In a surprise move, campaign officials for democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton are to announce April 1 that the New York Senator is withdrawing from the Democratic presidential primaries and is joining Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s ticket as his running mate. Political insiders and beltway pundits alike were surprised at the timing of the announcement, but not altogether shocked by this latest development. Clinton has been running second place to Democratic rival Barack Obama for months now, her campaign war chest is running low on funds, contributors to her campaign are tapped out, and many long time political allies have been leaving the campaign in droves.

CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL CONFIRMS RUMORS

According to an anonymous Clinton campaign official, Mrs. Clinton feels she has a better chance of realizing her lifelong dream to become president of the United States by switching parties now. Once the pre-ordained Democratic nominee, a string of primary losses to Obama have put the Clinton campaign into a downward spiral.

“She sees the writing on the wall. Clearly, this isn’t her husband’s Democratic
Party anymore,” said the campaign official. “If we’ve learned anything over the
past few years, it’s that sometimes experienced politicians have to do
courageous things in order to continue to help America. Joe Lieberman did it in
2006. Hillary is doing it now.”

SUPPORTERS STAND FIRM, OPPONENTS INDIFFERENT

Some Clinton supporters think the move is brilliant, and will continue to support Hillary no matter what ticket she’s on.

“I think it’s brilliant, “ said Nancy Bigbee of Westchester, Vermont. “McCain’s
like, what, 75 years old or something? She’ll probably be president in no time
this way.”

And that nugget may well hold some gold in it. McCain’s health hasn’t been much of an issue in this campaign, but he is 70 years old, and would be the oldest president ever sworn in to a first term if elected. A bitter Democratic primary season has battered Mrs. Clinton among her former party, making it a long shot for her to get the nomination at this point. This is likely her best shot now at getting back into the White House.

Obama supporters have mixed feelings about the announcement, being somewhat happy that the bitter in-fighting will finally end, but mostly being indifferent, having stopped listening to Clinton months ago.

WEEKS IN THE MAKING

Rumors of a possible Clinton party switch have been circling Washington recently following Sen. Clinton’s media appearances with Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and Richard Mellon Scaife, a vociferously staunch opponent of Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, for years. Even Ann Coulter loves her. Democrats have been not so quietly rumbling about what they saw as her attempts to cozy up to the “vast right wing conspiracy” she once railed against. Senator Clinton’s own recent comments also seem to have been quietly laying the groundwork for just such a tactic. Earlier last month she repeated on several talk shows that both she and Senator McCain had the lifetime of dedicated experience needed to run this country, something her former Democratic opponent Barack Obama didn’t have. In fact, up until today’s announcement, Senator Clinton had been Senator McCain’s best campaigner, with her repeated attempts to derail the Obama campaign.

“All of the dirty tricks of the last few weeks, from the NAFTA frame-up against
Obama in Ohio to the subtly drawn out race issues and Reverend Wright
associations to the sublimation of the primary rules in Florida and Michigan-
all these things and more have been part of the Clinton campaign’s efforts to
divide the Democratic party and bring some votes over to a McCain-Clinton
ticket,” said the unnamed Clinton campaign official.

When asked about the timing of the announcement, coming on the heels of Senator Clinton’s steadfast refusal to leave the Democratic race before the end of the primary season, this same official noted that, “April is clearly the time to strike. We know what we’re doing here. We’re not a bunch of fools.”

WIN-WIN FOR GOP?

But what does a McCain-Clinton ticket hold for Republicans? For starters, Hillary Clinton began her political life as a Barry Goldwater disciple, the former Arizona Republican and presidential candidate in 1964. Long embraced by the more conservative Republicans, Hillary’s early associations with Goldwater’s brand of politics probably runs deep in her own political psyche, proving her to be a Republican at heart. It’s not just coincidence that McCain also hails from Arizona.

But more than just her conservative underpinnings, Clinton brings to the GOP ticket that tough, but feminine touch that’s been missing all these years- like Margaret Thatcher did for Britain’s Conservative party in the 1980’s. Conventional wisdom holds that Republicans, especially women, wouldn’t vote for Clinton come hell or high water, but that truth probably won’t hold at the ballot box. During her husband’s Oval Office infidelities, Mrs. Clinton stood by her man to the end. While derided at the time for by many women’s groups, then First-Lady Clinton unknowingly started a trend that has been seen all too often these last seven years during GOP prominence. For every Congressman convicted of taking bribes there’s been a wife by their side. For every GOP sex scandal (from cruising for page boys to soliciting in the airport bathroom) there’s been a tightly smiling GOP wife by her man. These women credit Hillary for their strength almost as much as they do their faith. Clearly Clinton can hold her own with this demographic at the polls. And that’s one area McCain clearly needs help with.

Hillary also shows promise that she is willing to carry on with some of the more popular Bush policies like the War in Iraq, by giving life to the falsehood that she had to dodge sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia while serving as First Lady. Such inspired untruth telling shows she’s not only ready, but also willing to say anything to get her point across. This is the kind of trait Republicans love in there politicians-the power to change reality to fit the situation at hand.

Both Clinton and McCain bill themselves as Bi-Partisan leaders and they’ve proven this much. Both reached across the aisle to support the Iraq War. Both supported the Illegal Alien Amnesty bill brought forth by Senator McCain and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) before they opposed it. Both supported Bush’s No Child Left Behind program too, and still support it generally despite its high costs to states, narrowed curriculum geared towards testing, and less than stellar results. In these and many other issues, Hillary Clinton and John McCain seem to make the perfect political couplet in generations.

LAST, BEST SHOT AT WHITE HOUSE

But the bottom line is that Hillary Clinton has had her sights set on the presidency for decades. It is her life long dream and from her point of view, this year was supposed to be “her” year. She’d hoped to take the prize under the Democrats banner, if only to tie the double-shot secured by the Bush clan. But with Barack Obama clearly the popular choice among registered Democratic voters, and among many Independents too, Mrs. Clinton is realist enough to know that her only ride back to Pennsylvania Avenue is in the back seat of John McCain’s limo- and faced with the prospect of losing it all, a short stint as VP looks pretty good to her now.

The announcement, scheduled for release on April 1, 2008, also noted that both Senators McCain and Clinton would be unreachable for comment for most of the day, as they will be coordi
nating their campaign strategies for the next phase of the campaign.

(cross-posted at Bring It On!)

