Indies Are Us

Stare Decisis

2008-06-27T07:11:00.003-05:00

Stare Decisis - "to stand by things decided", or in other words. To base decisions on what has come before. Stare Decisis, two words that Chief Justice John Roberts repeated his reverence for over and over during his Senate Confirmation Hearings .

This week, Stare Decisis took a decided turn for the worse with the decision in The District of Columbia v. Heller which declared the handgun ownership restrictions in the District of Columbia unconstitutional and for probably the first time "affirmed" the right of citizens to purchase and possess handguns. The last Supreme Court Case that dealt with this matter up front was a 1939 case , United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, where the court decided that the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only.

Gun rights advocates achieved an astounding victory with this weeks decision. The vote as is common with this court was split along ideological lines coming up 5-4 with Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy in the Majority.

Gun ownership to me is not a problem. I don't agree with Scalia's majority opinion or the conclusion that we have an inherent right to bear arms, but it's not that big of a deal to me. I do care if someone is careless with them to the point their kids shoot themselves or someone else. But this isn't a post about personal responsibility or the right to bear arms. It's about the Supreme Court and the upcoming presidential election.

The decision makes clear that this court is fairly balanced with respect to how decisions are rendered. Often times, the results of a vote on a case come out 5-4, with Anthony Kennedy being the typical swing vote. In most of the major cases decided by the Roberts Court, 5-4 decisions seem to be the rule and not the exception.

OK, so what's the big deal? Well, if you are a conservative and like conservative judges who are "activist" judges, then not much. Don't believe all the BS about conservative judges being 'strict constructionists". They are only strict constructionists when they want to find against something they disagree with and claim that the constitution doesn't provide a right for whatever it is, whether it's privacy, civil rights, whatever. However, if you don't like "activist judges", and respect the notion of Stare Decisis, then this should bother you. But, we know that like most peoople judges most of the time vote their perspective and not for precedent unless it supports their opinion. Very few judges have the principled approach of respecting precedent if they disagree with the precedent. It's not unusual, it's human nature.

Anyway, if you are a liberal like me, you now know that the Roberts Court is and will be actively engaged for years to come. The Conservative wing of the party, particularly Roberts and Alito, are young and will likely be on the court for many years. John Paul Stevens is 88 years old, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in her late 70's, David Souter is becoming more disenchanted with the court and has made noises about retiring for some time. So, within this next presidency, there is an opportunity for 3 positions to open up on the court. That concerns me if John McCain is president. His commitment to appoint judges in the mode of Alito, Scalia and Roberts would guarantee a right wing ideology would permeate the court's decisions for many years to come.

If you are conservative then you welcome this. Roe v. Wade would likely be overturned on the first challenge presented to a new court with a 7-2 swing toward the right.

If you are a liberal, then you need to be like me and be very concerned and work very hard to get Barack Obama elected president.

Oh, and by the way, the notion of "Stare Decisis" having influence on the Roberts Court? I think it will only if it suits their purpose. Other wise, it's just a Latin phrase nobody knows much about.

Tell me what you think.

Regards,

Dennis

The "Media"

2008-06-16T06:58:00.002-05:00

As probably anybody who follows politics knows, last Friday, Tim Russert, long-time host of the Sunday talk program "Meet The Press" died of a massive heart attack. Mr. Russert had been the host of the venerable program since 1991, and by all evidence coming in from friends, competitors and politicians who sat across the table from him on Sunday morning, he was a well regarded and well respected man.

His passing and the subsequent tributes from friend and foe alike got me thinking about our news media today. In my early years (1960's and 1970's), there were very few media people that were well know. The major networks each had their news bureaus. CBS had Cronkite, NBC had Huntley and Brinkley, ABC had Peter Jennings, Howard K. Smith and Harry Reasoner. Most of the local affiliates had popular anchors, but the point is there were very few. Newspapers provided the majority of opinion related content. Most editorials, either local in nature or syndicated columnists provided a perspective on events that were then "talked" about by family and friends.

Today, with the advent of the Internet and Cable and Satellite television, there is a never ending stream of content available. This is both good and bad in my estimation. It's good because opinion from every point of view is readily available. It's good because at the touch of a button, we can read, see and hear what others in the world think. It's good because it allows one greater opportunity for learning.

It's also a bad thing. The reason I say this is because people rarely talk about issues like they used to. I think the easy access and nature of the media today keeps people tuned in and out of touch with their relatives, neighbors, friends, etc. When I was a kid, our conservative commentator was the guy that lived across the street from us. He listened and read William Buckley and William Safire and then provided color commentary ala Rush Limbaugh. My Uncle was our Chris Matthews in that he liked to be bombastic and talk over every one to make his point. My point is, and perhaps its just nostalgia and the fact that our families are different today, that we don't spend much time with our own Sunday round tables. While Mr. Russert and his compadres on the Sunday morning circuit (My favorite is "This Week") will provide a high degree of quality information and multiple perspectives, it's not the same as arguing about a policy in Viet Nam with my Dad, or discussing a political campaign with my best friend.

Look, the media is a valuable thing depending upon how one uses it. I'm resolving to reboot my own internal "Meet the Press" with my family. So my kids need to look out: Next Sunday, at lunch, I'll honor Mr. Russert's opening line on Meet the Press and say :"Our Issues This Sunday are....."

RIP Mr. Russert

regards,

Dennis

Thank You Justice Kennedy

2008-06-13T08:23:00.006-05:00

Ever so often, just when I feel like this country's government has spun completely out of control, something happens that restores my faith in our system. One such event happened yesterday with the Supreme Court ruling on a 5-4 majority that the detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have an inherent constitutional right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.The ruling was 5-4, with the majority votes coming from Justices Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens, Breyer and Kennedy.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority said the following: "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the case known as Boumediene v. Bush. "To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, say 'what the law is,' " Kennedy added.

Indeed and well spoken Justice Kennedy. We are by establisment a nation governed by the rule of law. Even in extraordinary circumstances, which I submit we are not in, the rule of law should take precedence over any single individual's opinion, directive or policy.

The Bush administration expectedly indicated their dissapointment with the ruling with the president saying that "He would abide by the ruling even though he disagreed with it." He also stated that he may seek legislative remedy to the court's decision. Fine, so be it. Mr. President, you have seemingly forgot that you are sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution. That is your sworn duty, pledged in front of the American people and to the God you so often invoke. You have for the sake of "security", whittled away at the constitutional checks and balances that men much smarter than you, me and many others carefully constructed to keep tyranny at bay. However, the administration's response is not surprising. This is after all an administration who's leader proclaimed the Constution as "Just a Goddamn piece of Paper".

