Weblog

Wednesday, 20 February 2008

  • The NY Trash

    The New York Times just published a completely baseless story from 8 years ago.  The jest of the story is this; two unnamed sources in the McCain campaign from 2000 said that senior campaign advisers were concerned that McCain was spending too much time with a particular female lobbyist.  They advised McCain to stay away from her and blocked the woman from campaign events.  There is also an allegation that McCain might have done something unethical involving associates of hers.

    This story was part of a McCain bashing sandwich.  Most of the article is really about the S&L scandal years ago.  It looks like the Times really wanted to remind people of the scandal and used this baseless "news" as a way to draw people in.

    The Times has no evidence what so ever that McCain had a relationship or did anything unethical.  McCain and the woman involved have both denied any sort of relationship.  CNN said "The New Republic" is reporting that The NY Times has been in turmoil over the past couple of weeks over the article.  They reported that editors twice voted down the article, but apparently in round three, decided to publish it.  In sports they say it is hard to beat a team three times...interesting parallel.  It could also be that the Times found out the Republic was going to scoop them and published in order to not get beat.

    CNN broke into Larry King interviewing Jon Stewart to bring us the juicy news.  Larry asked Jon what he thought and Jon said some great things.  His general feeling was that he finds it sad that this sort of "boilerplate" attack has become the norm for some news providers.  He looked genuinely disappointed and then went on to say good things about both McCain and Obama.

    I have been reading the comments section from the article and have found some great stuff.  Someone pointed out that the Times new about this "possible affair" months ago and still endorsed McCain.  I find that very odd myself.  Many people questioned the timing.  Many people threatened to cancel their subscription.  Most people calling the Time a joke of a paper and I completely agree.

    The Times has turned itself into the National Enquirer.  At least now I know where to find info on Brittney Spears.

    Update...it has been argued that McCain's people have been in control of this article since they found out in December that the Times was looking into the accusations.  This is completely plausible IMO.  It would explain the timing.  It still wouldn't change my opinion of the Times.  Which is worse; allowing McCain's people to control when you publish news or publishing an article completely based on speculation?  It is possible that the Times did both.



Monday, 18 February 2008

  • National Security vs Immunity

    The following is a link to an article by Robert Novak.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/torts_and_terrorism.html

    I'm going to write about his opinion when I get the chance.  I just thought I would toss this out there now for anyone that wants to read it.  The general idea is this...

    Novak believes fund raising is why Democrats in the House did not approve the new FISA bill.  He believes the funds from tort lawyers wanting to sue telecom companies is why the Dems walked out on the bill before voting on it.

    Here is a different view.  Laws were broken and Dems in the House don't think telecoms should be given immunity.  If Bush wanted FISA passed so badly, he would have removed the immunity clause, but he didn't. Apparently immunity for the telecoms is more important than national security.

    There are other issues here...like setting a precedent for other companies to follow when pressured by the government and the situations where this precedent could be good or bad....lots of fun stuff to think about.

    More to come later....

    Ok, going to go about this is an odd way...going to post my random thoughts as I poke around the net.

    Claire McCaskill is a great Senator.  Way to go MO.  Not only does she not take earmarks, she isn't afraid to vote her conscious.  She was also first in line to support Obama.  Her reward was walking into the state of of union address on Obama's coattails. Way off topic.  Back on topic, Claire McCaskill's independence does help Novak's argument.  She was on Bill Maher the other night and was also very good there.

    Novak's fixation on Kucinich is annoying.  Yeah, he is a little off, but he has a hot wife, lol.  Badmouthing Kucinich does not help Novak.

    I still don't see why immunity had to be in the bill?  Maybe because Bush knew he needed FISA to get immunity for his friends.  This looks like Bush playing politics with our national security.  The dems may be dirty on this, but the only thing Bush has left to live on is national security.

    Dirty or not, the Dems in the House have needed to call Bush's bluff on this.  Bush has been pushing them around for 6 straight years....they needed to do this.

    In the vote to strip immunity, Obama voted yes and Clinton didn't vote....interesting.

    I find it hypocrital for Reps to complain about the "rule of law" in regards to immigration, but are ok with with giving immunity to telecoms. 

    On the way to passage, the Senate rejected by a vote of 67-31 a move to strip away a grant of retroactive legal immunity for the companies. It also rejected two amendments that sought to water down the immunity provision.

    One of the amendments, co-sponsored by Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, would have substituted the government for the telecom companies in lawsuits, allowing the court cases to go forward but shifting the cost and burden of defending the program.

    The other, pushed by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, would have given a secret court that oversees government surveillance inside the United States the power to dismiss lawsuits if it found that the companies acted in good faith and on the request of the president or attorney general.

    Does anyone else have a problem reading the dailykos.  Someone needs to organize that site.

