Posts Tagged 'election 2008'

Georgia Congressman Compares Obama to Hitler

Is this still going on? Somebody had better retrieve this gentleman from his bomb shelter to tell him that a) the election is over, b) no one is going to take his precious guns and ammo away from him, and c) he should really stop engaging in what psychotherapists call “projection.”

Congressman Paul Broun told the AP that he’s afraid of Obama forming a citizen army that answers directly to him and using it to establish a Marxist dictatorship. No, I am NOT making this up. Here’s a quote: “It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force,” Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press.

Did he say that it may sound A BIT crazy? I don’t know if IT sounds a bit crazy, but Broun sounds absolutely wracked with insanity.

The unhinged members (I think it’s just a small group; the vast majority of them are normal like the rest of us) of the republican party tried this tactic in the hope that it would cause Obama to lose the election, but most people didn’t believe the lie—-I think it was mostly people who were looking for a way to veil their racism, but there were also those non-racists who just weren’t paying attention to what was really going on.

No one is trying to set up a dictatorship (although I have to admit that my own mind has wandered in that direction from time to time over the past 4 or 5 years whenever I heard that George Bush was illegally spying on our e-mails and phone calls, sending citizens to secret prisons–and not-so-secret prisons—where they were tortured and not allowed to have their cases tried, said that the executive branch of the government should have more concentrated power, blah, blah, blah, you know the rest).

Obama was talking about our military being stretched too thin. Here’s another quote: ”

“The Obama transition team declined to comment on Broun’s remarks. But spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama was referring in the speech to a proposal for a civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts such as rebuilding infrastructure — an idea endorsed by the Bush administration.” Bush administration? Bush is a Socialist/Marxist?
Here, read the article for yourselves.
 

 

 

Advertisements

Does Anyone Really Care About the Chief of Staff?

For those of you who are Republican, some of your political brethran are making themselves look bitter, ridiculous, and horribly partisan. They’re already trying to undermine and criticize President-elect Obama, thus trying to give the conservative mainstream media political machine an early start to their lies and spin.

Rahm Emanuel is said to have been chosen as Obama’s chief of staff, so John Boehner is already calling foul on Obama’s statement that he’d change the way things are done in Washington. Are you kidding me? Emanuel is known for getting things done. These republicans say that he’s partisan. Oh, really? Here’s a little bit of information: Obama is a DEMOCRAT, and he’s going to choose a lot of DEMOCRATS for his staff and cabinet. He will also choose Republicans, but it sounds as if these Republicans are trying to convince us that Obama is already lying to us because he’s not choosing all right wingers. (I wonder if they’d feel the same way about a John McCain staff choice.) I guess there are some Republicans who don’t like someone who is a straight shooter and can’t be intimidated; it makes it a lot more difficult for the conservatives to lie and spin.

What’s funny about it is that most of us don’t even KNOW what the chief of staff does, and we don’t know the name of Bush’s chief of staff, and, frankly, we don’t care.

If the situation were reversed, the media wouldn’t even be reporting on this piece of insanity. They know that no one cares; they’re just going to dissect every move Obama makes in order to try to turn the public against him. Good luck with that.

What Winning At All Cost Says About You

Do you remember when you were a child and your mother or father or other parental figure said, “It’s not whether you win or lose; it’s how you play the game”? I started thinking about that saying within the context of a presidential election, and it made me wonder whether there really was more to winning than just winning.

There was a time when thelogicalreport might have supported John McCain, but that was a very long time ago. Sadly, it’s not just us; there have been many others who have made the disappointing contrast between the John McCain of years past and the John McCain of the 2008 election. For me, the problem with Senator McCain winning the presidency isn’t so much his being the president, for he isn’t a malicious, evil individual. The problem with McCain winning the presidency is the way in which he might win it: through constant, unmitigated, purposeful lies. What’s just as disturbing is that most of the mainstream conservative media have gone happily along with the lies. Here are just a few.

Lie #1: Barack Obama associates with terrorists (and it’s even been intimated that because he associates with them, he is one of them).

Barack Obama does not “associate” with terrorists. If I sit in the cubicle next to someone who committed a crime 40 years ago, and I have lunch with him every day, and I didn’t know that he’d committed a crime 40 years ago, I have news for you: that doesn’t make me a criminal. Even if I did know that he committed a crime 40 years ago, it still doesn’t make me a criminal, and it doesn’t mean that I take my societal cues from criminals. Senator Obama’s actions of service, kindness, and compassion in working for those who are impoverished in the country speak for themselves.

