They Did What !

Let’s see…

When Obama picked Biden for VP, Republicans rushed to claim this choice only highlighted Obama’s less than extensive foreign policy experience. When McCain picked Palin for VP, Republicans rushed to claim her total lack of foreign policy experience doesn’t matter because the McCain/Palin strengths and weaknesses compliment each other. See how that works?

This is the kind of disconnect that permeates Republican thinking – or at least what they say they think which seems to be different from what they actually think because it usually turns out to be different from what they do. If you look objectively at the VP choices the real difference is one of judgment. Obama’s choice shows consciousness of governing abilities while McCain’s choice shows consciousness of political tactics and governing abilities be damned.

Then there was the statement by Glen Beck, on the phone to CNN, that he would never have “pulled the lever” for McCain, but if Palin turns out to be who he thinks she is, then he will vote for McCain. That is some very interesting reasoning (I use the term loosely). Does Mr. Beck not realize that McCain will still be president, no matter who Mrs. Palin turns out to be? It’s almost as if he assumes the VP will wind up as president.

And if that happens, what would we have - a president with no federal experience, no foreign relations experience, and an ethics investigation hanging over her head in her home state. Washington would eat her alive and the Middle East, North Korea and Russia would finish the job. Good thinking, Beck! You exemplify what happens when entertainment people start believing they are news people.

There has also been some talk that the Republican thinking is that Palin will pull disgruntled Clinton supporters to McCain’s side. Surely that couldn’t be true – it would be so insulting to women. Can you imagine they would actually believe an unknown, untried, newbie can be substituted for Hillary Clinton and women would vote for her just because of gender? They couldn’t be that out of touch… could they?

There is another habit the Republicans have - trying to turn positives into negatives. It’s that old equalizing technique of bringing the other guy down to your level when you can’t raise yourself up to his. Drawing large crowds is a prime example. Never mind what the people themselves say about why they flock to hear Obama. It must just be celebrity mania. But wait, if that is true, why isn’t McCain a celebrity? After all, he is a maverick, he has a quirky sense of humor, and don’t forget, he was a POW! Could it possibly be that McCain’s same ole, same ole, just doesn’t inspire and energize people?

That brings us to the Democratic National Convention which ended with a crowd of 84,000 cheering people listening to Obama’s acceptance speech. Knowing full well they will not be able to come even close to such a gathering, out come the Republican name callers to pour scorn on what the Democrats did so their own convention won’t look foolish by comparison.

Republican ads and articles come out featuring things said about Obama by Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden during the primary race. Funny how they seem to have forgotten the things Republicans said about McCain during the 2000 primary race. As I recall they claimed he was gay, cheated on his wife, and that his wife Cindy was a drug addict. They also claimed John McCain was unstable, returning from his years as a POW with a loose screw and that he shouldn’t be trusted with nuclear weapons. The terms coward and traitor were also thrown about.

But, hey, that’s all water under the bridge. When the Republicans say things in the heat of a campaign, I guess they don’t really mean it, so we should all forget what was said. But when the Democrats say things, much less damaging things, in the heat of a campaign, we should not forget it, but rather it should be repeated over and over lest anyone write it off as campaign rhetoric.

There’s that disconnect again… or maybe it should be called by its proper name – hypocrisy.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 09:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I started watching the Democratic Convention and kept switching channels. CNN, MSNBC and even PBS spent way too much time commenting on the main speakers, while blanking out other speakers – regular people who actually had interesting stories to tell – and I found it more and more annoying. I finally found that coverage on C-SPAN was just straight live coverage of everyone who spoke. YEA!

Quite frankly, I couldn’t care less what Chris Matthews thinks about what so and so said. I have ears and a mind and I am perfectly capable of listening to a speech and evaluating it for myself. And the same goes for all the other pundits and newscasters who seem to think we need to have everything that is said, re-said by them with their take on it added in.

Thinking for ourselves is a very American trait. It is one of the strengths that built our country. It is a basic for innovative and creative endeavors. When did we start allowing corporate owned media to tell us what to think about what is going on? Instead of reporting the news, they embroider it, exaggerate it, interpret it, and sometimes even create it.

