Sunday, April 06, 2008

Let's keep our eye on the ball, people

Frank Rich lays out the case against John McCain. All those Obama and Clinton supporters who say they won't vote for their opponent against McCain had better pay heed:

The difference between the Democrats and Mr. McCain going forward is clear enough: They want to find a way out of the morass, however provisional and imperfect, and he equates staying the disastrous course with patriotism. Mr. McCain’s doomed promise of military “victory” in Iraq is akin to Wile E. Coyote’s perpetual pursuit of the Road Runner, with much higher carnage. This isn’t patriotism. As the old saying goes, doing the same thing over and over again and hoping you’ll get a different result is the definition of insanity.

Labels: , ,

4 Comments:

Blogger elme said...

Why I will not vote for Obama:

1. Are we likely to get GOOD CHANGES in Energy policy from an Obama administration?

Answer: NO. Why Not?

Because: Obama voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill (H.R. 6) in 2005.

(which enabled the nuke industry to begin planning to build 29 new nukes (one of them in Pennsylvania)
- after 30 years of no new nukes being built because the banks wouldn't loan the money - too risky.

The Cheney Energy Bill solved that problem for the nuke industry by guaranteeing taxpayer payback of any of the nuke loans that default ... (with the risk of default rated by the Congressional Budget Office at 50% or greater).

Because: Obama has been IN with the nuke industry for decades. Excelon Corp. of Illinois is the largest nuke operator on earth - ( they own the nuclear power plants in Illinois and they own Con-Ed in NY state). Excelon has been one of Obama's largest contributors since his earliest days in politics.

Because: Obama would not even be IN the race for president IF he was not HEAVILY SUPPORTED by the nuke industry. GE (2nd largest corporation on the planet) & Westinghouse are planning to build many of those nukes.

GE owns NBC & MSNBC. Westinghouse owns CBS. That's the reason "the Mainstreams Media" are PUSHING Obama for President/ slamming & smearing the Clintons. ABSENT BILLIONS of dollars worth of FREE Pro-Obama Advertising/Propaganda provided by NBC/MSNBC/and CBS Obama would not have gotten past the New Hampshire primary.

2. Are we likely to get GOOD CHANGES in the ECONOMY?

Answer: It doesn't look good. Obama's financial advisors include the followng people:

JEFFREY LIEBMAN: SOCIAL SECURITY: In a 2005 policy paper Liebman advocated a mix of benefit cuts, tax increases and mandatory personal accounts.
DAVID CUTLER: HEALTHCARE: He Says High Health Care Costs are Good.
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: RICH GETTING RICHER, EVERYBODY ELSE GETTING POORER:
The stagnation of middle- and working-class incomes, and the anxiety this has generated, is, he says, a most pressing problem, but policymakers must be mindful about trying to address its root cause, which Goolsbee says is "radically increased returns to skill." ( i.e. College degrees are paying off more & more --- which is true, BUT Certainly DOES NOT account for the rise of the super rich, nor the increasing poverty of everyone else.)

(Evidently, Goolsbee's not old enough to remember the beginning of that Income Inequality, or to recognize THE CAUSE. It began in 1981. THE CAUSE of it was and is that Reagan cut the top tax rate DOWN from 70% to the low 30% s, AND Corporations all over America BEGAN instituting "THE TWO-TIER WAGE STRUCTURE'. i.e. Pay the people at the top a LOT MORE, Pay Everybody Else a LOT LESS. (If you searched old newspaper archives from the early 1980s you would find newspaper articles about the sudden appearance of the Two-Tier Wage Structure.)

3. Are we likely to get GOOD CHANGES in Foreign Policy?

Answer: Not Likely.

Among a dozen or so Foreign Policy Advisors the most "senior" advisor is:

Zbigniew Brzezinski. Former National Security Advisor to President Carter. Using the CIA & Billions of dollars, he ginned up a War in Afghanistan .... seeking as he said to "give the Soviet Union its own Vietnam.".

He Created the Taliban and Al Queda/ JIHAD/madrassa brainwashing schools for that purpose. Supported the dictator Pol Pol who massacred millions of Cambodian villagers. When asked, if in hindsight, considering that Al Queda eventually attacked America, and Pol Pot slaughtered millions - IF he would change anything he had done .... Zbig answered NO, he was satisfied with the results.