More dissapointing however is the response, written for posterity one of the dissenting opinions by Justice Antonin Scalia, the conservative bulwark of the right-wing component of the Court. Justice Scalia said: "that the Boumedienne ruling "will almost certainly cause more Americans to get killed." Scalia warned, "The nation will live to regret what the court has done today."

Really? Will we regret upholding the rule of law? Even if, for some completely obtuse reasoning I don't understand, restoring the writ of habeus corpus may in some form or fashion wind up causing the death of an American, which seems completely ridiculous to me, do we not have a responsibility to stay true to the law? Do we have carte blanche then to violate or ignore every legal tenet on which we've built the nation? If we decide tomorrow that the President must have the ability to wage war or attack another country because of the fear of a perceived threat that he or she no longer have to get authorization from Congress in order to attack, is this simply OK?

I think not. Attributed to Benjamin Franklin, and I think very germane to this discussion is this quote: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither". I believe it sums up the point I am trying to make very well. We were given the gift of a Constitution developed by men who had lived under the heavy yoke of tyranny and lack of self-determination.

The genius of our "National Experiment" as George Washington termed our newly formed government, is that it was constructed to adapt and to sustain itself as long as we stay true to the principles by which it was established. The checks and balances developed by the founders was one of the greatest gifts a people could receive. It will provide us with a wall of security that tyrants and demagouge's will not be able to penetrate. That is if we as the people who consent to be governed are wise enough to keep it.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,

Dennis

Best President Since Dennis Was Born Poll Results

2008-06-13T08:20:00.001-05:00

Well, the results are in. The poll for determining the Best President since Dennis was born (1959) has determined William Jefferson Clinton was the best. The rankings in order of most to least votes attained are:
1. Bill Clinton with 5 votes
2. (Tie) - George W. Bush and John F. Kennedy each with 4 voes
4. Ronald Reagan with 3 votes
5. Dwight Eisenhower with 1 vote
6. (Tie) - Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush each with 0 votes.
Thanks to all who participated the poll, and keep looking for additional surveys and polls coming soon.
Dennis

Bush's Legacy

2008-06-09T06:52:00.003-05:00

For some time now, there has been a claim floating around the blogs, the newspapers, and even the press room in the White House that the Bush administration was planning on establishing "permanent military bases" in Iraq. Some said 4. Some said 6. Some said 14. Regardless of the number, the Bush talking heads, whether it was Ari Fleischer, Scott McClellen, Tony Snow, or now Dana Perino have always tap-danced around the question of whether or not we are planning to stay indefinitely.

Even the president waffles on the subject. He says "we'll stay as long as necessary". What the hell does that mean? Well, now we may have a clue that we are indeed planning on a long-term stay. A story reported in the Independent, one of the United Kingdom's leading news-papers has revealed that the Bush administration is working on a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), with the Iraqi government and planning on getting agreement with the Iraqis prior to the expiration of United Nations Mandate that authorizes US presence which ends in July of this year.

What does this agreement do? Well, according to the article, it plans on 50 military bases being established in the Iraqi country and a force strength of between 60 and 130 thousand troops present in the country indefinitely. That's not all. The agreement calls for immunity for US troops and contractors (read: Blackwater, etc) from Iraqi Law. It calls for the free entry and exit of US troops and other personnel from Iraqi territory without having to disclose to the Iraqi government what the US is doing. It also calls for total control of airspace to 29,000 feet to allow for continued combat actions in the "war on terror". It also allows for US troops to arrest any Iraqi at any time without consultation with the Iraqi government.

The Shiite leadership is against such a deal, the Sunnis and Kurds seem to be interested in it as they believe they need US support indefinitely. The Maliki government is caught between needing US support for their legitimacy, and the growing distrust and unrest by the rest of the Shia's especially those aligned with the Muslim cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr.

The US has some leverage on this deal, as it currently holds about $50bn of Iraqi funds in the US Federal reserve bank and will likely use the release of those funds as a carrot to sign the deal. Additionally, a UN sanction dating back to the first Gulf War still defines Iraq as a threat to international security under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. The US price for getting this sanction removed: Sign the agreement.

I don't know about you, but this smacks of extortion. It seems to me if the Bush Administration really believed in self-determination and sovereignty of the Iraqi people, he'd agree to this agreement being part of a referendum voted on by the Iraqis themselves. He doesn't. This agreement, if signed by the Iraqis is one of the most blatant acts of imperialism conducted by the United States since the occupation of the Philippines after the Spanish-American war.

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. Boys and Girls, now that the noise level of the presidential primary season has passed, perhaps we can pay attention to what the current occupant of the White House is doing in our name. I'm not in favor of this agreement. Tell me what you think.

Regards,

Dennis

Bravo, Mr. Obama

2008-06-04T06:17:00.004-05:00

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'" - August 28, 1963. Location: Steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Speaker: Dr. Martin Luther King.

I was born in 1959 and raised in Texas. While not the deep South, our attitudes on race, culture and politics were close cousins of Alabama and Mississippi. I grew up in a culture of intolerance and prejudice. I heard not only were blacks less capable than whites, Mexicans, or rather the favored pejorative "wetbacks" weren't worth much consideration either.

Fortunately, and I owe this to my parents, racism and prejudice were not tolerated in my home. As devout Christians, my parents never allowed my brother or I to think less of someone because of their skin color. It was a lesson and principle that I honor them for.

I write this because it has been within my life-time that lynchings have occurred. I write this beause it has been within my life-time that blacks were not allowed to use the same toilets as I or eat in the same restaurants as me and my parents. I write this because last night we have seen a historic turn in the tide and cycle of the American experience and I believe we are moving ever closer to Dr. King's words at the head of this post.

During my life-time, several historic events have occurred. Some, like the Apollo program that landed a man on the moon in 1969 were almost miraculous. I truly believe that if Barack Obama wins the presidency in November of this year, that event will be very close to the top of the list.

The race for the nomination has been clouded by pundits, endless noise and more 24x7 cable shows than we can count and most of them have been focused on the sound-bite, the pastor issues, the "Obama/Osama" issue, the "Is he Muslim or is he Christian?" nonsense.

People, think hard for a minute. Not only has this man effectively captured the nomination of the Democratic Party to be president after only serving in the US Senate for 1 term. Not only has he done so at the tender age of 46 (Only, JFK and Bill Clinton, U.S. Grant were nominated at such young ages). He is black. Well, he is of mixed race, but by and large he is considered the first African American to have gotten to this point. I can't say he has won the nomination, because first of all, Senator Clinton has not conceded and who the hell knows what might happen between now and the nominating convention in August. However, for all intents and purposes, Barack Obama will be the candidate of the Democrats running against Senator John McCain. This is a monumental moment in the short history of the United States. It is a remarkable turn of events for our nation and it truly gives me hope that America will be brought closer together as a result of this (as Lincoln said) "by the better Angels of our nature".