    The following is a nice read about FISA and the 4th...

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-napolitano18feb18,0,1665050.story

    The following link is on the constitutionality of retroactive immunity

    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20080129.html

Saturday, 16 February 2008

  • Huffington Unimpressive Again

    In another attack dog strike at John McCain, Huffington once again proves how extremists are unable to see the eccentricities in complex issues.  In the article called, "John McCain Sells His Soul to the Right: Backs Off on Torture Ban", Huffington proves herself either too dense or too enraged from GWB syndrome to understand that our military and intelligence agencies are different weapons against terror and obviously cannot be utilized or regulated in the exact same way. 

    She begins her rant with this, "Has there ever been a more repugnant example of political pandering than John McCain's decision to vote against a bill banning waterboarding, putting hoods on prisoners, forcing them to perform sex acts, subjecting them to mock executions, or depriving them of food, water, and medical treatment?"  The level of intellectual dishonesty in this statement comes straight out of the Karl Rove handbook.  She might as well have written that McCain was against a bill banning the eating interrogatees' body parts in order to gain information.  Huffington implies with this statement that all of the acts she mentions are not already illegal and John McCain is a-okay with them.

    Huffington then goes into a not surprisingly simple argument as to why McCain has gone against everything he has ever said about torture by voting against the bill, "The CIA has to abide by rules prohibiting torture but we can't tie the CIA's hands by making it abide by rules prohibiting torture. Straight talk, RIP...What's more, McCain said he voted against the bill because it would be a mistake to "tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual" -- a Manual he gave a ringing endorsement to in a November debate".  Let me put forth the obvious, John McCain believes that the CIA should work within the rules of not only the Geneva Convention, but also any other international treaty the US has signed and federal law.  He has said it on the Senate floor, he believes it, his opinion will not change.  The Army Field Manual is for the Army.  Federal rules and regulations are for guess who?  Civilians.  In no way did McCain ever say that the CIA did not have to abide by rules prohibiting torture.  To say such a thing is to outright lie.

    What Huffington does not understand is that in the real world our military and intelligence agencies are regulated in completely different ways, one military and the other civil.  In the real world, the US military is the face of the United States in foreign countries all over the world and the CIA is the hidden force gathering intelligence and sadly overthrowing the occasional government.  In other words, they are not to be seen and they do the dirty work that other countries are to not know about.  It is obvious that the US military has to be held to a higher standard than even the average American.  As the face of America, their actions are on the front page of every newspaper from here to Timbuktu.  Why Huffington does not realize this or refuses to acknowledge this is either a result of her own lack of brain power or most likely her bias for Barrack Obama shining through.

    I find these types of attacks on John McCain disgusting.  The man fought for this country.  The man endured years of torture, turning down his own freedom because he could not abandon his fellow soldiers.  To attack a man that has been tortured because of his specific stance on torture is the type of pathetically bias political maneuver that should be categorized with the Swift-boaters for Truth.

    Huffington has become exactly the same type of political monster she once spoke out against.  Now who is the hypocrite?


  • SuperPathetic SuperDelegates

    It was reported by CNN that each superdelegate's vote equals 13,000 normal votes.  The Democrats have given their superdelegates the power of a million voters.  I've already touched on how horribly undemocratic and disenfranchising this is to Democrat voters.  Now lets look at who these superdelegates are.  We know some are governors and former Presidents, but not all of them can be held in such high regard...and here they are.  Edit, here is a little history http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15mann.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

    Jason Rae was 17 years old when he received the title "Superdelegate".  Kare Travers reported, "Rae was elected as a DNC member at the Wisconsin state party convention in June 2004. He was 17 years old at the time but there are no party rules that say a DNC member has to be of voting age. Rae ran against and defeated the president of the state firefighters' union and a state legislator."  Yes, not even old enough to vote, yet still a superdelegate with the power to disenfranchise 13,000 registered adult voters.  Mr. Rae is now 21 and fielding phone calls from some of the most influential Democrats in America.  I wonder what they are talking about?  I think it is reasonable to assume his political career is topic 1 on Mr. Rae's mind.

    Sarah Swisher is a nurse.  She is also the political director of the Johnson County, Iowa chapter of the Service Employees International Union.  She had first pledged her delegate to John Edwards.  After Edwards dropped out, she pledged her delegate to Hillary Clinton.  Now she has once again changed her mind and is pledging her delegate to Barrack Obama.  You have to love the strength in principle shown by this particular superdelegate.  I can understand leaving Edwards once he left the campaign.  I don't understand jumping to Clinton so quickly and then dumping her for Obama once it appears he is the current front runner.  This isn't speed dating.

    Manny Rodriguez and Maria Handly of Colorado are Internet ghosts. I am not sure if they actually exist. So far all I could find out about them is that they have never once held any sort of political office.