Lie #2: Barack Obama is a Socialist/Marxist. The McCain campaign has been only too happy to take something that is more honorable and honest than anything that George W. Bush has said or done in his entire 8 years and turn it into the number one single on Joe McCarthy’s hit parade. I’m still trying to figure out why so many people are willing to illogically believe that “spreading the wealth around” means Marxism just because an opposing campaign and it’s panicking supporting players in the conservative media say so. It’s a wonderful example of taking something out of context and assigning a false meaning to it. I think that most Americans want the wealth to be spread around and are tired of the wealth being concentrated in the hands of tax-dodging corporations who take advantage of the rest of us daily. Spreading the wealth around, as Obama explains it, means closing corporate tax loopholes and restoring the progressive tax system that was so successful before W lowered the tax rate for the richest among us. That’s it. If that’s Marxism, then those of you who believe it are Fascists.

Lie #3: Barack Obama is a Muslim. I don’t pretend to know who started this one, but I did hear MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough encourage the lie by not correcting it. And I’m happy to say that I did hear John McCain FINALLY correct the lie—-once, after which time he seemed to have abandoned that particular lie.

Barack Obama is a Christian; we all know it. Obama has said so, and even McCain has said so. He goes to a Christian church–not that it should matter. Why are so many people willing to believe that Muslim means terrorist? Again, is it just because the conservative media says so?

Lie #4: Obama is going to raise your taxes.

McCain says that people earning over $42,000 will have their taxes raised. It’s a lie. Obama has said time and time and time and time again that if you earn under $200,000, you’ll get a tax DECREASE. If you earn over $250,000, your taxes will go back to what they were under Bill Clinton, when we were building up a surplus, that is, he’ll let the temporary tax cuts for the wealthiest among us expire. If you earn between those two amounts, things will stay the same. Tax cuts for 95% of us, and higher taxes for the richest among us? Oh no, he’s a tax and spend liberal!

So, is this how John McCain wants to win the White House? McCain has taken every opportunity to try to win the election by attacking Obama’s character, saying that we can’t trust him, and who IS Barack Obama, and he’s secretive, and he won’t reveal specifics on his policies. But if you lie about someone else’s character, not to mention his policies, in order to win, doesn’t that say everything we need to know about YOUR character? And shouldn’t it send up a red flag to warn us that YOUR policies are not in our best interest?

Is this how John McCain wants to win the presidency? Is he that desperate? Apparently, he knows that his policies favor, once again, the wealthiest among us and so has to deflect attention to lies about Obama’s character.

Attack Senator Obama’s policies; that’s fair game. But don’t lie about his policies and then attack his character for them. Senator McCain, doing so only tells us more about you than we want to know——-especially if you’re elected tomorrow.

Senator Ted Stevens, Covicted Felons, and Voting

Senator Ted Stevens, senior republican from Alaska, has been found guilty on all corruption charges and could go to prison for five years. Meanwhile, from what I’ve read, he’s still running for re-election. Oh, and he doesn’t have to give up his current Senate seat. (I know that the election is next week, but it’s the principle here that I’m after; even if this had happened a year ago, he would not have had to leave the Senate.)

Soooooooooooo, let me get this straight: If you’re a convicted felon in this country, you can’t vote…………..But you can still serve as a United States senator. Hmmmmmmmm.

If Mr. Average American commits a felonious crime against society, he forfeits his right to vote in an election. A United States senator, on the other hand, who commits the same felonious crime against society can remain a United States senator. Does that mean that he can vote, too? Will Stevens be able to vote? Will he be able to vote for president? Will he at least be able to vote for himself? And if he does, and if he wins, then will he serve as senator while he’s serving as Prisoner #490580149240385089348098403218340?

The Congress does have the power to expel Senator Stevens, but it has to vote on it, and a two-thirds majority is needed. I wonder if we could all get together and vote on whether non-congressional convicted felons should be given the right to vote; to be fair, passage could require a two-thirds majority.

Ramblings on Palin’s Real America and Us Versus Them

 In 2001, President George Bush, in regard to the so-called war on terror, said, “You’re either with us or you’re against us…,” laying the groundwork for a cultural divisiveness that has become larger than any sense of country that we all share as Americans. And what’s most frightening is that the “you’re either with us or against us” mind set has become the norm rather than the anomolous, embarrassing, temporary blot on our collective soul that it should be. Now, the McCain campaign is carrying the torch, perhaps all the way to the next White House.

 Bush’s words encouraged us to judge one another’s motives and allegiances, for, after all, if we didn’t agree with the commander in chief, then we were being unpatriotic. If we didn’t support the invasion of Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with September 11 or any other terrorism threat at the time, then we were unpatriotic. If we didn’t rush to thrust the youngest and bravest of us into the line of firearms and bombs and beheadings in that sovereign nation, then we were not supporting those youngest and bravest of us——those troops—-and we were being unpatriotic. If we didn’t support tax cuts for the wealthiest among us in a time of war so that the rest of us could, once again, have the financial proof that trickle-down economics does not work, then we were unpatriotic.