Bravo Senator Obama, Dr. King would be very proud of this moment. I know I am.

Tell me what you think,

regards,

Dennis

Never Forget What Not Paying Attention Costs

2008-05-16T09:14:00.003-05:00

Well, we are almost at a point where we have two candidates for the presidential election in November. While the Democratic Primary play winds up it's last act and it looks as if the Jr. Senator from Illinois will be the nominee against John McCain, it's appropriate to take a short rest from the campaign activities and reflect on what has happened over the last 7+ years.

I was moved to write this article because of something our current Commander in Chief said in an interview on Tuesday that he decided to stop playing golf in 2003 because of the war. The sheer stupidity of this statement got me thinking about the presidency of George Walker Bush.

It is no secret to my readers (all 5 - 10 of them) that I do not like Mr. Bush. To me, it was a tragedy for America that he was elected. I felt it then, and I've not changed my opinion. However, many people voted for the man, found something in him they liked and respected, and believed he was the best choice of those available to lead our country. I'll never understand what they saw in him, but will acknowledge the fact that this country elected him president twice.

The irony to me is rich. This is a man who ran on the notion of bringing "honor and integrity" back to the White House. He would be the CEO president, running the administration like a finely-tuned business. After all, he was a businessman before he was a politician. He has an MBA from Harvard Business School and is a graduate of Yale. He was in the oil business and the managing partner of the Texas Rangers professional baseball team. As governor of Texas, he was able to reach across the aisle and work with the Democratic Lt. Governor, Bill Hobby.

The resume looks good. So, why the absolute catastrophe as president? This should have been easy. It should have been, according to the advertisement of the man an efficient, ruthlessly effective government that shrunk the role of government over time and provided more freedom for the people at large.

What happened? OK, 9/11 is an easy answer. We all heard that this changed the world forever. We were told that nothing will be the same ever again. I don't think this is the reason. I think the reason is massive incompetence and malfeasance.

First and foremost, this government has been one of the most ill-conceived and structured administrations in recent history. Cabinet official after Cabinet official have come and gone. After the war in Iraq, the commanders of the armed forces have turned over like pancakes on a griddle. Mr. Bush has one rule and one rule only for remaining in his government. Absolute loyalty. Any questioning of policy, decision or thought results in removal. Don't believe me? Ask Paul O'Neill, Colin Powell, Ricardo Sanchez, Peter Pace, and on and on and on. Cronyism was and maybe still is rampant in the administration. Harriet Meirs? Alberto Gonzales? Please. These people were imminently unqualified for their positions and Bush tried to get Meirs appointed to the United States Supreme Court for Pete's sake.

The malfeasance thing is more troubling to me. Secrecy, overstepping of privilege and authority, blatant disregard of the law. All of these are attributes of the Bush Administration. How did it come to this? Why do we, the American People, the engine of the greatest democracy in the world allow this to happen and continue? Well, perhaps we're spending too much time worrying about what Britney Spears is or isn't wearing when she goes out. Perhaps we're more concerned with a sex-scandal for the governor of New York (or New Jersey). Perhaps it's just we're exhausted, don't give a damn anymore and just aren't paying attention. We're paying an enormous cost because we can't seem to be bothered by what's going on around us. How will we explain this to our kids and grand kids? It's both embarrassing and shameful what we've done. Not only have we elected probably the worst president in the history of worst presidents, we did it twice and don't seem to care. There is a poll on this blog that asks the question of who has been the best president since 1959 (when I was born). Shockingly, as of today, 4 of the 12 who've voted (33% overall) have said George W. Bush has been the best. I am quite astonished after all we've been through with this guy.

For your reading pleasure, I'd like to list a few events that have occurred on his watch and have occurred either as a direct decision of his administration or his lack of action in order to prevent it.

1. 9/11 - Well before the towers came down, Richard Clarke, the chief of counter terrorism on the National Security Council when 9/11 occurred attempted many times to get the administration to pay attention to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, even going so far to apprise National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice about an plan to crash airplanes into buildings in the United States. On August 6, 2001, the President was given his daily security briefing which indicated the plan mentioned above that Bin Laden was determined to attack the United States. The resulting failure to act or even pay attention now has us mired in a war that has been going on longer than World War II.

2. The Invasion of Iraq in 2003 - Despite lack of credible evidence. Despite of pleas from the International Community to wait. Despite information from Hans Blix, chief weapons inspector on the ground in Iraq prior to the invasion, George W. Bush approved the invasion and occupation of Iraq. We now know with almost absolute certainty, that the information used to justify the invasion was false. We know that well before the invasion (summer of 2002, according to the Downing Street memo) that the US had plans to invade Iraq. We know that after 9/11, the president, his Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, and his Vice-President, Dick Cheney were making every effort to tie the attacks in some way to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. We know all of this has led to the deaths of over 4,000 US Soldiers and countless Iraqis. We know that the economic situation in our country has been hurt by the billions of dollars spent on the Iraq war. We know this is the largest fuck-up in US history.

3. The torturing of detainees - Rendition, black operation prisons in Romania, Guantanamo bay, water boarding, Abu Ghraib, Egypt, and on and on and on. Perhaps one of the more insidious gifts George Bush and his cronies have left us is the enormous black spot on the integrity of this country. Bush, Cheney, and many others in his administration are willing advocates of the use of torture. How low have we sunk when this has become US policy? In World War II, we executed Japanese officials for their use of torture against US soldiers. We have consistently decried this as a crime. Until now. There is no debate, we torture people. The United States of America tortures people. Thanks to George Walker Bush.

4. Complete and utter failure to manage the disaster aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Remember "Heckuva Job Brownie"? The Bush administration's FEMA team was the equivalent of the Three Stooges. They couldn't do anything right. The visual of the thousands of people (mostly poor black people) standing at the Superdome for days waiting for assistance is hard to erase. The lack of coordinated response by FEMA was a national embarrassment. While the Bush administration attempted to blame the problems on Kathleen Blanco and Ray Nagin, the Governor of Louisiana and Mayor of New Orleans respectively, it is clear that they could have done much more to alleviate the pain and suffering of the victims of this disaster. This single event is perhaps for me the summation of the Bush Administration's legacy. Incompetence run amok.

There are literally hundreds of web-sites listing hundreds of Bush administration scandals and they are so numerous it is almost laughable if it wasn't so sad. Google up Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby, Walter Reed, Signing Statements, Wiretapping, Jack Abramoff, John Bolton, etc. etc. etc. and you will see what I mean.

I hope the last 7 years have taught us one thing. Those that don't pay attention are doomed to the consequences of decisions by the few. Get active, Get informed, Get concerned.