    Debbie Marquez, also of Colorado, appears to be a house mom dabbling in getting her MBA. You can get the details at her website: http://www.debbiearquez.com/

    In Kansas, we find Randy Roy who appears to be a professional DNC member, if that is possible.  We also find E. Lee Kinch, who is a defense attorney.

    California is full of mostly union organizers whos addresses are listed on the Internet, not safe.  Steven Alari had this written about him, "My ambivalence about Alari is caused by his job classification (AGPA) -- one that doesn't require much education or analytical skills --".  Not exactly a raving review for a union worker that carries the weight of 13,000 voters.  It gets worse.  Mary Ellen Early only has a BA in psychology and was appointed to the California Board of Psychology by the State Senate.  Not only was she appointed to a position in the State Senate that she clearly isn't qualified for, she is also a not qualified to be a superdelegate.

    There is also good news!  Christine Pelosi, daughter of Congresswomen Pelosi, is actually very qualified, go here to see why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Pelosi

    I will keep this blog going as I discover more about these "superdelegates".  You can go here to get a list http://superdelegates.org/Main_Page


  • What the media chooses to forget

    What is the point of a nomination process if we aren't going to challenge the candidates?  The following is a story that our media likes to ignore.  You can sell more ads showing Obama speaking than you can talking about some of his bad moments.

    Barrack Obama has often spoke out against Hillary Clinton takingcontributions from Washington lobbyists. Obama said, "In this campaign,[Clinton has] taken nearly double the amount of money from lobbyiststhan any Democrat or Republican running for president," he also said."That's not being a part of the solutions business. That's being a partof business-as-usual in Washington."

    Apparently Obama believesit is wrong to take money from lobbyists, but it is perfectly fine totake a land discount from a dirty political power broker, Antoin "Tony"Rezko, in the state of Illinois. Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartzreported, "While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land,Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. The housesold for $1,650,000 and the price Rezko's wife paid for the land was$625,000...Obama then expanded his property by buying a strip of theRezko land for $104,5000..." They further reported that, "An ABC Newsreview of campaign records shows Rezko, and people connected to him,contributed more than $120,000 to Obama's 2004 campaign for the U.S.Senate, much of it at a time when Rezko was the target of an FBIinvestigation."

    The following is another report from Tim Novak.

    Afew months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife,Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago'sKenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last twoyears. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million --$300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price --$625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later,Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he couldhave a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that TonyRezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about thetiming of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because peoplemight think the Rezkos had done him a favor."

    Now who isRezko? "Rezko had been widely reported to be under investigation by theU.S. attorney and the FBI at the time Obama contacted him and has sincebeen indicted on corruption charges by a federal grand jury in a casethat prosecutors say involves bribes, kickbacks and "efforts toillegally obtain millions of dollars", reports Ross and Schwartz.

    Obamajustifies this incident by saying he made "a bone-headed mistake."Really? A bonehead mistake? It sounds more like Obama and Rezko found away to give Obama a little under the table money. Who needs to abide bycampaign rules when you can hand out cash in dirty land deals? This wasnot a bone-headed mistake. This was a deliberate and successful attemptto flaunt campaign rules. This was Rezko getting his fingers into Obamabefore he hit the big time. This reminds me of a dirty sports agentgoing after a 16-year-old basketball player before he makes the NBA,and like with basketball players, Obama takes the help, anything to gethimself out of the "ghetto" state Senate.

    I am sorry, but it isno coincidence that Rezko's wife and the Obama family just happened topurchase land next to each other. It was not merely a convenient dealfor Obama to purchase the land from Rezko's wife. This was a dirty landdeal and this is what Obama "hopes" people continue to ignore.

    Itis completely hypocritical for Obama to point his finger at Clintonafter what he has done. Obviously Obama does not have to stoop to suchbehavior now, but there is a historical precedent here that we cannotignore. When Obama needs something, he is more than willing to getdirty in order to get it. That sounds awful familiar...that sounds alot like the Bush Administration.

    Edition: I have read that the FBI investigated the deal and found nothing wrong.  Not that I wouldn't put it past the FBI to turn a blind eye on a seemingly minor infraction of an up and coming Senator.  In all fairness, it must be stated that the FBI was involved and found nothing.

     

themoderateamerican

  • Visit themoderateamerican's Xanga Site
    • Name: themoderateamerican
    • Gender: Male
    • Member Since: 2/5/2008

About Me

  • A voice of moderation in a world of extremes. Center with a libertarian streak, my life experiences in America and around the world have left me here, standing in the middle, wondering why everyone is screaming.

Weblog Archives

Don't worry - your calendar is here… to see it in action just click "Save" above and refresh the page.

Subscriptions

[no subscriptions]

Pulse

Photostrip

[no photos]