll be happening long after they are gone.

I was watching the news the other night when this story broke and the Anchor on ABC could barely contain her excitement.

I just don't care. What kind of revelation am I supposed to come to? Politicians don't care and hump everything and anything? Was the whole country born yesterday? The guy isn't playing any part in our national dialog anyway.

I do have one minor revelation from this; our media is less Republican or Democrat slanted than I had originally thought. In reality, the media is slanted to the most elegant crap they can dredge up and sell to sponsors. Again, the front of the National Inquirer is a great place for Larry Craig or John Edwards.

Maybe we can get back to issues that matter like why my kid's grade school needs a new roof and the local schoolboard is short cash for "capital improvements" (like a new roof).

Please, can we get back to picking a president that isn't a fucking idiot?

Marc

Krugman Hammers Obama Again

Noted economist and New York Times Op-Ed columist Paul Krugman keeps on hammering Barak Obama. A couple of weeks ago Krugman wrote that Obama used right wing talking points when he declared that there is a Social Security "crisis." Now, Krugman thinks that Obama is using the same tactics in the health care debate - using right wing rhetoric to buttress his health care plan, which Krugman thinks is sub-standard and not as desirable as the health care plans being offered by Obama's rivals Hillary Clinton and John Edwards:

I recently castigated Mr. Obama for adopting right-wing talking points about a
Social Security “crisis.” Now he’s echoing right-wing talking points on health
care.
What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama’s caution, his
reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a
relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his
speech announcing the plan, that “my plan begins by covering every American,” it didn’t — and he
shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true.
Now, in the
effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents
from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of
reform.

Is Obama the new Bill Clinton? By that I mean, is he trying to placate both sides on every issue? This could be. Remember, he invited an anti-gay singer-preacher on a recent campaign tour, even though he claims to be a strong supporter of gay rights. He can't have it both ways on all the issues.

PHOTO: Boat House Row on the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia. These boat houses serve as the headquarters for the "Schuylkill Navy," the rowing teams from the various local high schools and colleges.

Jim

A Great Night For The GOP???

That's how blogger Andrew Sullivan sums up last night's Democratic Party presidential debate at Drexel University here in Philadelphia. Here's his take:

The winner was clearly Edwards. He was concise, aggressive, completely right
about Clinton and always on point. He seemed unafraid to take her on, while Obama was still playing a too-careful defense. If I were to give an instant sum-up of the debate - and I'm a blogger so it's my job - it would be that Clinton's profound weakness as a general election candidate was pretty badly exposed. And the main alternative just about survived as a credible presidential candidate. In other words: a great night for the GOP.

I think that's pretty much accurate, although I think Senator Dodd also came across strongly, especially when he nailed Hillary for answering the same question on immigration, the now infamous "driver's licenses" question, two different ways in the same response. His poll numbers, though, are not good.

I think Obama comes across too meekly and too reserved. Edwards comes across as the trial lawyer that he is: very strong. Hillary was finally bloodied after two hours of pounding from Edwards, Dodd, and Obama. They nailed her on her high negatives - the "electability" issue, pointing out that she is the one Democratic candidate that could unite the Republicans against her.

Well, where do we go from here? Iowa will tell the story for the Democrats.

PHOTO: Happy Halloween! Our Jack 'O Lantern deisgned by Dan and carved by Jim

Jim

Democrats: The Iraq Occupation Will Continue

I share Marc's grave disappointment in the Democratic Party's leading presidential candidates (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards,) who will not pledge to end our occupation of Iraq. This is a national disgrace and a failure of leadership. It also raises the possibility of a third party anti-war candidate garnering substantial support, as Eugene McCarthy did in 1967 when a similar domestic political situation existed in regard to the Vietnam War. In that year, the leading Democratic Party candidate, Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, would not distance himself from Lyndon Johnson''s war policies. Richard Nixon was elected president pledging to end the war. It finally ended in defeat for the United States, but not until Nixon's second term. Is history set to repeat itself?

PHOTO: The "Co-ops" in the Fire Island Pines, an example of the poor planning in that community. Beachfront development has taken place seemingly with no regard to preserving the dunes, the only protection that barrier islands have from storms.

Jim

The Democrats On Gay Issues: The LOGO Forum

Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson, the top tier of Democratic Party presidential candidates, went on national TV last evening, on the LOGO gay network and on the Internet and tried to explain why they favor FULL EQUALITY for the gay and lesbian community but OPPOSE gay marriage. None of them succeeded in explaining this dichotomy. I think the explanation is simple: none of them have the COURAGE to LEAD and to TAKE A STAND in favor of full equality and equal justice for the gay community. They blew it, period.