Race. Like it or not, race is still an issue in America. Generations after the civil rights marches, and more than a century since the Civil War, race is still an issue in America. And no matter how far we push the conflicts of race to the corners of our minds and to the fringes of our society, race is still an issue in America. You may not think this is true. In every coffee shop and in every mall and in every schoolhouse you will find whites and blacks and Asians and Hispanics. People of all color hold positions of prominence and authority just as they all occupy the lower rungs of our society. It is true that in many areas of our lives, the matter of ones racial identity has become almost moot. But this is only the surface, the part that we expose in public or polite company. Yet the racial inequality that lies at the heart of the American experience can’t be swept away so easily, for it lies buried in the generational experiences of our elders, it perpetuates itself in familial memories, and it is always an underlying scapegoat for each races misfortunes. Humanity is always cruelest to its own members.

White Americans descend from persecuted pilgrims or poor immigrants. Their roots began in flight from religious oppression or corrupted Old World governments. But in their determination to improve their own lot and secure their own freedoms, they exerted the same negative aspects on other races they encountered. Native Americans were slaughtered and impoverished. Blacks were held in slavery and beaten down. Even white women were burdened under the yolk of white male supremecy. As years passed on, the idea of America, and it’s quest for perfect individual freedom and respect has helped liberate these groups and others from racially motivated discrimination. But the memories remain, and the policies of the past still touch and color the lives of the historically oppressed.

Race issues are still among us. They made us who we are today. They have historically divided us and made many America’s where there should be but one.

That race has become an issue in this presidential election is no surprise given the history of America and the fact that the leading Democratic candidate is a half black-half white American. That it is being used to denigrate that candidate by his opponent, a white woman, is a little more than unfortunate. In trying to paint Barack Obama as a covert racist (or as someone who would deingrate the potential of White America in favor of righting the historical wrongs done to Black America), Hillary Clinton proves the dictum laid earlier: Humanity is always cruelest to its own members. The quest for the presidency takes all sorts. Hillary Clinton has proven to me at least that her quest for the presidency is not to make America a markedly better and different place, but rather is an effort to make her own personal history complete, at least as she sees it to be. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has shown me time and again that his quest is not for personal destiny or pride but for a better America for us all-white, black, yellow, green, or purple.

Today in Philadelphia, Obama gave a speech to address the race issue. Comments made by his former church pastor have been foisted into the media spotlight by Clinton campaign supporters, comments that exude the angst and historical anger blacks have towards the policies of white America. The media bandwagon had whipped this pastor’s comments into a front page issue, and for those who only follow politics tangentially, the idea could be drawn that Obama not only agrees with the divisive comments of his former minister, but that if elected he would somehow work to reverse all the historical wrongs in one fell swoop.

In his speech today, titles “A More Perfect Union,” Barack Obama not only dispelled those fears and false claims, but he showed himself to be an honorable man and a “more perfect presidential candidate” than anyone else in the field. With eloquence and humility, Obama explained why he can vigorously disagree with his former pastor’s comments without throwing the man under the proverbial bus.

Some excerpts may help for those who didn’t get to hear the speech:

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend
Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain.
Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and
foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be
considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree
with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have
heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly
disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply
controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out
against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view
of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates
what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America…

Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at
a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come
together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a
falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating
climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but
rather problems that confront us all.

As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened
my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my
conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in
derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but
courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and
the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no
more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a
woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she
loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black
men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has
uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this
country that I love.
We all of us hear coments from people we respect or
trust or love that rub us the wrong way. But we do not disown these people or
banish them from our own lives. Why should Obama do any different? Instead, his
is a position of realism-he knows there are racial divides that lie under the
surface and sometimes rear their ugly heads at inopportune or embarrassing
times. People are imperfect, even as they strive not to be.

Yet I am confounded. Why is it okay for the GOP to be ensconced with religiously motivated hatred towards homosexuality and this not be cause for general alarm or cries of discrimination? Why can a GOP candidate receive the blessing of a Bob Jones University and not be held in disdain? The easy answer is because America still is not equal for everyone. The harder answer is that America still subtly condons discrimination against other Americans, that humanity is still trapped by her historical racial and religious divides. Barack Obama won’t be able to change these facts overnight if elected, but he certainly recognizes them, understands their roots, and realizes that the path ahead comes not from pretending these problems are solved, but in admitting that these problems of the past
have brought us ALL to where we are today. While our differences may have divided us in the past to brought us to our problems today, only by working together can we solve the immense problems that affect us all right now.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that
breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as
spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in
the aftermath of Katrina – or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play
Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from
now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or
not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most
offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence
that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will
all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his
policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking
about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And
nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come
together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling
schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and
Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we
want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that
those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of
America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall
behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This speech today, perhaps more than any other he has given, shows that Barack Obama is the right leader for America today. It was the kind of speech that filled my heart with hope and my mind with pride. “This is my candidate speaking,” I thought as I drove through traffic listening on the radio. “This is why I support Obama.”

There is much more in the body of the speech that you need to read if you didn’t get a chance to hear it live. Indeed, it is a speech that every voting American should take the time to read. You should read it because of what it says about America’s racial history. You should read it because of what it says about Barack Obama and his own views on race in America. You should read it because of what it says about who we are, where we are going if we don’t change course, and where we can be if we do.

The economy, health care, the environment, and the future of our children and our neighbors children demand that we change how we live, work, and play in this coming century. Different solutions to todays problems must be found. Our way of life may well have to change dramatically if we are to push forward towards more freedom and equality for all. We cannot do this with politicians who exploit of divisions to gain self importance or power. We can only move forward if we move forward together. Who better to guide us along this path right now than Barack Obama?

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

“I think you’ll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to
say.“He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of
experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put
forth a speech he made in 2002.” – Hillary
Clinton before the Texas and Ohio primaries.

And with that comment, Hillary Clinton proclaimed to the nation that if she can’t have the presidential nomination then the whole Democratic party might as well just vote Republican, because if the choice ends up being between McCain and Obama, well then Hillary thinks that four more years of Bush-like policies are A-OK for America.

Sounds like Hillary has Joe Lieberman for an advisor. If the Democrats don’t give you what is obviously rightfully yours to take, then the hell with them! Better to side with the law-breaking, torture loving, warmongering, Bush GOP than actually listen to the people of this country when they tell you that they prefer someone else for the top job.