And now they are even squabbling among themselves, on the air no less. Like we care about differences between MSNBC's Joe Scarborough and David Schuster or Olbermann and Matthews. The problem is these people take themselves way too seriously and all of them have overblown egos.

Perhaps the basis of the problem is too much on-air time. The problem has gotten progressively worse since stations like CNN and MSNBC offer 24/7 news. There is often not enough real news to fill that much broadcast time, especially since they don’t tell us much about what is going on in the rest of the world. That encourages these “personalities” to substitute speculation for facts, stir up controversy where there is none, and otherwise pass off their personal opinions as news.

Enough already! Let’s start a grass roots movement to boycott these loudmouths and insist that news broadcasts actually give us news, unbiased and factual. This is one area where so called “progress” is not a step forward. Newscasters of old did a much better job of reporting and that makes this one area where the good old days really were good.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 06:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Most Democrats (except those still pouting about Hillary’s primary loss) seem really pleased about the choice of Joe Biden for Vice President. The McCain camp tried to paint the choice as highlighting Obama’s lack of experience in Biden’s areas of strength. However, most people recognize it as the kind of choice made by smart people who choose to surround themselves with experienced experts in both the areas of their weaknesses and their strengths.

McCain on the other hand chooses to surround himself with lobbyists, especially those who work for oil companies. So what does that say about who will be advising and influencing his decisions if we elect Bush, oops, that two of a kind, peas in a pod, resemblance got me again, I mean, if we elect McCain?

Getting back to Biden, Arianna Huffington made an excellent point in her August 28 Huffington Post. Comparing the foreign policy experience of Joe Biden with that of John McCain, she reminded us that “not all foreign policy experience is created equal.” And she goes on to show that it is important to look at examples of the kind of foreign policy experience we have had in our government and the results.

Bush’s choices for foreign policy experience were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. We have seen the results of their experience. Just to name a few, there is the Iraq war, a world wide loss of status for America, escalating problems with Iran, and declining relations with Russia.

McCain’s foreign policy experience has led to his attitude, as expressed in a 2000 debate moderated by Larry King that military solutions are front and center whatever and where ever the problems may be. According to McCain his policy would be to “overthrow the governments and install free and democratically-elected governments…” That sounds more like an Emperor than a President doesn’t it? And it also sounds like a state of perpetual war. In other words, McCain, like our current King, oops, I mean President, is a believer in “…democracy at the end of a loaded gun.”

Biden, on the other hand, “favors diplomacy and engagement – backed up by a toughness…” Biden’s handling of Yugoslavian leader Slobodan Milosevic during the1993 Serbian attack on Bosnia is proof of the effectiveness of his approach. Biden told Milosevic, to his face, that he was a war criminal and should be tried as one and that is exactly what happened. This is the kind of foreign policy experience we need to deal with the problems facing us in today’s world.

Not only does Joe Biden’s foreign policy experience equal John McCain’s it trumps it in value and quality. No wonder McCain tried to disparage Obama’s choice of Biden for Vice President. It would seem that McCain’s strategy is, if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, you should baffle them with bull!

Posted by Trish Purcell at 02:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Who gave people like Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, and their protégés the right to redefine words and actions? Even though these people don’t know you and me, when they redefine words and actions for use against political opponents it spills over into your life and mine.

The words "liberal" and "conservative" were for many years simply terms for two different political viewpoints. Now, liberal is a derogatory term.

Continuing to learn, becoming more informed, and using that information to reach reasonable and rational conclusions has always been a part of maturing and growing. Now it is a demeaning flaw called flip-flopping.

Who gave pundits like Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, and their equally improbable colleagues, credit as knowledgeable political analysts? These people are guessing (just like you and me) about what will happen. They are frequently wrong and have been caught more than once repeating false or at least partially false information. Despite that, their diarrhea of the mouth continues to flow over the airwaves and into our homes and minds.

The same smear tactics that were used against John McCain in the 2000 primary are now being used on McCain’s behalf by the very same people. How then, can anyone with a scrap of intelligence believe what they say? It might possibly be understandable that reasonable people could be swayed by the massive effort to convince them that something is true simply through repetition. But when the malicious smear tactics used against someone are then used on their behalf it is so obvious, how can it be ignored?

Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama is perfect. They each have strengths and weaknesses. What we as a people need to look for is the truth about each man; then based on that truth, choose the man we want to run our country. Is it not better to honestly acknowledge their weaknesses before we make the choice? Never mind the “image” they are trying to project, or what someone else is saying about them, look at the facts.

We do not need to be distracted by those who, for their own purposes, want to influence our choice. Political players, pundits, swift boaters, and others who have their own agendas most assuredly do not have our best interests in mind. If we allow ourselves to lose focus and just accept as truth their spins and twists, we are giving them the power to decide our elections for us. What’s up with that? Are we not capable of seeking the truth and deciding on our own who will be the better president?

We complain about our government, about their incompetence, their corruption, and their lack of interest in what is best for the people of our country. What we seem to forget is that we chose this government. Vote by vote we gave these incompetent, corrupt and uncaring officials the power to decide how our country would be run.

Now, vote by vote, we are going to elect a new president and many new congress people. How are we going to choose them this time? The same way we have in the past - listening to the pundits and the swift boaters? And if we do that, do we expect to get a different kind of official this time? Why would we expect that? Are we all insane?

Posted by Trish Purcell at 04:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Op-Ed columnist, Thomas Friedman’s August 10, New York Times’ article about Denmark’s energy policy puts America to shame. After the 1973 Arab oil embargo, Denmark started moving purposefully toward energy independence. In 1973, 99% of their energy came from the Middle East. Today that percentage is zero. Let me say that again. Denmark’s current dependence on Middle East energy is ZERO.

And during that same period of time, what did the United States do? We sat back while our government talked about, but took no action on, making changes to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Either our elected officials are incompetent or they sold us out to the oil companies because our dependence on Middle East oil not only has not decreased, it has increased. If even half the effort that has gone into trying to control Middle East oil had gone into developing alternative fuels, we, like Denmark could be free, or well on the way to being free, of that dependence.

Instead of encouraging oil companies by subsidizing them, we should be using that money for incentives for new innovative companies in the business of developing alternative energy sources. We should not subsidize the companies that have been ripping us off for years. It’s past time to get their hands out of the cookie jar. Let’s help in the start up of new companies that will supply us with energy from alternative sources and produce the new jobs such development will create.

Reading Friedman’s column made me very angry. It should make all Americans angry. Just think of all the money, our money, Washington has funneled into the coffers of big oil. And what have we gotten for our dollars? That money helped feed our country’s addiction to petroleum based products incurring damage to our environment; it added to the problems we have in the Middle East; and it contributed to our huge deficit. This is what our government has done for us while the Denmark government moved their country from 99% percent dependence to zero dependence.

Even now the money grabbers are trying to wring the last cent out of us by dragging their collective feet, expecting us to subsidize their new development while they pocket huge profits; proposing changes with results 20, 30, even 50 years out; and insisting that they must have leases for offshore drilling for everything they do not already have. If we buy into this, if we allow their greed to continue unchecked, then we deserve whatever we get. And what we will get is a ruined planet, more wars, overwhelming debt, and the continuation of a broken government.

I don’t know if Al Gore’s 10 year plan is feasible but it is worth aiming for that or something like it. The determination of the American people has accomplished wonders throughout our history and it can again. Many of those who claim we can’t make changes that fast, have a vested interest in delaying those changes. So wake up people! Vote the foot draggers out of office, all of them regardless of political party. It is time to elect officials who will work to emulate Denmark and do for us what Denmark’s government did for their country.

Read Friedman’s article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10friedman1.html?em

Posted by Trish Purcell at 10:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Watching President Bush and John McCain speak with such moral indignation about Russia’s attack on Georgia is ludicrous. The invasion of Iraq puts both Bush and McCain in a “do as I say not as I do” position making their words ring hollow.

At least Obama’s condemnation of Russia’s actions lines up with his stand on the Iraq invasion. But America must bear some responsibility for opening the door to such attacks - a consequence predicted when Bush defied world opinion and international law to invade Iraq.

Using the situation as a photo op, McCain attempted to look presidential voicing righteous anger over Russia’s attack on Georgia. Unfortunately, in addition to sounding like a hypocrite, he stumbled over the words while reading his prepared statement; all in all, not a very presidential result. The pot calling the kettle black isn’t a very effective tactic.