The two long shot candidates, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, are fully supportive of gay marriage and full gay equality and said so unequivocally. The may not win the nomination, but they sure set the bar high for the other candidates.

Bill Richardson, in an answer to a question from Melissa Ethridge, said that being gay is a choice. He later "clarified" that in a statement, but the damage has been done. One wonders where is he coming from?

Obama had trouble answering when he was asked if he understood why gays and lesbians see civil unions as separate and unequal.

Edwards basically said that he personally opposed gay marriage but wouldn't say why, except that he admitted that he should not have said that his opposition was due to his faith. I have an idea: it's your residual homophobia, Mr. Edwards.

Ah, and finally, Mrs. Clinton, who was patronizing at times and stuck to her policy talking points throughout. If you want four more years of Clinton-like triangulation, betrayal, and lip service, then Hillary is your girl.

The questions from the panel were better than I expected. As I've indicated, the responses from the "big four" were too often disappointing.

Joe Solomese, the head of the Human Rights Campaign and one of those posing the questions on LOGO, summed up the forum pretty well:

"Tonight was an important night in the fight for equality for GLBT
Americans. We pulled the curtain back a bit and gave all Americans a deeper look
inside the candidates' core beliefs about the issues that affect our community.
From repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, supporting equal employment rights,
providing full funding for HIV/AIDS epidemic, to eliminating the Defense of
Marriage Act, these candidates went on record and committed to fighting for
equality in all sectors of our society. Unfortunately, we have more work to
do. The overwhelming majority of the candidates do not support marriage
equality. While we heard very strong commitments to civil unions and equality in
federal rights and benefits, their reasons for opposing equality in civil
marriage tonight became even less clear. Over the course of the presidential
campaign, we will continue to ask these questions and demand real answers from
the candidates who were appeared tonight-and from those who didn't show up. The
next president must be committed to not only doing what's achievable, but also
what's right."

I'm off to look for a third party candidate to support.

Jim

Photo: One of Dan's new paintings, on sale this weekend at the Pines Biennial Art Show

An Edwards Iowa Win Means What?

"Heavenly Blue" morning glories. This is one of my favorite flowers but one of the more difficult to cultivate into a fully blossoming plant. I've found that the best results are achieved by purchasing potted specimens rather than growing them from seed.

I'm listening to the political shows on TV this morning while I'm typing this morning's blog entry. Presidential politics is the hot topic. While HC and Obama are the main subjects, John Edwards is currently ahead in the very important Iowa Primary, and he could change the entire dynamic if he were to win Iowa. The team of political pundits on "Meet The Press" is putting a lot of emphasis on the win, place and show final outcome of the Iowa caucuses. Their analysis is helpful in understanding the Democratic primary process.

Jim

Gravel - An American Patriot

Former Senator Mike Gravel, who is running for president, was, at first, not invited to join the HRC/LOGO debate that will take place in August between most of the Democratic candidates for president. This is in spite of the fact (or maybe because of it) that Gravel fully supports gay equality. However, HRC changed its mind citing "an enthusiastic community response" and has now invited Gravel to appear in the debate. One can imagine the tone of the "enthusiastic community response" that HRC received!

Will Gravel win the nomination much less be elected president? No, he's a dark horse candidate with little money and therefore little chance of getting very far in the American political system, which is all about money and the power and influence that money can buy. This is "democracy" American style. One can only wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of the way our political system functions today. They were upper class Lockeans so perhaps they would not be all that upset with money-based politics. But I do not believe that they would be too happy with the corruption of our politics wrought by the influence of money over everything and everybody political.

We ought to be thankful that people like Mike Gravel are willing to enter the fray, speak truth to power, and thereby at least raise the level of discourse to a higher plane that would exist if he were not running. Here's an anecdote that illustrates what I mean. Ms. Clinton and John Edwards were overheard, taped I believe, chatting about the need to weed out the lesser candidates from future debates. It seems as though they would prefer not to have to have their positions juxtaposed with those of real progressives like Gravel and Kucinich. However, one astute observer, Craig Crawford, who writes for the Congressional Quarterly, thinks that Ms. Clinton was being disingenuous. Interviewed on the Today Show, Crawford thinks that Hillary would actually prefer to keep the less monied candidates in the debates. This is because she could then stick basically to her talking points instead of having to go into detail about her positions. The bottom line is that either way these power candidates really don't want to have to face the fire of or be compared to progressives like Gravel. They would prefer to either exclude the likes of Gravel and Kucinich, or allow them in but not have to respond in detail as to why their positions are not as progressive as the long shot candidates like Gravel. So, be glad for Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. It's thanks to them that we have any hope of forcing the politically mighty to say and do the right thing.

Jim