Tell me what you think.

Regards,

Dennis

28% Approval

2008-05-02T06:13:00.003-05:00

Gallup's latest poll on George Bush's job approval is registering at 28%. The president has not seen his approval rating in the majority side of the ledger since December of 2005. Polling Point.com, a register of major poll results has a terrific table that shows presidential approval ratings since early 2005.

OK, so the president is unpopular. This is certainly not news. As the polls show, less than half the people polled believe he is doing a good job. He doesn't have a lot going for him right now. Continued violence in Iraq, an economy that is suspect, food and fuel prices soaring, and a general lack of confidence from the American people in government have contributed to the low numbers. He also has not helped himself, because in spite of all evidence to the contrary he and his administration continues to pursue a course of leadership that is more and more secretive, more accumulating of executive power, and more ignoring of the will of the people.

The arrogance of this administration is staggering to me. Bush, Cheney, Rice and the other key players in the executive branch have consistently maintained they are right and every other person is wrong.

When the dust settles on this administration and the historians write their perspectives about George W. Bush, he is hoping he'll be considered differently than the conventional opinion of him held today as a poor performing president. His belief is that over time, historians will view his decisions on the "War Against Terror" as correct policy. He would like to be the next Harry Truman, another president who was vilified while in office, but after leaving office gained respect and admiration from the American people. That's his goal. I hope somehow he achieves it, but in all candor, I can't possibly recall a worse president in my life-time. Certainly economic times have been worse (1970's under Ford and Carter). Certainly we've had presidents who were of incredibly bad personal character (Nixon, Clinton). Certainly we've had presidents who got us embroiled or escalated America in an unnecessary and tragic war (Johnson, Nixon). But George W. Bush to me is the entire package. Almost nothing the man has done in office has had a positive impact on the country overall. His tax cuts stimulated the economy, so if you benefited from that, then certainly credit him for that achievement. I think the tax cut did more harm than good, and the consequences of that decision will affect this country for a long time to come. The economic policies supporting the energy companies have been terrific for the oil companies, but it's been a negative impact to consumers overall.

I was biased against George W. Bush from the beginning. I lived with him as the governor of Texas prior to his election to the White House, so I was already of the opinion this was an empty suit before his election. I know I'm biased, but I do believe he is the worst president in my life-time, and I've been alive since Eisenhower was president. Check out the poll and give me your views on who has been the best president since 1959, which was the year I was born.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,

Dennis

Circus Maximus

2008-04-25T06:34:00.002-05:00

"Media Jumps Ship From Obama" is the gigantic headline this morning on one of my favorite Political Blogs: The Huffington Post. While becoming much more like "The Sun" newspaper in the UK (lots of tawdry pictures of young actresses. But no page 3 girls. Yet.). Anyway, I digress. After the butt-whooping Obama received from Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, the media, who once had anointed Barack Obama as a cross-between Jackie Robinson, and JFK, have started to run away from the Illinois Senator as if he was infectious.

Yes, he did lose big in Pennsylvania. Yes, it was a drop-the-trousers heinie spanking by 10% points for the front-runner. It seems to be a pattern with this campaign that just about the time it seems Obama is going to close this out, Mrs. Clinton comes along and says "Not just yet". But the media has taken this as a queue that Obama is a loser. He's George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, Fritz Mondale, etc. etc. etc. He can't win the big one. He can't close the deal. As someone once said: "Yadda Yadda Yadda".

Ok, my question is so what? This is after all a political campaign, and there are many states (almost 10) who have not voted yet. It seems reasonable to me that people should be allowed to vote and choose their candidate. I'm one of the few who think we should have a one day national primary (with run-offs if no clear majority wins) where everyone picks their favorite candidate. It will never happen because of the money involved. No candidate will raise enough funds for one shot.

But, back to the media. What an enormous pile of wasted space this "4th estate" has become. The cable news channels (CNN, MSNBC, FOX) as well as the networks have turned this into one giant, seemingly never ending circus where they beat the same old horses to death. Want proof? The last Democratic debate moderated by ABC, where the usually solid Charlie Gibson and George Stephanoupolus asked questions like "Senator Obama, Do you think Reverend Wright loves the United States as much as you do?" Aw, come on George. You are better than that aren't you? Wouldn't we be better served by asking questions about say, How would you get us out of Iraq? Or, how would you deal with the current fuel and food issues facing us today? Or perhaps, What's your plan on Healthcare? Instead, they ask questions about a preacher, ask questions about a lapel pin (a freaking lapel pin for God's sake!) and why Obama won't wear one.

Of course, they have a right to ask these questions. If this is what the American People are that concerned about and have written thousands of letters telling the media this is what they want to know, then fine. I don't think it is however. I think it's the media continuing to stir the pot so the talking heads continually have something to talk about. One of the cable news networks I regularly watch is MNSBC. I enjoy Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Dan Abrams shows a lot. However, they have (as many of the others) reduced this down to "can Obama reach the common man?" "Is he too elitist to win?" "Will pastor Wright's comments cost Obama the white blue-collar vote?" And on and on and on.

I don't think most of us give a rat's behind about those topics, but with 24 hour news channels bleating away with this refuse all the time, it's hard not to start thinking about it.

I believe most of us are concerned about the economy, health care, this never ending cycle of violence we seem to have initiated in Iraq. What do you think?

Regards,
Dennis

April 4th, and Heroes

2008-04-13T08:24:00.004-05:00

April 4th is a day of reflection for me. I know, it's April 13th today, but I was busy and didn't have time to post. So sue me.

April 4th is the day that two very important people in my life died. The first I didn't know personally, but is someone whose life history had a profound impact on my view of how people can work together. His name was Martin Luther King. Dr. King, as everyone who has gone to school knows was an iconic figure of the 1950's and 1960's responsible for moving the cause of civil rights forward. Killed in 1968, he died doing what he did best: working for the common man. He was shot in Memphis while working with local garbage collectors who were on strike for better wages.

King was a memorable figure for me because of his view towards non-violence as a way of protesting and solving conflict. King, Gandhi and the other fellow I'll tell you about in a moment all had a point of view that violence only begets other violence. The idea that you could work through your problems rather than fight about them was a central theme in the philosophies of these men. This has had a profound impact on my world-view.

Dr. King was not only a voice for civil rights, he was also a voice for America in that he wasn't a blind patriot in the mode of Dick Cheney or George Bush. He loved America like one loves their children. Praise them when they do well, rebuke them when they need it. His speech at the Riverside Church (pastored by another of my heroes: Rev. William Sloan Coffin) is as relevant today as it was when he made it in 1967. One excerpt from that speech is timeless. Simply substitute the word Southeast Asia for Viet Nam, add in Latinos and see what I mean:

"Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. And so we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. And so we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor."