Of course, when Hillary makes statements like the one above, it only highlights why so many Democrats-and so many Americans of all political flavors-have thrown their support behind Barack Obama. We don’t want a president who thinks that decades of experience in a crooked political system is a plus. We don’t want another president who refuses to acknowledge the reality of a situation, who thinks that she should just get her way because, by golly, it’s her turn and she’s due. We don’t want another imperialistic attitude sitting in the Oval Office, pretending that things will only be better with her in charge, that no one else (save the opposition party nominee) can quite handle the task. We don’t want another presidential election that boils down to a choice between bad and worse. And this time, we actually have a chance to change those dynamics by giving the nomination to Obama.

But for Hillary the equation is a different one altogether. For Hillary, the question isn’t who can better help to end corruption in government or who can give America back her reputation in the world or even who will inspire Americans to get back to building a better country and world. Nope, for Hillary the only question is “How can I win this thing?” And in answering that question, she shows that for her, winning is the only thing that matters.

Debate after debate has proven to voters that on many domestic issues, both Clinton and Obama share similar goals, varying mostly in the details of policy than in the necessity of movement. But under the surface is where the differences lie, and voters have figured out that where Obama seeks to empower us all, Hillary simply seeks power for its own sake-and for her own sense of personal destiny.

Since falling behind Obama in the delegate count, Hillary has pulled out all the stops to paint Obama as unprepared for the task of being president, hoping that by highlighting his so-called “inexperience” that voters will flock under her banner. It simply hasn’t worked. Even her primary victories in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island were slim victories and weren’t enough to even narrow the gap in the delegate count. But what Hillary seems to ignore at this stage of the game is the fact that many, many Republicans are less than satisfied with McCain as their nominee. These GOPers are now watching the Democratic race and asking themselves a serious question-could they vote for a Democrat? For many, if the candidate is Hillary the answer in a resounding “NO.” But if it is Obama, there are many who will jump ship and vote for a Democrat. At least they would if the vote was held today. But if Hillary-who they will never vote for in the general election-continues to portray Obama as a weak choice for Democrats, she is also hurting him for the general election and giving McCain a better shot of winning the prize. For someone who claims to despise the Bush Administration, stumping (even discreetly) for the GOP nominee who puts forth ambitions not so unlike those of Bush seems an odd way of telling voters that they should pick you. Especially Democratic voters who would rather sit in a pit of vipers than give the White House to another Bush-like contender.

Michael Gerson said it well in this Washington Post article:

“Though it is increasingly unlikely, Clinton may still have a path to the
nomination — and what a path it is. She merely has to puncture the balloon of
Democratic idealism; sully the character of a good man; feed racial tensions
within her party; then eke out a win with the support of unelected
superdelegates, thwarting the hopes of millions of new voters who would see an
inspiring young man defeated by backroom arm-twisting and arcane party rules.”

Indeed. And what a presidential path to victory that is.

But as she keeps on campaigning against Obama, she keeps highlighting her own presidential unworthiness by trying to paint Obama as some untested, incapable hack who showed up at the last minute and fooled us all into taking away what was and should be hers and hers alone.
Like when she tried to throw light on a land purchase Obama made. Obama acknowledged that the deal was a bad idea and has taken responsibility for his actions. He’s not denying the mistake, not battling to have records hidden. And yet for Hillary Clinton, years were spent examining a little land deal called Whitewater, years which she fought and fought to keep the whole thing under wraps.

And this whole “experience” thing is a real laugh too, especially if you look back to the 1992 campaign of her husband. Bill Clinton was so overmatched by the senior George Bush when it came to government service and experience that the Clinton’s had to portray his candidacy around a different theme- something they called “change.” Funny how what seemed such a good idea in 1992 (and was a good idea by the way) is now some kind of harbinger of failure if Obama wins the nomination. And let’s be real here- Hillary isn’t all that much more “experienced” at being president that anyone else who has never been president.

And then there is Hillary’s tendency towards secrecy. In a move that likely inspired Dick Cheney’s own energy meetings, Hillary has yet to fully release the documents related to her own health care meetings in the early 1990’s. She has yet to release her income tax returns even though Obama has done so and even though when running for Senate in 2000 she screamed about how her opponent didn’t release his returns. A small bit of hypocrisy that reveals a lot about the candidate herself.

And now her latest flop is with regards to the Florida and Michigan primaries-she “won” both events, despite a pledge not to campaign and now wants those delegates added to her tally. Of course, she and all the other candidates knew well in advance that those states’ delegates were not going to count because of some disagreement with the DNC and the stat Democratic parties. Obama (and the others still in the race at the time) followed the rules and stayed out of the states, in Michigan no name but Hillary even appeared on the ballot. But now that she is losing what is rightfully hers, she wants to change the game and get those delegates in. Tell me again how Hillary would be a different, better president that Bush? After all, lying and cheating and ignoring the rules doesn’t seem to have made this country a better place in the last eight years.

And for goodness sakes, I’m not
even mentioning her many corporate ties that make her incapable of legislating purely for her constituents, or her support for the war in Iraq, or her willingness to ignore the massive abuses of law perpetrated by Team Bush.

All grace and honorable when she was the presumed “inevitable” nominee, Hillary Clinton coming in second isn’t such a noble character. I suspect though that this is a more true representation of who Hillary Clinton really is, and of who she would be as president of this country.

And these are just some more reasons why I support Barack Obama.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

They say all politics is local, right? That may be true for school boards and city councils, and it might even hold for national congressional elections too. But when it comes to U.S. presidential elections, there’s nothing local about them, at least not for the rest of the world. Being the planets lone superpower means eyes from around the globe scrutinize our choice of leadership. People across the globe understand that the American president shapes the lives of everyone, not just Americans.

To say that world opinion of America has degraded under the hand of George W. Bush may be an understatement, but I’m not going to belabor that point today. Suffice it to say that Bush has undermined our national reputation even among our allies during his tenure, both with his belligerance and his policies, and his concerted lack of curiosoty and ability reality haven’t helped things much either. Where this country used to be viewed as a beacon of hope, promise, and freedom by the nations of the world, the United States today is viewed with skepticism by many, with scorn by many more. Instead of a country that helps, we’re perceived as a country that takes and pushes its way through the global arena. Rule of Law? Not under this president. America may still be king in terms of brute force, but our prestige is sorely bruised, and declining world opinion makes it harder for America to lead the way towards a better world future. The damage Bush has done to America at home has been grave. But the damage he has done to America abroad has probably been even worse for this country.

American tend to discount the thoughts and concerns of the rest of the world in most everything we do. Hell, throw down a world map and most Americans probably couldn’t find more than half a dozen foreign countries without computerized assistance. So it’s only natural that when electing our president we think only about what a person offers us here at home, completely discounting the importance of what that person could offer us around the world.