Electing Obama President is not likely to reassure the rest of the world that the U.S. is going to cease having an insane foreign policy; is likely to put Russia on an even more nervous hair trigger than they are now.

The major problem with Obama and his advisiors is they are ACADEMICS who have lived the life of privilege out of touch with the real world --- Better educated and smarter than Bush's gang --- they are still likely to do just as badly at running the government --- for the same reason: OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY ... i.e. insane....people doing insane things.

4. Are we likely to get GOOD CHANGES in: appointing competent qualified people to run the government; instead of cronyism, or good changes that get rid of fraud, payoffs, and corruption in government?
Answer: No.

Because: Obama's friend Rezko was part and parcel of the mafia connected, corrupt, Daley Chicago political machine. Rezko was Obama's chief fundraiser from the beginning of his career in Illinois politics to his election to the U.S. Senate. There is very little coverage of the Obama Rezko/Daley corruption connections on National TV, but the local Chicago papers have a lot of info going back several years ... & it don't look good for Obama.

For example, Obama wanted to buy a Chicago mansion that, as he says, he couldn't afford. The asking price was about $2.5 million. Wouldn't you expect rational people with GOOD Judgment to decide they could just "make do" with a $1 million mansion? (Obama's decision to buy the mansion he could not afford - smacks of greed.)

Obama did not decide to just "make do" with a $1 million mansion. As he says, he called up four or five friends, one of them being Rezko.

And then, Rezko's wife purchased a portion of the property ... the side yard ... of the mansion .... thus "facilitating" and making possible, but only coincidentally according to Obama, -his purchase of the house at a price he could afford.

Bright people with good judgment, since Rezko was at the time KNOWN to be under investigation by the FBI, would avoid having any financial dealings or entanglements with Rezko. Obama's house purchase, facilitated by money from Rezko's wife, did unquestionably create an appearance of CASH Benefit/PayOff from Rezko to Obama for Political Favors done.

Further questions are raised by the fact that Rezko reveived $3.5 million from Iraqi billionaire Auichi about 3 weeks before Obama/Rezko's wife made the purchases of the mansion and side yard. Auichi, Rezko, and Alasammarae, the Iraqi electricity minister, were engaged in a partnership to build a power plant in Iraq.

Auichi had already been convicted of fraud in France; & subsequent to the formation of the current government of Iraq - Alasammarare was convicted in an Iraqi court of plotting to loot Iraq's Electricity Ministry during his tenure as electricity minister when the Bush-appointed Coalition Provisional Authority presided over the wholesale looting of Iraq. Rezko is also accused of being Alasammarae's partner in the looting of the Iraq Electricity Ministry. Obama admits that he ... happened to be in the hotel ... when Rezko met with Auichi but doesn't remember individual people ... he may have met.

Much of the above is speculation. What I KNOW Obama HAS ALREADY DONE makes all the above doubts and questions irrelevant in answering the question:

Is Obama qualified to be, or likely to be, a GOOD President?

Answer: NO. He has already done something so unconscionable, so dirty, so dangerous that no sane American would even consider voting for him. HE played the race card.

Those accusations of racism against the Clintons did not come from any public "Outcry" on the part of black people all over the country - those accusations of racism came solely and directly from the Obama Campaign. Obama was caught red-handed pushing those accusations to the press - in a 4-page Internal Campaign Memo - Listing those accusations & directing them to the press. The Huffington Post obtained a copy & published it on the web.

Shortly thereafter, during one of the debates, Tim Russert (MSNBC) ..... while rustling a copy of the 4-page Memo in his hand .... asked Obama .... your campaign has been pushing accusations of racism to the press (rustles pages) .... in a 4-page campaign memo .... what do you have to say about that?

Obama mumbled a few sentences ....( people in both campaigns get carried away and say things they shouldn't have said ... blah) .... and .... then MSNBC/ the mainstream media .... never mentioned it again. Instead, MSNBC/NBC/CBS and all the rest of the mainstream CORPORATE-CONTROLLED media just went right on endlessly REPEATING the SAME totally ridiculous false accusations of "racism" against the Clintons.