Dr. King was as right now as he was then. I see no difference in the futility of purpose of Viet Nam and Iraq.

The other fellow I mentioned above is my Dad. He died on April 4, 2004. He was a cancer victim and passed away at age 79. My Dad was as heroic and impactful to me as King, John Kennedy, Mickey Mantle, etc. etc.

Sam Sherrard, or S.C. as his friends called him was a working man. He was in the grocery business for about 45 years. Anyone who has worked in this field knows of the long hours, back-breaking work and minimal pay that it brings.

Self educated, he was the first of his family to finish high school. After completing his military service in World War II, he came home and decided to go to work rather than college. The mythology I grew up with said he went to work because his family was effectively destitute and he had to support his mother, father and "no-account" brothers. The reality that I learned later in life from him personally was he was "too frightened" to go to college. So, he took what he considered the easy way out and went to work. I find deep irony in this. Here was a man, who at the age of 18 was drafted and sent into the bloodiest war in history, and after surviving that, comes home and is too afraid to try college. He takes the "easy" way out by deciding to work in a field that pays very little and requires a lifetime of hard labor.

However, he read voraciously. He had an immense vocabulary and became a self-taught historian, particularly regarding the Civil War and World War II. The conversations he and I had later in both of our lives was as valuable to me as gold bullion.

What's heroic about my Dad is that he lived his life without a lot of complaint. Oh, he was distrustful of the rich, as most non-rich people are, but I never heard him complain about his life decisions. He sucked it up and made the best of it. He loved his work. He taught my brother and I simple lessons: Integrity is of paramount importance. Always give a dollar's value for a dollar's pay. Be faithful to your friends, your loved ones and your family. Stand up for what you believe.

Pretty simple stuff. Pretty courageous stuff. I miss him a lot.

Same Old Song

2008-04-09T05:06:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee to report on the state of affairs in Iraq. In eight hours of testimony, questions, political pontification and posturing, the net of the conversation is this: We've made substantial but fragile progress. Some political progress has been made along with the diminution of violence that has occurred in the last year. The General reported that violence had significantly subsided since the surge began and they were seeing positive results since the last report to Congress in September of 2007.

OK, on its face, this is good news. Anytime violence is down is good news. Anytime political progress is made it is good news. What's troubling in the General and Ambassador's testimony is the revelation that the progress is so fragile that we must pause troop withdrawals. According to the testimony, General Petraeus believes that we must maintain the current levels in Iraq or face an increase in violence and a loss of some of the progress that has been achieved. The Armed Services Committee was not pleased with this and many members, republicans and democrats alike voiced their displeasure.

I believe, based on why I've seen and what I've read that both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are decent, competent and honorable men. There is little denying that progress has indeed been made. The frustration I feel about this isn't directed at them, they are doing their jobs and by all accounts doing them pretty well. The frustration I feel is directed at the president, republican presidential candidate John McCain, Senator Joe Lieberman, and the rest of the pro-occupation/pro-war crowd that this is now normalcy. We've all heard Senator McCain say they it would be OK with him if troops were in Iraq for 100 years. While some people believe this is OK, citing the Japanese, Korean and German models as evidence of US troops in other sovereign nations as being a "good thing", I find it just about bat-shit crazy.

Military alliances are one thing. I believe in them. They make us more secure. I do not believe in permanent military presence in foreign countries. This is fertilizer for resentment, bad behavior and breeds violent actions such as the current situation in the middle east. We've been kicked out of the Philippines and Saudi Arabia, and we saw massive protests in the 1980's at our military bases in Europe and the United Kingdom. The value of having forward military installations has waned since the fall of the Soviet Union. George Kennard's policy of containment worked with the Russians, it will not with Islamic theocracies.

Who knows how long this circle jerk will continue? Meanwhile, there are over 4,000 US soldiers dead and countless Iraqis dead or homeless. It is time to end this tired, old song.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

Rampant Hypocrisy

2008-03-23T18:50:00.002-05:00

Within the last week, Senator Barack Obama has been forced to explain his relationship with his pastor of 20 years, Dr. Jeremiah Wright. Dr. Wright, now retired, has been the pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for over 30 years. During that time, he became close enough to Senator Obama to perform his marriage to Michelle and to baptize his two children.

The controversy bubbled to the surface for basically two reasons. One, Jeremiah Wright said some pretty incendiary things, such as the government was responsible for AIDs in the black community, and that instead of "God Bless America", it's really "God Damn America". The second is that this is the pastor of a leading candidate for the presidency. Had Obama still been a state senator in Illinois, this would never have made the Chicago papers, let alone U-Tube and the endless stream of talking head morons (yeah you Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson).

Ok, he shouldn't have said that the government is the cause of AIDs in the black community. Dumb. However, the "God Damn America" was taken way out of context in that the pastor was paraphrasing US Ambassador Edward Peck.

Nonetheless, the damage is done. Obama is being eviscerated in the press and in the blogosphere for not leaving Wright's church and making a more strident condemnation of Wright's message. Forget the facts that Wright is someone who is a veteran, served his country, and has preached many more positive messages to his flock than negative. Forget all that. He said two stupid things and now a presidential candidacy is taking water as a result.

The rank and rampant hypocrisy here is that most of the noise is coming from the conservative right, who have repeatedly knelt at the feet of such bastions of Christian ethic as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, John Hagee, and many others who have said such idiotic things like God caused Katrina as retribution for our moral decay. No one (listening John McCain?) on the right has repudiated them. No one in the media (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Savage, Carlson, Blitzer, et al) have covered their outlandish behavior and comments with the scrutiny they have Obama's pastor.

It is enough that Obama made a speech that repudiated Wright's comments. He spoke to us as Jon Stewart of The Daily Show said: "He spoke to us as adults". He took on race. He discussed white as well as black resentment and anger and he did so with understanding and class. He noted positive improvements in our racial story, but reminded us we have much to do. His speech was exactly the right thing to do. He acted with good judgement, not blaming someone else, but explaining and separating the preacher from the candidate. He was presidential.

For the rest of the masses out there using this as a cudgel to bash Obama around the head, stop it. "Ye who are without sin, cast the first stone".

For Limbaugh and his crew of festering carbuncle's who think this is a way to take Obama down: "Go Cheney Yourselves",

Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

Hubris

2008-03-13T06:20:00.005-05:00

Hubris, the greatest sin in the ancient Greek world found another conquest this week. The (dis) honorable governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer resigned his position in the wake of the disclosure of his involvement with a High-End escort service (read Prostitution club) known as the Empire Club.