The truth of the matter is that the American president sets the tone for how every other country will act towards American inspired goals and ideas. The world knows that America has the might to make happen the things it wants to make happen, but it isn’t might that shows leadership. True leadership relies on both might and the ability to gather partners around a common goal. And while might may force others to the table, albeit with a sour taste in their mouths, true statesmanship allows the participants to sit at the table both eager to listen and willing to participate in our goals, not out of fear of retribution but out of eagerness to forge a better path.

Which bring me around to the point of this post. World opinion surrounding the current U.S. presidential elections shows excitement about the possibility of Barack Obama becoming our next president. Like many Americans, Obama is perceived as a chance to change not just the direction of American politics and policies but the face of America in general. To many abroad, McCain looks a lot like Bush, with his continued support for the Iraq War and the broader Bush War on Terrorism and all its faulty premises to his Cold War mentality towards foes and U.S. foreign strategy in a world that has moved on. Similarly, Hillary Clinton is hardly viewed as the groundbreaking candidate abroad, especially in areas of concern like the Middle East. Remember that during her husbands reign of power, attacks in Iraq continued the war of the first President Bush. She carries the baggage of Bill Clinton’s presidency around with her whether she wants to or not, and despite her husbands popularity in general, not all things “Clinton” are viewed favorably around the globe.

But in Obama, non-Americans see a glimmer of hope that under his leadership America could not only regain her standing as a right and honorable nation among the world community, but that she could again assume a leadership role in solving world problems like global climate change, energy diversity, and a path towards global prosperity and peace. But don’t take my word for it. Read what people are saying themselves…

From Australia:

He’s (Obama) cosmopolitan, he offers a fresh framework for conceptualising global issues, and he is a defence against fundamentalist Christianity in the US.
This quote from an older Australian male living in Sydney is a good example of the symbolism surrounding the Obama “nomination”: “I think Barack Obama represents the best hope for a world entering a dangerous state of confrontation between Islam and Christianity. Obama is a Christian but he had Muslim parents and grew up in the world’s most populous Islamic nation, Indonesia …”

From England:

For the rest of us the Obama campaign is more than about mere American domestic politics. That moment on a freezing January day in Washington when a black man and his family stand on the steps of the Capitol to take the presidential oath will be flashed up all over the world. The wordless message to young black people from New York to Nairobi, Johannesburg to Brixton will be of a whole new world of personal possibilities. America’s sense of itself will be redeemed. The way that the world sees it will be transformed.

From Russia:

After presenting the question to nearly 50 Russians, the answer is clear: one hundred percent of our not-so-random sampling said Senator Barack Obama is their first choice. The reasons are varied. Some of Russia Blog’s Russian friends have had great experiences in the U.S., and they genuinely believe that the first-term junior senator from Illinois is a leader who is capable of bringing positive change to America. They like Mr. Obama’s goal of withdrawing the troops from Iraq and agree with his health care and education policies. Other Russians are more concerned about Russia, and don’t like the anti-Putin rhetoric of Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton. (It is important to remember that Vladimir Putin still enjoys nearly 80 percent approval rating, and most Russians view themselves as enjoying more freedom and wealth today than ever before in their country’s thousand-year history.)

Russians have been keeping their savings in U.S. currency for over a decade. Some Russians believe that America’s aggressive foreign policy, negative image abroad, and high military spending contributed to the weakening of the dollar. Whether there is a defensible correlation or not, even if Mr. Obama spends more federal budget money on healthcare and education, the Russians in our informal poll hope that withdrawal from Iraq and increased “friendliness” of the United States abroad will help to strengthen the U.S. currency.

From France:

In an informal poll of the French Chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution. Their members are descendants of French aristocrats who fought in the American Revolution. They are about as conservative a group as you can find in France, and yet they all preferred Obama. And they are not alone. The French as a whole say Obama is their favorite candidate. He has caught their imagination with his image and soaring oratory. When they talk about him, they almost always mention Kennedy. Even French Socialists, who chose a woman to run as their candidate in France’s presidential election last year, prefer Obama to Hillary Clinton by a slight margin.

And Iran:

“…the whispers of a Democratic candidate winning the US presidential
election could soften the dark and frozen atmosphere in Iran. Iran’s current president – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – was elected two years ago to face the foreign threat of having Iran considered a part of the ‘axis of evil’. Two years ago, Iran could have been attacked any moment, and a person was chosen to counter the foreign pressure. If the foreign threat diminishes, a slow democratic movement can go forward. Obama’s ideas on foreign affairs and Iran make reformists happy… maybe some do not know but peace and dialogue is like poison for a group whose political existence relies on violence and war.”

Now I’ll happily grant that these few glimpses into the minds of others across the globe do not equate to some kind of wholesale international support for Barack Obama, but if these are the average thoughts of average people across the globe then the international outlook for America with Obama at the helm could be promising.

As important as what a candidate can do for Americans at home is what can a candidate bring to America from abroad. Obama hasn’t the international political experience that Hillary has, but he has more practical international experience borne out of living in several foreign countries. Obama hasn’t the “war toughness” of McCain, but he has a more mature concept of when and how to use the power of the sword. Obama brings a face of hope (that a black man can become president in a country born from prejudice and slavery); he brings youthfulness (compared to the 72 year old McCain and the 60 year old Clinton); he offers infectuous ambition (challenging average citizens to help colve national and international problems); and he brings the message that in a new world, we must sometimes cast off the oppressive bonds that create gridlock, especially when we’ve been bound up so long we barely recognize the chains for what they are.

How the world perceives America is directly related to how they see our president. Right now, we are the bully in the playground and foreign attitudes towards us and our policies are very low. As important to solving our national and international problems is the face of our leader. Electing Obama will go a long way towards repairing American prestige abroad. That’s something that McCain and Hillary can’t do, not so long as they cling to the old way of governing-which they seem very likely to do.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Denying the claims of economists nationwide, President Bush today said that HE doesn’t think the nation is headed towards recession.

“I’m concerned about the economy. I don’t think we’re headed to recession. But
no question, we’re in a slowdown.”

At the White House news conference, Bush also claimed that the dollar was still strong:

“I believe that our economy has got the fundamentals in place for us to … grow
and continue growing, more robustly hopefully than we’re growing now. So we’re
still for a strong dollar.”

And he’s quite proud of the faux-stimulus plan passed by Congress and signed by him-you know the one that borrows another $150 billion from foreigners so he can give taxpayers a small shot in the financial arm at the expense of future generations descended from those same taxpayers:

“We acted robustly…we’ll see the effects of this pro-growth package.”