And so it has continued for the past 7 years, from illegal wiretapping and spying on you and me in our telephone conversations and e-mails to firing government officials who refused to randomly investigate only Democrats for voter fraud that wasn’t voter fraud to snubbing anyone whose first language was not English. Our government has continued to foster an “us versus them” perspective.

The McCain/Palin campaign is now continuing to encourage that divisive, incendiary, destructive train of thought. In one of her latest campaign speeches, Palin spoke of small-town America as the “real” America, once again trying to divide our country into those who are patriotic, that is, those who agree with the McCain/Palin vision for this country, and those who are not patriotic, that is, those whose vision for this country does not include privatizing Social Security, taxing us on our employer-offered health benefits, and providing Socialist welfare to corporate America.

When George Bush did it, I dismissed it as “well, it’s George Bush.” I, as well as so many other Americans, came to view whatever Mr. Bush said as the opposite of what was really going on in his mind and behind our backs——–and he never disappointed me. When he said that he was a uniter, it turned out that he was a divider. When he said that wiretapping was always done with a warrant, it turned out that he was spying on Joe six-pack without warrants. And when he pressed on with his “us versus them” idea, it was just another day at the office. Maybe he was using the old divide and conquer routine.

Is that what Senator McCain and Governor Palin are trying to do now, divide and conquer? That sort of tactic can be successful if executed properly, with a surgeon’s precision and an Olympian’s skill. George Bush, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney have that skill and that precision. The proof is in the state our poltical discourse. They laid a solid foundation for the Republican candidate. But is that the kind of country we want?  Do we really want it to be you’re either with us or you’re against us? Isn’t anyone else tired of the “I’m right, and you’re wrong—and un-American” line? Do we want our leaders to encourage a distrust, a sort of neighbor-versus-neighbor kind of America? 

It sort of reminds me of the Civil War.

McCain Pals Around with Terrorists

He really does.

Although I wrote about McCain’s infidelity and his ties to the Council for World Freedom (what many on both sides would call a terrorist group), I’ll admit that I wasn’t aware of his close friendship with domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy. Anyone remember him?

I’m not going to list Liddy’s criminal acts or talk about his extremist beliefs here; you can read about them for yourselves either in this Huffington Post article or in this wonderful testimony to Liddy’s character, mostly told in his own words.

I will, however, make a point of saying that Liddy helped to plan the total incapacitation of an American citizen in the Watergate case in order to keep illegal acts by the government from becoming public. It appears that he was also interested in firebombing the Brookings Institution. I believe this all makes him a domestic terrorist. Here’s an interesting transcript of an interview with Daniel Ellsberg, the gentleman who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Pay special attention to the part where he talks about the, ummm, attempt to sort of do him bodily harm; Liddy was convicted of conspiracy in that one.

Does this second association to terrorists (or is it third?) make Senator McCain a terrorist? Does it make us afraid of what might happen if he’s president? Does it make us wonder why he has been dishonest about his associations? I, myself, am pondering the answers to these very complicated questions.

Palin Found Guilty of Abuse of Power

An Alaskan legislative inquiry, upon investigation, has found that while Sarah Palin did not commit a crime in moving to replace a cabinet member, she was, indeed, guilty of abuse of power in what has come to be called Troopergate.

Palin fired Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan when he refused to fire state trooper Mike Wooten, who was Palin’s ex-brother-in-law, because the trooper was embroiled in a custody battle with Palin’s sister. It’s wonderful that Palin feels so strongly about her family, but laws, even ethics laws, are made to be followed regardless of personal involvement with any particular matter. That’s part of what makes someone worthy of being elected—we know that the person will not pick and choose the situations in which he or she will follow the laws.

There’s apparently a fine line between abusing the public trust and committing a crime, and luckily for Palin, she managed to keep her pointy-toed stilettos on the right side, so she won’t be seeing the inside of a cell over this problem. However, being found guilty of abuse of power does mean that Mr. Monegan can persue the matter legally——and it also means that Sarah Palin might not be someone we can trust to tell the truth.

When the story first broke over the summer, she welcomed the investigation, saying that she had nothing to hide, but after she became the vp nominee, she did a 180 and refused to cooperate with the investigators. Now, we know why. The Palins are now clinging to the only little piece of good news in the report, and that is that she did NOT TECHNICALLY committ a crime. I say that if that’s all ya got, then maybe trying to get elected isn’t your biggest problem.