by Ortmann for America, Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:27:49 AM EDT
by BlueDiamond, Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:18:22 AM EDT
I think it's all just hilarious. The hypocrisy I'm seeing by the some in the Blogosphere.
I'm laughing because I'm thinking about all the comments made by regulars on various websites , including this one , where they raged against Barack Obama because he would NOT take Hillary Clinton on. There were angry words expressed about Obama's "Hopity Hope. Peace and Love" approach to running his campaign and suggestions were being made that he should abandon that altogether in the Democratic Primary. There were some suggesting that if Barack can't take on Hillary, he would not be able to take on the Republicans and they feared that he would do what John Edwards did with Dick Cheney. Then, when Barack struck back at Hillary after she gave him that opening, all of a sudden it's "Shame on Barack for attacking a fellow Democrat!" A Democrat, mind you , who's campaign is in bed with the owner of Fox News and who's husband is Best Buds with Bush Senior but , Obama can't mention Reagan? Ha Ha Ha . This coming from the same people who asserted all along that Hillary is a sell out. That Hillary is just another George Bush in drag. That Hillary is a War Hawk and that she will not bring our Troops back. The same Democrat who's office was ransacked by the Anti-War group , Code Pink who redecorated it with strings of pink ribbon to symbolize the web of lies, she's been feeding us. These same people are now throwing a pseudo conniption fit because Barack Obama said on the campaign trail that he doesn't want Bush-Cheney Lite which is the nicest way to say what we all have been saying about her. Oh, the hypocrisy.
What else is hilarious about the recent dust up between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is that John Edwards , honestly thinks he can capitalize on it. Let's take a look at that. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are having an "adult" debate on a very serious issue. I mean, come on . This is about our nations Foreign Policy as well as National Security. Now, I could see if they were arguing over something stupid like say, Hillary fighting with Bill O'Reilly for calling her a man. Or, if Barack Obama held a fundraiser because Rush Limbaugh called him O'bambi and it hurt his little feelings. Then , maybe it would be appropriate to criticize Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But the truth is, they are not fighting about petty stupid retarded crap. They are having a serious "adult" conversation about what policy is best to move our nation forward with respect to our nations enemies. Besides, I thought Edwards position was that the War on Terror was a bumper sticker anyway, that it's all a bunch of crap that we have enemies in the world, so why wouldn't he want to sit down for talks ? That's another debate for a later date. Anyways, according to national as well as polls taken on Daily Kos and MyDD by those who support as well as oppose both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for President , the majority is on Barack Obamas side. So, this debate is clearly not hurting Barack Obama. As far as which third tier candidate this may help ( I say third because as we all have been made aware, the second tier place is now vacant ) I don't know if it helps anyone. I see some posting long lists of poll numbers trying to assert that Barack has fallen hard as a result of taking Hillary on when the polls they are posting are the exact same as they were from before. As a matter of fact, the polls that are being posted are from before the actual "adult" debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton even started. That's hilarious. Oh, The spin.
by Slave, Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:19:32 AM EDT
Barack Obama answered that call not to lead from a pinnacle of fear, but to build on the great legacies of our forbearers--where they lead from a compass of strength, hope and optimism. It is in line with this tradition that the beloved late John F. Kennedy famous said, "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."
Ironically, the perceived most "experienced" Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton seems to champion the current doctrine by the Bush administration where fear reigns in every policy. In her response to the question of meeting with our enemies, she overtly said she will not negotiate with them because of fear of propaganda.
The paradox of her statement is: where is the strength of her leadership, if her greatest concern is mounted on the fear of propaganda? Second, what then differentiate her from the current president's doctrine? And lastly, beside the current president, when was the last time America operates from a corner of fear?
It seems the American voices of reasoning; humility and confidence often envied by other countries are gradually eroding into the abyss of history. In the past six years of the Bush administration, fear has virtually replaced every sense of reasoning, confidence and optimism--three key words passionately used by Reagan to battle the forces of darkness.
This doctrine famously employed by the Bush administration has caused a lasting damage to our chromosomal combinations and our thinking faculties that we may perhaps, continues our current isolationist agenda.
A food for thought: where we stop engaging, China, Russia and other emerging economy nations are penetrating deeper. We currently live in a competing economy where even the worst rogue nation does have a business friend. To be précised, Africa that used to be pure green for America is gradually opening their door to China--especially in the area of raw materials and natural resources.
If a leader of a nation hanged his or her leadership on the thin thread of fear, what should be expected from his or her followers? Despair and continue uncertainty. Such connotation is a clear demonstration of lack of bold vision prissily and morally required of a leader.
In the aftermath of 9/11--a tragic moment in the history of America--the Bush administration politically played the fear factor and consciously or unconsciously washed away with flood water of Hurricane Katrina the great spirit of confidence and sense of reasoning that has sustained our nation in the faces of impossibilities.
The Washington cult group (who dine with political figures) called the mainstream media and their corporate friends lucre-mindedly and overzealously infused these sound bites into our homes, churches, workplaces and squares until most of us consumed it.
Yes, I was a victim. But in the aftermath of last congressional election, I then realized the grave political undertone to the fear mongering slogan--"If we don't fight them there, they will follow us home." Yes, we have to fight those that want to hurt us, but we must not do so by turning our cherish nation into a chamber of fear; where inaction and folly reign.