And he rejected any additional stimulus plans for now:

“Why don’t we let stimulus package 1, which seemed like a good idea at the time,
have a chance to kick in?”

Which seemed like a good idea at the time? Is he implying that just maybe it wasn’t really such a splendid economic plan, but rather a meaningless pander and giveaway that ultimately does nothing but bury this country further?

When asked about growing consumer concern about the economy, and in particular about the possibility of gasoline costs reaching the $4 mark by summer, Bush had this to say:

“That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that. … I know it’s high now.”

All of these are telling signs of an executive completely out of touch with reality. Of course, we know that Bush has been out of touch with reality for most of his life, so none of these pronouncements should be a surprise, considering the source. But it almost stretches incredulity to accept that our nation’s leader is this far out of touch with reality, the reality that most economists recognize and that most Americans are enduring as best they can.

Earlier this week, my local paper pulled out the super-font to declare STAGFLATION– that lovely economic state marked by stagnant economic growth, rampant inflation and rising unemployment. And many economists agree that the outlook is not at all comforting.

“We have stagflation, said Peter Schiff, head of Euro Pacific Capital in
Newport Beach. “No matter what the government numbers say, we’re in a recession
already, especially if you measure our growth against foreign currencies or
gold. And even by the government’s figures, we clearly have very high inflation
– and the government data really don’t capture the extent of how prices are
rising.”

Right- food and energy costs aren’t included in federal economic numbers…as if the costs of these items don’t really affect average folks. Silly of us to be concerned if we have a tough time filling the gas tank so we can get to work to earn enough money to decide whether to fill the tank again or feed the family some food that might actually be good for them.

Let’s see here…among the signs of recession, the dollar is weak and getting weaker (hell- the Canadian dollar is worth more the the US dollar), gold is surging (which occurs when the dollar is so weak), the Fed keeps cutting interest rates, home foreclosures are at decade highs, unemployment is rising, inflation is rising….yep, I can see why Bush thinks we’re going along fine.

The president isn’t too worried:

“We’ll make it through this period just like we made it through other periods of
uncertainty during my presidency.”

WHEW! And to think I was worried there for a minute. I’d like to get a pair of those rose colored glasses Bush has. Maybe he could offer that as a stimulus plan.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

The push to select Barack Obama as the Democratic presidential candidate continues to build as Obama won his 11th straight primary victory, winning 65% of the votes cast by Americans abroad in what was billed the “global primary.” As the candidates move towwards the Ohio and Texas primaries, Clinton campaign officials, including ex-President and potential future First Husband Bill Clinton, admit that if Hillary can’t win at least one of those states her campaign may well be over.

It’s no secret here that I am an Obama supporter. It’s his message that has energized me, in no small part because his message is so similar to the one I laid out when I began political blogging in 2005. Long before I even knew about Barack Obama I began writing about a different kind of politics- one where the power lay with the people and not with big corporations and special interest donors; one where politicians worked for the good of the citizens and not for the good of their benefactors or personal spoils; and one where government policies were crafted on sound principals of the greater good and executed with efficiency and common sense. Of course these weren’t new concepts when I wrote them and they’re not new concepts today, but when was the last time a serious politician not only espoused the rhetoric of political change but had the moxie to actually make it happen, to make it a central theme of a presidential campaign in such a visible and believable way? Not since Thomas Jefferson has a president offered such a stark choice for voters in determining what path their country will take. Jefferson’s grand change for American politics happened when he busted down the door of the new American aristocratic ruling class and delivered our government into the hands of the common man. Prior to Jefferson, political kingmaking and policy crafting was the exclusive domain of the upper classes, and the common man was thought too ignorant and/or too incapable of having a hand in political affairs. Jefferson abhored that idea, found it too similar to the monarch system of government this country fought so hard to divest itself of. Jefferson brought the common man into politics, and thus brought a bit more democracy in to this Democratic Republic of ours.

Of course, over 200 years later, Jefferson’s political revolution has paled, and too often seems little more than a charicature of itself today. Substitute today’s lobbyists and corporations for yesteryears well-bred and high-born, and the government we have been languishing under isn’t so different from where we began. We still have all the trappings of a democratic government-people vote after all- but none of the benefits of a government that truly governs for the betterment of its people. And the reason is simple- the average person still thinks that voting is enough, that personal involvement beyond casting a ballot is a waste of time, and our politicians and government reinforce this perception at every turn.

But Americans can see clearly now the failure that occurs when government is left to run amok, led for generations by self-serving ideologues, and finally handed over to a man-child whose best trick is to break the china and shove the shards under someone else’s carpet with a smirk on his face. We see that decades of citizen inattention and corporate dominance has created a wave of disastrous proportions coming on all fronts- a debilitating economic crisis, shattered health care and ineffective education programs, false security ploys that do little more than waste money, a splintered and wounded defense capability– the broken bits are littered everywhere. Americans can see that change is needed. In Barack Obama, Americans are seeing that change is possible.

So let’s say that Obama wins the democratic nomination, wins the general election, and in January 2009 he is sworn in as the next president of the United States. Let’s say that he wins the election by a comfortable margin and has what would be considered widespread support among American voters. Let’s say that he rides into the White House with his banner of CHANGE waving in the wind, right under the American flag. What happens then?

Time for the reality check folks, because no matter how much I support Barack Obama and no matter how much I agree with his premise of change coming from the people of this country, from involving them and listening to them and acting to make their lives work a little bit better each day, I know in my heart of heart that the first two years of an Obama presidency will look a lot like they do now. In fact, aside from my hope that President Obama would put a quick and decisive end to the Iraq quagmire, I don’t expect much in the way of real-world political change from Washington D.C. until 2011 at the earliest.

The reason for this is pretty simple, but is probably missed by a huge number of voters. Because despite eight years of contrary actions, our president does not legally have brute power to do as he sees fit whenever he sees fit. Only in extreme circumstances (like in a government run by ideologues and selfish power brokers- or in a dictatorship) does a man like George W. Bush manage to reinvent the powers of the presidency and have his minions fall into lock step behind him. In normal, LAWFUL, administrations, the real power of government lies in the legislature, and the president is just the person who sets the tone, and guides the direction of government as the people see fit.

Obama is setting the tone now. The tone is change. The tone is getting corporations out of government and getting real people back inside. The tone is an end to wasteful spending and harmful policies. The tone is an end of cronyism and outsourcing and payback politics. And the people are responding to this new tone in politics. We want to trust our leaders again. We want to know that our hard earned dollars aren’t making the rich richer while we struggle to make ends meet. We want to have a say in how our taxes are used. And we want to reclaim our reputation in the world.