Obama made those accusations of racism .... in order to win the South Carolina primary. Obama has continued to make accusations of racism ... every time .... he falls behind in the polls. The question is: What USE of RACISM / inter-racial strife would he NOT stoop to IF elected President.

Which brings us to the Question: Is it likely Obama will TRANSCEND race; Get Past the Politics of DIVISION; Unite the Country?

Given the DIVISION he has already created by making false accusations of racism - the answer is a resounding:
HELL NO!

Obama is the CORPORATE-CONTROLLED candidate being PUSHED by the CORPORATE-CONTROLLED Media.

Same Media that sold TOO MANY AMERICANS on Bush/Cheney. Same Media that SOLD U.S. a War.

8:41 PM

 
Blogger elme said...

Why I will Vote for Hillary Clinton:

1. ENERGY: We know we need to change to Cheaper, Cleaner, DE-Centralized/NOT Monopoly controlled Energy.

Clinton states that her Energy Plan does not include nuclear; nuclear can be considered ... in the future .... IF and when they find a way to MAKE IT CHEAPER and Find a way to safely dispose of nuclear waste.

(Obama and McCain have said they are Pro-Nuclear).

2. ECONOMY: The Clintons are the only candidates with ANY experience in TURNING an ECONOMY around before it slides into economic meltdown .... engendering unprecedented economic growth .... during the 1990's ...following Reagan/Bush 1's wholesale looting of the majority of the public and the public treasury.


3. FOREIGN POLICY: Returning the Clintons to the White House will Return the Rest of The World's Governments and Peoples to the SAME unprecedented High Level of Goodwill, RESPECT, and TRUST for the U.S. Government as they had during Bill Clinton's administration.

4. COMPETENT QUALIFED PEOPLE RUNNING THE GOVERNMENT:

Same as during Bill Clinton's administration.

5. REAL PUBLIC SERVANTS instead of cronyism, payoffs, corruption in Government.

The Clinton administration was investigated far more than any other entity in the history of the world.

Investigated by people who hated them AND desperately wanted to find a way to find them guilty of payoffs, corruption, SOMETHING, anything ..... Following 8 years and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investigations the Clintons were not found guilty of ANY KIND of political corruption --- (which practically makes them eligible for political Sainthood).

As best I can see the Clintons are the candidates being backed by the GOOD wealthy people. Bill Clinton has spent the past eight years .... promoting and expanding CHARITY - particularly among the rich.

When Clinton was president what kind of legislation did he manage to get passed- despite a Republican Controlled Congress?

Two Examples: The Family and Medical Leave Act .... for the benefit of ordinary American working class people, and the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. (The two most essential elements for life on this planet.)

Put the Clintons back in the White House WITH a Democrat-Controlled Congress AND the REAL CHANGES We the People Need CAN get made.

8:42 PM

 
Blogger Jonathan Potts said...

OK -- now make the case that McCain would be a better president than Obama. Because while I do support Obama, I will gladly vote for Clinton in the fall if she is the nominee. That's what this post was about.

8:45 PM

 
Blogger elme said...

No case for McCain being a bettr president than Obama. They are both the PRO-NUKE candidates of massively CORRUPT wealthy people/corporations.

BEFORE you vote for Obama ... GOOGLE: Rezko, Auichi, Alsamarae

There are plenty of INDICATIONS that Obama is part & parcel of the Massively Corrupt mafia-Connected Daley Chicago GANG, AND, is Connected, thru his friend Rezko, to MASSIVE .... INTERNATIONAL ... FRAUD involving Iraq, the French Oil Company ELF, Oil for Food ... on the part of BILLIONAIRES & Corrupt high level govt. Officials ALL OVER THE WORLD ... including oil in Africa:

SEE: Info at this website:

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2008/02/rezko-auchi-and-obama.html

p.s. Witness at the Rezko trial recently testified that Obama and his wife DID attend party for guest-of-honor Auichi at Rezko's mansion.

Next question: If Hillary's chief campaign fundraiser & Friend of 20 years, a member of her Senate Campaign Finance Committee - was on trial for bribery, fraud, extortion, & money laundering ---- WOULD the Mainstream media be COVERING it, or NOT?

2:50 AM

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home