What is it with these guys that after they get caught become so concerned about the feelings of their family? Seems like perhaps they should have considered them before spending $80,000.00 on hookers. But, Mr. Spitzer's not the first to be caught up in this. No, by a long shot. Men have been using the services of prostitutes for a long time. I'm not so much amused that Eliot Spitzer is spending the equivalent amount it would take to by a new Jag XKE to get his nut off as I am about the irony.

Eliot Spitzer as many know made his name as the hard-charging righteous defender of the American People prosecuting white collar criminals and yes, yes, wait for it: prostitution rings as the Attorney General of New York. Mr. Spitzer was justice, in all its glory raining down on the evil investment banking community, escort services and any other vice he could find in his jurisdiction. He did some good work, without a doubt. Any investment house that fleeces its customers deserves to get caught. That's not the point. This guy was filled with a self-aggrandized sense of macho and righteousness. He was the good guy. He said that it's pretty simple, "it's either good or bad, right or wrong".

Well Eliot, the lady standing next to you in the picture has been terribly wronged, if she didn't know and approve of what you were doing. If you withheld this from her, only to have her stand beside you while you crash and burn, you're not only a hypocrite, you are a prick.

Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall. Proverbs 16:18.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,

Dennis

Now What?

2008-03-08T09:04:00.005-06:00

Ok, so we now have essentially a deadlock in the Democratic Primary race. The primary races last Tuesday in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont were opportunities for Senator Obama to close the deal or for Senator Clinton to capture momentum and keep the contest alive and on to Pennsylvania and 12 other state primaries and caucuses.

The latter happened. Senator Clinton won Ohio handily, and out performed in Texas as well. It should be noted at the time of this post that caucus votes in Texas are still being counted, so while Senator Clinton captured the primary vote, the caucus vote is still outstanding and could actually swing the delegate count in Texas over to Senator Obama. Leave it to Texas to have the most ridiculous democratic primary rules in the nation. No other state has both a primary and a caucus. It's patently absurd.

Meanwhile, Senator John McCain locked up the delegates necessary to capture the Republican nomination and has already started his general election campaign. This is where the results for the democrats on March 4 are troubling.

Had Obama had a clear and decisive victory on Tuesday, then there would have been significant pressure on the Clinton campaign to break camp and throw their support behind Obama. Now, just the opposite has occurred. Time, energy and most importantly money will now be spent on a race that neither side can win outright and will likely wind up being decided at the convention in Denver next August. All the while, the republican machine will have time and money to get in to gear and start running ads, do opposition research against both candidates, press the message of unification inside the party and give McCain time to court the conservative outliers who can't stand him.

This should have been the Democrats year. There should have been no question that the Republicans would be swept from Washington like dirt off a rug. But no, we may be seeing the emergence of the traditional Democratic Modus Operandi, "Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory".

God help us all,

Tell me what you think,

Regards,

Dennis

Why I Support Barack Obama

2008-02-29T07:00:00.002-06:00

I voted for Barack Obama in yesterday's primary here in Texas. Here's why.

1. It's time for the youth in the country to take the controls on the ship of state. Do we Boomers still have something to offer? Of course. We're smart, energetic, have great ideas and can get things done. However, this election should be about the future, and the future belongs to the young. Obama is the first candidate running for president that is younger than me. The youth of this country are energized and enthusiastic about this man. It's a refreshing thing to see. I believe that he can keep that optimism and spirit alive through the general election process. The compare and contrast between Obama and McCain are plain. McCain represents the old way, Obama the new.

2. The man has experience where it counts. Obama left Harvard and moved to Chicago as a community organizer. This is someone who works with local communities to support a particular interest, whether it's civil rights, economic justice, the right to collective bargaining or another issue where groups must get together to be heard. Rather than go to a corporate job, or go into some other field, Obama chose to help people who needed assistance in the most basic things like housing. Obama also became a teacher. His subject? Constitutional Law. Wow, wouldn't it be nice for a change for someone to be president who actually knows what the Constitution is and will abide by it?

3. He's a better bet than McCain. If you believe as I believe, If you think like I think, that there's something terribly wrong with the way the country operates, then I think you will agree that change is necessary. John McCain has been part of the problem. Oh yes, you'll say. He's a "maverick". True enough, McCain has danced around the edges of the establishment and taken on some sticky issues. Campaign Finance Reform anyone? He did a good job with that. However, I believe he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. His behavior since the 2000 election has become more and more of a panderer to special interests than an independent thinking conservative. The last straw for me was his recent roll-over voting against the ban on water-boarding after making speeches, entreaties and demands that we outlaw and decry torture. This was done in an effort to shore up conservative base votes who seem to think water-boarding is just fine. Shame on you John. You, of all people should understand the insidiousness of torture.

4. Obama's own words. This is an excerpt from his keynote speech in the 2004 Democratic convention. I believe it says all we need to hear:

"The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."

Here's hoping he stays true to his words.

Tell me what you think

Regards,

Dennis

It's Time

2008-02-20T08:05:00.004-06:00

Barack Obama made it 10 in a row last night with Primary wins in Hawaii and Wisconsin. His candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president is appearing to be a juggernaut that will plow ahead racking up delegates and primary wins. While he will likely not accrue enough delegates to claim the nomination outright, he certainly has the momentum now. As of last night, Obama has 1301 delegates to Senator Clintons 1239 when including the Super Delegates. 2025 are needed to claim the nomination and it looks like neither will achieve this number.

So, what to do? The Clinton candidacy is fading by all evidence to date. Super Delegates are now saying they'll support the candidate that achieves the most votes which is code for switching support from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama. Even still, should Mrs. Clinton choose to battle on to the convention, she could sway people to her camp. It's highly unlikely at this point, but should she claim large victories in Ohio and Texas then it is possible for her to achieve the nomination.

From my perspective, if she does succeed in this effort, it is a Pyrrhic victory. She'll do more damage than good and I think it guarantees a McCain presidency.

So, in my view it is time for Mrs. Clinton to take a break, think about it and then concede. She'll do much more good than harm, and a Democrat will likely be sent back to the White House.

Tell Me What You Think,

Regards,
Dennis

Legacy

2008-02-16T14:08:00.005-06:00

President Bush travels to Africa today on a six-day, five-country tour to promote the administration's 15 billion dollar foreign-aid package designed to combat the spread of HIV-AIDs in the impoverished continent. Indeed, one of the president's harshest critics, Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) has said: "It may be the greatest legacy this president leaves or any president could leave.”

It is a good thing when we can bring the power and wealth of this country towards working on a non-political, clearly necessary issue. Combatting the spread of AIDs is most certainly a noble goal. Mr. Bush must be applauded for supporting this program.