But even though this election could bring us new leadership in the legislature too, the attention and energy is all focused on who will be the next president. If the next president ends up being John Mccain or Hillary Clinton then the congressional seats up for grabs won’t really matter. Neither of those candidates have real plans to try to change the system of governing. They are both so entrenched in the status quo that they can’t even see why it has become so rotten. But if Obama wins the presidency, those who sit on Capitol Hill will be the conduit or the barrier to real change. And as few voters are considering the reality of the situation, a President Obama will be facing the same corrupted politicians, the same moneyed lobbyists, the same pay-to-play political culture for at least two more years.

Serious political watchers understand this, and critics of all things democratic are probably chomping at the bit for an Obama presidency, built on the mantra of change, that will likely produce little real change in the business of politics for at least two years. I can imagine the pundits now, ready to tear apart the concept of real political change by claiming that the campaign rhetoric was nothing but chump chat if Washington continues on as usual, as it is likely to do. But in looking ahead to this particular future, one can on
ly hope that both the voters and a President Obama will use the first two years to plant the seeds of change, nurture them with care, and help them sprout into full fledged flowers of reality when the 2011 mid-terms come around.

As President, I expect Obama to immediately work to end the Iraq war and begin to repair this nations damaged reputation in the world. I would expect Obama to rescind the most vile parts of the Bush years- ending officially sanctioned torture, ending the most divisive aspects of partisanship, ending political policies that are shaped on evangelical, end-times philosophies. But I would also expect Obama to continue speaking about the things that have propelled him to the lead in this primary campaing. I expect him to continue to implore the people to seek power in government by ousting those who cling to the status quo of our dirty politics. I would expect a President Obama to issue a call for a legislature filled with people who believe that the politics of today are over, that a new day in America can only come when the Congresspeople and Senators finally discard the power-partisan politics, the high money campaigns or else get discarded themselves.

Change can come, it really can. But electing Barack Obama as our next president is just the first step towards change. We can’t just give the man the job and expect he can single-handidly change the corrupt culture in DC. We have to take the next step for him. We have to give him a legislature that will embrace a new day in American politics. We need to give him people who will fight for their constituents instead of their corporate donors. We need to elect a congress and senate who also embraces the power of change through people.

People may not be seeing this yet. Right now, the euphoria surrounds the possibility of a people’s president. And that’s all well and good. After all, we have to start somewhere, and electing a person who actually believes that change is possible, necessary, and achievable through the involvement of real people is a great place to start.

Just remember that Obama alone won’t be enough. We need to take the next step. It’d be nice to think that the steps would happen together, that not only would we elect a president commited to really fixing the worst parts of government but that we’d elect legislators who see things that way too. But in this I am realistic.

Barack Obama is just one man with a shared vision of a better America, a different America. We need him to be the next president if we ever want to move in a new direction. But we also must recognize that in order for him to succeed, in order for us all to succeed in changing the way our country works, we need to fill the halls of Congress with people who also will work for change. We don’t have these people there now. We won’t have enough of them there in 2009. But we have time to find them- people of all political stripes who care more about really helping America and Americans than they do about buttressing their resumes and bank accounts-and we have to elect them. Because with a president committed to changing the American government AND a congress that actually listens to the people, this country can once again be a leader in solving our own and the worlds problems without making things worse than when they started.

(cross posted on Bring It On!)

My family of three spends about $400 a month at grocery stores for food and probably another $200 a month dining out or buying extras for cook-outs. Included in this budget is fresh produce and meat, organic dairy products, and a small assortment of snack (junk food) items. Also included in this budget is non-consumables like paper products and cleaners. We consistently have our cupboards stocked and we often cook enough for left-overs. All said, our weekly food budget hovers around $150. So I found this e-mail I received pretty interesting.
Below are several “average” families from around the world. The caption details how much they spend per week on food for their family. The picture shows you what they get for their money. Pay close attention not only how much their money buys, but what it is they are eating.

Germany: The Melander family of BargteheideFood expenditure for one week: 375.39 Euros or $500.07

United States: The Revis family of North CarolinaFood expenditure for one week $341.98

Italy: The Manzo family of Sicily Food expenditure for one week: 214.36 Euros or $260.11

Mexico: The Casales family of Cuernavaca Food expenditure for one week: 1,862.78 Mexican Pesos or $189.09

Poland: The Sobczynscy family of Konstancin-Jeziorna Food expenditure for one week: 582.48 Zlotys or $151.27

Egypt: The Ahmed family of CairoFood expenditure for one week: 387.85 Egyptian Pounds or $68.53

Ecuador: The Ayme family of TingoFood expenditure for one week: $31.55

Bhutan: The Namgay family of Shingkhey VillageFood expenditure for one week: 224.93 ngultrum or $5.03

Chad: The Aboubakar family of Breidjing CampFood expenditure for one week: 685 CFA Francs or $1.23

You may have noticed that all of these families have a healthy portion of fresh fruits and vegetables, except for two-the American family and the family from Chad. The family from Chad lives in an extremely impoverished nation and spends the least amount on food of all the examples, so we can give them a pass, if you will, for not having a more balanced diet. The American family has no excuse, unless you are willing to lay blame for their less-than-healthy diet on the over-commercialized, fast-paced, brain dead culture that we inhabit.

How does your family stack up?

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

If I have to listen to another Republican complain about how a new Democratic president is just going to raise their taxes and increase the size of government I might just put my foot right up their ass. After all, it’s precisely because of the Republican party, the Republican Congress, and an asshat of a Republican president that our next national leader may indeed have to raise taxes. Somebody has to clean up the country after it’s been crapped on for 8 years.

Consider that when Bush took office the federal government had a budget surplus, and despite way too many pork barrel projects, earmarks were much lower than they are now. But then came a series of tax cuts, an increase in federally mandated spending programs, an unnecessary war, a couple of tax rebate give-aways, and unprecedented borrowing to finance the largest expansion in the federal government in over 50 years. The surplus disappeared. The spending didn’t.

Republicans like to pretend that the only thing Democrats care about is “Big Brother” government. Hah! Bush has presided over the biggest “Big Brother” expansion ever. Republicans think that only Democrats expand the size of government. Hah! Bush has added more government jobs to the federal payroll than probably any other president since FDR. Republicans like to pretend the Democrats will take all your tax dollars and waste them on untested and ineffective social programs that ultimately hurt people more than they help them. Can anyone say No Child Left Behind???