President Bush was right when said in his State of the Union address last year that to win the war against Islamic extremist, we could only win through the battle of ideas and not just through the barrel of a gun. It is in this historical laurel that Mr. Obama is again calling on us to wage this war not from the corner of fear, but from the pinnacle of strength and confidence.
Yes, we can win, if and only if, we retract our failed isolationist agenda of the past 16 years that have left our nation brutally brushed to the corner of uncertainty.
When the Washington establishment forcefully attacked Obama for sanctioning a new proven tactic of expanding our leadership around the world again, it was not a surprise; because the current club of "experts" on foreign issues in our nation's capitol do lazily conducts their business from a cozy basement with fan fare.
A clear demonstration of their inaction is how their professed gradation of experiences got us into one of the greatest foreign policy blunder in human history. Hillary Clinton with all the badges of "experiences," naively voted and passed the 2002 Iraq war resolution, even when she was privy to the classified intelligence information.
Unfortunately, the seemingly "inexperienced" state senator, Barack Obama who was not privileged to the NIE report, made a resounding smart and trifocal judgment on the issue. His arguments and reasons continue to stand the test of time. I think, Democrats have a choice to make: Do we want a continue fail policy that have left us certain and unsafe or do we want a new idealistic foreign policy that is not based on blind ideology?
In the months ahead, the nation will be having a date with history. I don't know about you, but as for me and those who shares these beliefs with me, we will join hands in bending the arc of justice to a little bit right.
In the word of John F. Kennedy, "There are risks and costs to a program of action, but they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction."
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article /273564/16_years_of_a_shredded_society_w hat.html
by Senate Guru, Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 02:45:05 PM EDT
There was a time, I like to call it "2005," when all Republican Senators yearned for were up-or-down votes. Now that they find themselves in the minority, far be it from them to conduct themselves according to their own standards. Senate Republican "Leader" Mitch McConnell is looking to institute a permanent filibuster on all things Iraq. In fact, it is looking like Mitch McConnell will be the most obstructionist Senate minority Party Leader in history, and by a wide margin, according to McClatchy:
This year Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before, a pattern that's rooted in -- and could increase -- the pettiness and dysfunction in Congress. ...
Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes -- 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office.
Senate Republicans' obstructionism was on display during the Senate's all-night session Tuesday night. Senators voted to proceed to a vote on the Reed-Levin amendment by a margin of 52-47, a majority of Senators but not enough to clear the 60-vote threshold, so Republican obstructionism won out over the will of a majority of Senators and a majority of Americans, not that you'd know it from some of the sloppy reporting done following the vote.
Despite all of this (or, perhaps, because of all of this), McConnell's expectations for Election Day 2008 are sinking:
"It would take an extraordinarily good day to get back up to 50," McConnell said. "So our goal is to stay roughly where we are."
That's not too shocking. McConnell's unwavering support for Bush's Iraq debacle has taught us that if there's one thing Mitch McConnell can get behind, it's the status quo.
Much more below the fold.
by Senate Guru, Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:15:32 PM EDT
From Republican Senator David Vitter's scandal to second quarter fundraising numbers to Iraq to news from Senate races around the country, a lot happened this week.
First and foremost, the Vitter scandal is not simply a caricature of a seedy politician screwing around. It's another reminder of the hypocrisy endemic to the Republican Party at the national level. For those who don't know, Republican Senator David Vitter confessed to having been a client of the infamous DC Madam after his phone number was found in her found records. He claimed to have received the forgiveness of his wife and his God (I don't know how he confirmed that one). As a side note, his wife did once intimate that if her husband ever cheated on her, she'd more likely castrate than forgive. Just when we thought that was all there was to the story, it turns out that he also frequented a New Orleans brothel.
The hypocrisy that exists in this sordid tale exists on many levels. First is the standard that Vitter himself set. Vitter called for President Bill Clinton's resignation when Clinton's marital infidelities came to light. If Vitter held himself to his own standard, he'd have already resigned. Vitter discusses the "moral fitness to govern" readily when it is someone else being judged. Heck, forget about moral fitness to govern; how about the presence to govern? Vitter apparently received phone calls from the DC Madam during roll call votes while he was a House member. And, amid the current scandal, he opted to go into hiding rather than actually do his job, leading him to miss seven roll call votes between Wednesday and Friday on such minor issues as Iraq, Iran, and al Qaeda. He was even more than happy to lie to constituents back in 2002 when asked explicitly about one particular prostitute by name.
The second level on which the hypocrisy exists is the level of "family values." Vitter ran on a platform of "family values," making his wife and kids the stars of his campaign ads, inserting them into the public sphere and inserting his personal values and private life into public scrutiny. He also explained to us immoral heathens that "marriage is truly the most fundamental social institution in human history" while legislating how others should live their lives and regard the institution of marriage. All the while, he had debased his own marriage. To say that Vitter is falling short of his own standard is an understatement.
The third level on which the hypocrisy exists is the level of the rule of law. Soliciting a prostitute is a crime in Washington, D.C. and Louisiana. As much as some Republicans might scoff at the idea, the rule of law still applies to them. Vitter committed a crime, and simply receiving the forgiveness of one's wife does not qualify as legal absolution. Any legal researchers want to dig up what the statute of limitations is in both Washington, D.C. and Louisiana on soliciting?
Much more below the fold.