However, I believe George W. Bush's legacy doesn't lie in the African sub-continent. Regardless of the amount of money the president promotes towards this cause, it will not remove the blood that is on his hands from Iraq. Whether it's combat fatalities or injuries incurre on the ground by our troops, or the by-product of sending young men continually into harms way, or civilians killed because they simply happen to be born in one tribe or the other, the thousands of people who have died in Iraq since the invasion and subsequent occupation have done so primarily as a result of his decision to go to war.

I'd like to introduce you to a young man who when described by his superiors is talked about in lofty terms such as someone with "an intense desire to excel", and "unbridled enthusiasm" and an "unswerving devotion to duty". This young man won the Bronze Star for valor during a 55 hour battle with the Mahdi militia in Najaf. His name: James Jenkins, and his rank: Lance Corporal, United States Marine. The best of the best. The ones always put in the front lines. Corporal Jenkins is a veteran of two combat tours in Iraq and saw some of the most brutal hand to hand combat of any soldier in the field.

I'd like to introduce Corporal Jenkins to you but I can't. He's dead. No, he wasn't killed in combat in Iraq. He was killed in combat in his head. Corporal Jenkins committed suicide in 2005 after spiraling out of control and getting addicted to gambling, and writing bad checks to support his habit got him busted, thrown in the brig and scheduled for a court-martial. After he was released, pending his trial, he ran. On September 28, 2005, Corporal Jenkins was hiding out in his fiancee's apartment when a local deputy sheriff and US Marshal came to get him and take him back to jail. Rather than go back to jail, he shot himself in the temple.

Corporal Jenkins is not counted among the combat fatalities we see in the press. However, his death is as much a combat fatality as those men who were killed in the field. Corporal Jenkins' death led the United States Marine Corps to attempt to deny death benefits to Jenkins' family. They claimed he had died as a deserter. A Deserter.

This claim was refuted by an investigator from the Naval Criminal Investigation Service who described Jenkins as a "salvagable marine", who suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PSTD. The investigator described Jenkins as a "bonafide war hero" and said that the military had failed him when he needed help most.

Thousands of soldiers suffer from PSTD, a condition which keeps soldiers from re-assimilating into society and often drives them away from their families, jobs and in some cases their lives. It is a affliction not new to soldiers in Iraq. Many veterans of combat in Viet Nam have been diagnosed with PSTD. It is a lasting nightmare for many veterans and their families.

Corporal Jenkins received no honor guard for his funeral. His remains are not interred in one of the many national cemetaries across this country. He is buried in a cemetary local to his community and close enough for his mother to visit his grave. Corporal Jenkins was 23 when he took his life.

No, Mr. Bush's legacy will not be in Africa. It is buried in the dirt along side Corporal James Jenkins, who, if still alive would be 26 years old.

Tell me what you think,

regards

Dennis

340 Days

2008-02-14T07:51:00.004-06:00

Okay ladies and gentlemen, we are less than a year away from Liberation Day! 340 days, 14 hours and 5 minutes from now (as I write this post), the books will close on arguably the worst presidency in the history of the United States. We'll be able to wish George and Laura "Bon Voyage" and watch them step on Air Force One for that final ride back to where ever the hell they will go.

I'm very hopeful about this. I have wanted nothing more for the last eight years than to see this man off the national stage and cease embarrassing this country. The damage he's done to the country internally and externally is almost incalculable. Inauguration day on January 20, 2009 will be a day when we will all be able to take a deep breath and utter those famous words of Gerald R. Ford: "Our Long National Nightmare is Over".

Won't it be a terrific day?

Regards,

Dennis

More Evidence John McCain is George Bush in a Hero Suit

2008-02-14T06:27:00.004-06:00

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.' - Winston Smith in George Orwell's "1984".

Ok, so now we see the real John McCain. He has decided perhaps that the election is more important than principle, and is voting against the Intelligence Authorization bill which contains a provision describe a "standard for interrogation" that supports the use of the instructions in the Army Field Manual and bans waterboarding. The bill passed in the Senate 51-45, but is expected to be vetoed by the president.

John McCain isn't traveling on the "Straight Talk Express", He is traveling on the "Double Speak" Express. The man who surely is the most well known victim of torture as a Prisoner of War, has effectively endorsed the use of it against "our enemies".

This is the man the Republicans want to be president. This is George Bush redux. "America does not torture" - George W. Bush.

What a noble thought.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

How Hillary Can Make History and Save the Democratic Party

2008-02-12T12:52:00.002-06:00

Today is the "Potomac Primary", with delgate contests in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. By no means is the race for the delegates for the nomination of the Democrats to be the Presidential candidate in November over, but it's become increasingly evident that a clear winner in delegates may not emerge. Even if it does, there's a strong likelihood that the "super-delegates" will carry the day relative to who wins the nomination.

Senator Clinton's campaign lost 4 caucuses and primaries over last weekend. She will likely lose all three contests today. The momentum in the campaign has swung towards Senator Obama and unless Senator Clinton wins handily in Texas and Ohio, this contest may be effectively over.

Assuming I'm right, I see that there are basically three ways this could go:

1. Senator Obama wins the pledged delegates and the Super Delegates support him as the candidate to run against John McCain in November.
2. Senator Clinton stays close to Obama in terms of pledged delegates and sways the Super Delegates to support her to become the nominee.
3. This goes to the convention and there is a floor fight until someone comes out on top.

In my opinion, Senator Clinton doesn't win in any case described above. Oh, She might sway the super delegates to her side for the nomination, but the downstream impact of that would likely keep her from winning the general election. If she doesn't do anything and Senator Obama wins on his own, then she's essentially a non-player in future discussions regarding the ticket, policy or influence relative to the 2008 election.

My view is that Senator Clinton should continue through the March primaries, and if she doesn't win very big in Texas and Ohio, she should suspend her candidacy and throw her support to Obama.

Here's what could happen if she does.

1. She immediately gains credibility relative to her desire to see the Democrats win in November.
2. She immediately gains the gratitude and admiration of the Obama supporters (youth) and avoids them not staying home during the general election if she presses on to win the nomination.
3. She makes history in that she, she would have been the single most influential person to see Obama gain the nomination.
4. If Obama puts her on the ticket (he should), then she makes history again as the first woman in the 2nd highest office of the land.
5. She allows for the Democratic national committee to immediately organize around competing with John McCain.
6. She puts the relatively strong campaigning capabilities of Bill Clinton at Obama's disposal.
7. She is considered one of the top 2-3 Democrats relative to power in the party.

There is a whole lot of good that happens in my opinion should she choose to go that way. It gives us a great ticket and puts the Democrats in position to achieve a historic milestone: An African American President and a Female Vice-President.

We'll have to wait and see.

Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

You Decide

2008-02-12T07:24:00.000-06:00

Much talk recently has been given to the matter of candidates "Flip-Flopping" on issues or statements they've made. In 2004, remember, John Kerry was eviscerated because he "Flip-Flopped" on the war. John McCain made much of Mitt Romney's "flippyness" during the primary season.