The fact is that Republicans aren’t alone in disliking taxes. Democrats don’t much like them either. But where Democrats can accept the fact that it takes taxes to run government, Republicans only seem to think that taxes are evil.

Here it is kids…no matter who takes over as next president, we are going to have to see a serious reversal in domestic funding policy. That likely means higher taxes and lower spending. Hopefully the next president will get us out of Iraq which would save a serious amount of change. but it won’t be enough, especially in the short term. Especially when our government (both Dems & Reps) think it is wiser to borrow another $150 billion they don’t have to hand out to citizens so they will rush out and spend it. This is an economic stimulus plan? For what? A month? Gee Mr. President (and all the rest of you in Congress), what kind of stimulus plan will we get when that $600 bucks is all gone? Do they really think that peopl e are going to have extra money all the time now that the government sent them a check for a few hundred bucks? The only thing this plan stimulates is the Chinese manufacturing industry and the banks- for about a month.

Of course, in our brave new world, most people don’t give two seconds thought to government finances, just so long as their special interests are being funded.

Fiscal prudence means that not everyone gets everything all of the time. Fiscal malfeasance means that some people get everything they want, most get a bone thrown to them, and behind the scenes the red tape is stacked higher than the Sears Tower.

Well boys and girls, federal spending affects us all, and when you turn over the federal purse to a bunch of failed businessmen and drunken sailors, somebody eventually has to pay. That somebody will be all of us when the next administration gets to town.

So for all of you whining GOPers who are so upset that a Democrat in the White House will raise your taxes, shut up already. YOUR guy put us all in this situation to begin with. Just because he’ll be out of office when the bills come due doesn’t make it any less his fault. If you want to complain, send a letter to Bush. But quit whining to me about it.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

It’s history now, the South Carolina primary, that is. Barack Obama trounced “Mrs. Inevitable” Clinton and “Home State Johnny” Edwards in that southern state on Saturday, reigniting his campaign and making his chance at winning the Democratic nomination even better than before. And while the Obama campaign celebrated their victory, the Clinton campaign could only wonder what went wrong.

I’ve got an idea though, and it’s something that I’ve said before. There is a fundamental difference between the campaign of Clinton and Obama, but you have to listen carefully to really hear it. It’s not so much in their policy ideas- both want to help average Americans with health care and the economy; they both talk about developing energy independence and protecting the environment; they both talk about schools and jobs and retirement concerns. And with some minor detail differences, it’s tough to distinguish one message from the other. But there is an overriding difference, and that difference could make all the difference in the world.

The difference is simple- in speech after speech, Clinton’s main focus is what she will do for you. Take a look at her pre-State of the Union remarks today and you will find a whole lot of “I believe this” and “I will do that.” Clinton is so ensconced in the politics of one doing it all for the many that she is missing the driving force behind the Obama candidacy, and the force that is energizing voters in ways not seen in decades. That force is the simple inclusion of us all.

Obama, after his win in South Carollina took some time to thank supporters and stump for the next big contest. Take a peek– notice the almost near absense of the word “I”? Instead, Obama talks about what WE can do, things WE can fix, change WE can make. Obama knows that America is tired of the special interests that tie politicians to corporations, leaving out the American people. We are tired of politics that make the politician and their sinuous ties to corporate money the most important piece of the puzzle. We are finished with the pay to play mentality that all of DC is immersed in. We are ready for a real change, and Obama alone is talking the talk that puts average Americans at the front of that change.

Look, I’m no fool. I know that the kind of change Obama presents won’t magically occur when Obama take the oath of office. That would be but the start. Once elected, he would still face the same intransigent system he is railing against. But is he used his office effectively, and the bully pulpit as well, he could ask the American people to continue the change they began and turn out all the politicians who won’t evolve. He could energize the voters to put new people in place who would feel the need to change the corruption so endemic to our national politics. And to do that, he needs all of us- the “we” he speaks of so much.

Change will not come to American politics unless American voters fight for it and toss the bums out who insist on keeping things as they are. Hillary Clinton’s campaign focus on herself and her abilities is just more of the same- big brother politics that say Americans can’t handle the tasks of government without the “pro’s” running the show. Well Hillary- we’ve seen how badly the “pro’s” have screwed things up. It’s time for a change. And Obama is the only one offering the kind of change we really want and need. The difference between old politics and new politics is easy to spot when you know what to look for. See if you can tell the difference yourself…

From Hillary:

“If you will stand with me, if you here in Connecticut will support me on
February 5th, I promise you that I will get up every single day and wage a
winning campaign against whomever the Republicans nominate.I’ve been up against
Republicans for a very long time now. I was thinking the other day, wouldn’t it
be nice if they just announced that they were embarrassed about what happened to
the country and they weren’t going to run for the White House again? Somehow I
don’t think that is going to happen. I think we will have to wage a vigorous and
winning campaign. Since I have been on the receiving end of their incoming fire
for all of these years and much to their dismay, I am still standing here, I
think I know how to take us to victory in November.”

From Obama:

“Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can seize our future. And as we leave
this great state with a new wind at our backs, and we take this journey across
this great country, a country we love, with the message we’ve carried from the
plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire, from the Nevada desert to the
South Carolina coast, the same message we had when we were up and when we were
down, that out of many we are one, that while we breathe we will hope, and where
we are met with cynicism and doubt and fear and those who tell us that we can’t,
we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of the American
people in three simple words: Yes, we can. “

Now ask yourself this question: Do you want a government that views you as a partner or one that views you as a dependent. Because that is the real difference between these two candidates. And that is what you need to think about.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

The “economic stimulus” plan being hammered out by Bush, Bernanke, and the Democrat controlled Congress is a farce and a scam, and a slap in the face of every American citizen-except maybe the top 1%. Worse, once passed, it will add another $145 billion debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren so that people can get a one time cash infusion of $500 – $800 a piece.

Hey, I’d like to have some extra greenbacks in my wallet too, but at what cost? At to what real benefit? And why are those people most likely to really feel some benefit from the money excluded completely from the plan?

Let’s look at the cost-$145 billion. Last time I checked we were running a deficit budget, so where is this money going to come from? The government wants to send every taxpayer a check for up to $800. That’s not a tax credit that would just decrease this years tax receipts, that’s cash out of the treasury, cash that isn’t there to spend. How will the government finance this? More borrowing from our foreign friends? The answer is simple- future generations of Americans- our children and their children- will bear the burden of this ultimately futile give-away. The government will get the money from somewhere-hell, they may just print some more currency and inject it into the system (which of course would make the dollar worth even less, making the “stimulus” part of the plan null and void at the gate)-and our progeny will have to pay. It’s just another play now, pay never kind of scheme that politicians love to pull out, because everyone feels good today and they get to say they did something helpful. The ‘pay never’ part means that they (the politicians) and the benefactors (today’s taxpayers) will be dead long before the debt borrowed for the “stimulus” is paid off.

To recap so far- THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T HAVE $145 BILLION TO GIVE YOU. DO YOU REALLY WANT THEM TO SHACKLE YOUR KIDS’ FUTURE EARNINGS SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE AN EXTRA $800 RIGHT NOW? DON’T YOU LOVE YOUR KIDS???

Secondly, who really benefits from this “stimulus” package anyway? Well, ostensibly, every taxpayer will get a check from the government. Then there are tax breaks for businesses, so they can

“make major investments in their enterprises this year. Giving them an incentive
to invest now will encourage business owners to expand their operations, create
new jobs, and inject new energy into our economy in the process. ” –Bush,
1-18-08

The Democrats want an extension on unemployment benefits too. So far, both parties are embracing the worst element of the plan, the cash give-away. They are using the tax breaks for businesses and the social program extensions as bargaining chips so that each side can claim they did more. So at first glance, it seems that the beneficiaries of the “stimulus” plan would be Americans who pay taxes, maybe businesses, and maybe the unemployed somehow. While this may look good- after all every one benefits, right?-it is really just smoke and mirrors. The whole point of an economic stimulus plan is to stimulate the economy, but we don’t need stimulus. We need reform. The game of borrowing, shifting, bribing, and pandeirng is what got us to where we are- well, that and a bunch of spend-thrift dunces running the show-and this plan seeks to solve the problem using the same tried and failed strategies. “Give ’em a bunch of cash and they’ll forget how bad things are for a bit,” seems to be the political strategy of the day.

So who are the real benefactors of this “stimulus” plan? Well, Fed Chief Ben Bernanke gives it all away.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke entered the stimulus debate Thursday,
appearing before the House Budget Committee to endorse the idea of putting money
— as soon as possible — into the hands of those who would spend it quickly and
boost the flagging economy.

Especially important is making sure a plan can put cash into the hands
of poor people and the middle class, who are most likely to spend it right away,
he said, though the Fed chairman added that research shows affluent people also
spend some of their rebates. –AP

Gee Ben, why don’t you just have the government send all that money directly to the business community and cut the middle man out altogether? I mean, how can $800 really help anyone, except for the Chinese who make all the crap that they hope you will buy at Wal-Mart, or the oil barons and shieks if we use the money as the president contends, “to help meet their monthly bills, cover higher costs at the gas pump, or pay for other basic necessities.” Sure you could rush out and spend the cash on things you don’t need, or you could pay off a bill, maybe two, or maybe your $800 will help cover the overdue mortgage for one more month, thus forestalling the foreclosure man for another day. But beyond that first month, what kind of stimulus benefit does this really create? None at all. And if you believe that it will you should have your head examined. You’ve fallen for more of Bush’s fuzzy math.

Recap so far-THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T HAVE THE MONEY TO GIVE AWAY. IF YOU LIKE THIS PLAN, YOU DON’T LOVE YOUR KIDS. $800 WON’T MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE IN THE LIVES OF MOST PEOPLE ANYWAY-AT BEST IT WILL PAY OFF SOME CREDITOR OR END UP IN THE WAL-MART SAVINGS ACCOUNT. IF YOU THINK THIS PLAN WILL HELP OUR ECONOMY MUST BE A POLITICIAN.

Finally, since these “economic stimuli” are all aimed at taxpayers, the working poor and others at the lowest rungs of economic society get no “stimulus” at all, and these are the folks whose lives would most greatly be impacted by a cash infusion. $800 could rent a warm room, or maybe get a little extra food into the kids’ bellies for a change. It could provide comfort for a short time to someone who really needed it. But, nah, those people, many who are employed full time at several part-time minimum wage jobs and thus have no federal income tax bill don’t need help, right? They don’t pay taxes anyhow, right?

Final recap- THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T HAVE $145 BILLION TO BEGIN WITH. YOUR KIDS MEAN LESS TO YOU THAN A NEW FLATSCREEN TV. THE $800 IS REALLY JUST A BRIBE TO YOU AND A GIFT TO BUSINESSES WHO ALREADY HAVE ALL THE MONEY. YOU LOVE POLITICIANS WHO WILL SELL YOUR CHILDREN INTO BONDAGE. STIMULUS IS THE BIGGEST WORD GEORGE BUSH KNOWS. ANYONE WHO LIKES THIS PLAN HATES THE POOR AS MUCH AS THEY HATE THEIR OWN KIDS.

So there you are happy campers. The economic “stimulus” plan that promises to keep things as they are, that is, in the shadows and out of control. A plan that does nothing to address the reasons why our economy is a shambles and does nothing to change the status quo. It is less than a band-aid on a machete wound. It is pandering to the public. And it a a complete bipartisan failure. I’ll leave with a few quotes…

“What he believes is that we’ve got to do something that is robust. It’s going
to be temporary and get money into the economy quickly,” Treasury
Secretary Henry Paulson said Friday on CBS’s “The Early Show.” “It’s
going to be focused on consumers, individuals, families — putting money in their
pocket. And it’s going to be focused on giving businesses the incentive to hire
people, to create jobs.”

te>Government must “spend the money, invest the resources, give the tax relief in a
way that again injects demand into the economy, puts it in the hands of those
who need it most and into the middle class … so that we can create jobs.”
–Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives

“Putting money into the hands of households and firms that would spend it in the
near term” is a priority. –Ben Bernanke, Chariman of the Federal
Reserve

Here’s $800 bucks. Go create a job for someone this week-someone in China that is.

“By passing an effective growth package quickly, we can provide a shot in the
arm to keep a fundamentally strong economy healthy.” George W. Bush,
President of the U.S.A.

Fundamentally strong economy? Healthy? Shot in the arm? Can anyone say “delusional?”

All this will come to pass though, and the underlying problems will be papered over like yesterdays fish. And the hole will get bigger my friends, the hole will get bigger. Without fundamental reform and political restraint there will be no economic reform, only more economic tomfoolery. Without individual restraint and without a solid employment base, there will be no economic growth for the vast majority of Americans.

Enjoy your rebate, brought to you by Fuzzy Math Incorporated.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)