Please take a look at this video clip of St. John discussing the war in Iraq. Is he also a "Flip-Flopper"? You decide. Please click on the link below for the clip.

McCain’s Double Talk Express: A Day at the Beach

Barack Cleans Up

2008-02-11T07:39:00.000-06:00

Another weekend, and another set of primaries and caucuses. It's a very interesting season for those of us who are political junkies. Barack Obama won all four contests over the weekend, picking up a healthy set of delegates. He won 69 more delegates for Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington, and has potential for picking up another 8-10 from Maine when all the votes are counted. Three caucuses (Maine, Nebraska, Washington) and one primary (Louisiana) have all gone Obama's way.

Mike Huckabee made a strong showing over the weekend, winning in Kansas and Louisiana. While important wins for Huckabee, he is still far behind the prohibitive front runner, Senator John McCain. McCain can't have liked seeing the populist evangelical former governor take Louisiana and Kansas, but seemingly doesn't have much to worry about at this point.

The Democratic race on the other hand is a complete toss-up. Obama is surging in the popular vote and racking up pledged delegates at a faster clip than Senator Clinton. The delegate count has swung his way as result of this past weekend's victories (943 for Obama and 895 for Clinton). Remember however, there are a significant number of 'Super-Delegates' slanted towards Hillary's way and that the total mentioned above doesn't include the votes from Michigan or Florida, who had their delegates stripped as a consequence of moving their primaries up. Clinton has been making noise about how the delegates/votes in Michigan and Florida should now count, and I think it's unlikely that the party leadership will allow this.

Obama has momentum. It's going to be very interesting over the next 20 primaries to see how this shapes out. Howard Dean, former governor from Vermont, and now head of the Democratic National Committee has said he believes there will be a nominee sometime in April. With big contests coming up in March in Ohio and Texas, the numbers could tighten up further as these are generally favorable toward Senator Clinton. It's going to be close, and some level of discussion among the candidates may ensue and one may withdraw in favor of the other. I see a ticket perhaps of Clinton/Obama. I don't see a Obama/Clinton ticket. I don't think Hillary would take the 2nd chair, although I could be wrong. If Obama is nominated I think he wins the general election. I don't think Hillary has another chance if that's the case, and it wouldn't be a bad thing for Hillary to be the first woman Vice President in US History.

Tell me what you think.

regards,
Dennis

Predictable? - No Way!

2008-02-08T08:43:00.000-06:00

Well, so much for my prognostication capabilities. See this excerpt from my post on

Tuesday, October 30, 2007, (full post is below).

Prediction: Clinton vs. Giuliani in the general with Rudy winning by a small margin. Why? Beats the hell out of me.
Posted by Dennis at 6:44 AM 0 comments Links to this post

--------------------

I had "America's Mayor" winning the general election over Hillary. Turns out I was way off. Rudy's history, and it looks like Hillary is getting Obamacized.

We still don't know who will get the Democratic nomination. It will involve some deal making as both Obama and Clinton have effectively split the delegates to the point, the "super-delegates" will come into play in order to make a choice. I make no predictions on that.

John McCain is the prohibitive nominee for the Republicans. Barring some unforeseen 3rd party entrant (Bloomberg?), the contest this November will be against the Arizona Republican and either an African American Senator or a Female Senator. For the first time since John Kennedy was elected, America will vote to put a sitting Senator in the White House. It's a historic race, and one that at least according to the primaries is causing record turn-out among the voters. So why do I feel so depressed about this?

Tell me what you think,

Regards,
Dennis

McCain & Romney Go Over The Line

2008-02-07T19:21:00.000-06:00

Mitt Romney, one-time governor of Massachusetts, one-time presidential candidate, bowed out of the race for the Republican nomination for President today. In his speech explaining his reasoning, he as almost every other candidate who has left the contest, came up with another reason for withdrawing than the obvious one: He was getting beat senseless, spending his own money and couldn't win. He said that he was withdrawing now because a long, protracted fight for the nomination might allow Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to win the presidency and he couldn't support this because it would lead to surrender to terrorists if either Clinton or Obama won.

Yes, he really said this. Ok, Mitt go "Cheney Yourself".

Now for John McCain. I used to somewhat respect this man . I thought his "maverick" streak was a sign of principled standing on issues that were counter to conventional wisdom or party dogma. I was wrong. Turns out, McCain is just a contrary old bastard. He's not independent, he's not even principled. He's turned his back on almost every statement he made before in order to win the nomination and maybe the presidency. Why? Because the egomaniac wants desparately to be president and get over the humiliation of losing to George W. Bush in 2000. Yeah John, that's a memory I would want to get over as well.

Well, Mr. McCain, you too came out today and accused the Democrats of being appeasers and surrender-monkeys. Shame on you. You know damn well that neither Obama nor Clinton nor anyone in this country who is against this amazing cluster-fuck in Iraq are appeasers or in favor of surrender. What Obama and Clinton are supporting is what the country is supporting: Getting out of this quagmire and not allowing another US soldier to die for George Bush's folly.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You, who suffered imprisonment and torture at the hands of an autocratic regime should know that War is not the answer to our problems. Certainly, this war in Iraq is not the answer. You say we have to stay, even if it is for 100 years. You say we have to stay until we have "victory". What is "victory"? No one has been able to explain that. You sir, have signed on to a foolish attempt to change the thoughts, hearts and minds of a people who wanted none of it. You have signed on to the deaths of almost 4000 US military, the maiming of over 30 thousand US military and God knows how many Iraqi civilians who have died as a result of our invasion. So what we got rid of Saddam? All we have done by removing him is change the name and faces of the killers. The killing continues. The country is in tatters. There is no functioning government. The unemployment rate is over 50%. The infrastructure of the country (water, power, roads) are demolished. Oil production is STILL belo pre-war levels. Is this progress? Is this intelligent?

You sir have sacrificed any credibility you may have had by signing on to the Bush view of the world that you are simply a caricature of your former "hero" self. Maverick? Independent? Principled? No fucking way.

I am so tired of you, Romney and all conservatives who think the only answer is an American answer and if you don't like that, "we'll ruin you financially (through sanction), kill you through dropping cluster bombs, then invade you until you see things our way. " It's high time for your sad, immoral and idiotic ilk to get out of Washington and let someone else have a crack at this. They certainly couldn't do worse than you morons.

Respectfully,

Dennis Sherrard

ps: 2/8 update - This picture really sums up the depths that John McCain will go to get "in" with the uber-conservative neocons. It's pretty disgusting that someone wants a job so bad he'll degrade himself to the point of embracing this walking pile of refuse.