That aside, Russia’s aggressive action should serve as a wake-up call to those who seem to ignore the moves this country has been making to interject itself into world politics and increase its power status. Using its vast natural gas reserves to move into a position of power in the European market, Russia would be in a very strong position to influence how Europe’s leading industrial companies are run. And we have already seen that the Kremlin will not hesitate to use its pipeline monopoly to intimidate and manipulate the political process of its customer countries.

Unrecognized by many and ignored by others is the fact that Iran is the one country that can offer a sufficient alternative source of natural gas to Europe. That would reduce their dependence on, and therefore susceptibility to, Russian intimidation. But as long as the United States continues to see the Iranian nuclear program as the only important issue in dealing with Iran, and continues the failed policy of sanctions against them, Iran cannot even become a competitor in the European market.

The possibility that Bush/Chaney will start a war with Iran before they leave office is unnerving to say the least. Already at war on two fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan, it is generally agreed by American citizens and military experts that we do not have the manpower for another war. But our incapable-of-complex-thinking president and his ego-bound-arrogant-to-the-point-of-stupidity VP, with one issue tunnel vision, continue to escalate sanctions against Iran.

We cannot sit quietly by while our Congress is once again manipulated with fear and false reasoning into acquiescing to a preemptive strike against yet another sovereign state. The American people must let it be known, loud and clear, that we will not allow our country to be used to further the agenda of the few. Those who would use and abuse the power of their positions, without regard to the consequences for the many, must not be allowed to succeed a second time. So heed the warning of Russia’s power play against Georgia, and realize that it is in the best interests of Europe and the United States to have Iran as an ally, not an enemy.

We will have a new president in January, and a couple of months later, Iran will have their election and very possibly a less confrontational new president. These changes offer the prospect of a peaceful and mutually beneficial resolution for Iran, the U.S. and Europe…IF …we stop the Bush/Cheney push for war with Iran.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 11:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Despite the well known fact that offshore drilling will not bring down gas prices, the “straight talk maverick” turned “double talk yes man” continues to tout this as a must-do item in his energy plan.

Why do you suppose he would do this, especially since, prior to this past June, he was adamantly opposed to offshore drilling? Could it possibly be… perish the thought… M O N E Y?

Campaignmoney.org recently issued a report that includes the following points:

From 1989 through May 2008, John McCain had raised more than $1.3 million dollars from the oil and gas industries. Since June 16, when McCain publicly announced his support for offshore oil drilling, campaign contributions from the oil and gas industries have skyrocketed.

• In Texas alone, June oil and gas-connected donations to McCain’s Victory ’08 Fund, his hybrid fundraising venture with the RNC and state committees, reached $1,214,100.
• Of that total, $881,450, or 73 percent, came after June 15. McCain announced his position in favor of offshore drilling on June 16.
• A preliminary review of FEC filings exposes major contributions from oil executives and their spouses from at least eight other states in the few days following McCain’s reversal.
• Thirty-three McCain staffers and fundraisers have received $19.3 million in lobbying fees from at least 30 oil and gas industry corporations and associations.

Many of the oil companies whose executives and PACs have donated the most to John McCain have been represented in Washington by lobbyists working on the McCain campaign.

• Hess Corp donated $63,400 represented by Wayne Berman, John Green.
• Exxon Mobile donated $41,251 represented by Kerry Cammack, Frank Donatelli.
• Chevron Corp donated $28,800 represented by Wayne Berman, John Green, Richard Hohlt.
• Occidental Petroleum donated $18,050 represented by Charles Black, James Hyland, Steven R. Phillips.

The four top oil lobbyists on the McCain campaign have been paid $11,475,000 to lobby on behalf of the oil and gas industries.

Wayne Berman

• Berman is one of John McCain’s top bundlers, as he has raised at least $500,000 for McCain’s presidential campaign.
• Since 2004 Berman has earned $3,170,000 lobbying for four major petroleum companies, including oil giants Chevron Corp and Hess Corp.
• Federal records show that in 2005, when the Senate voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Berman was employed as a lobbyist by Chevron Corp, Amerada Hess Corp, and the American Petroleum Institute.
• Berman was registered as a Chevron lobbyist in December 2005 when the oil giant became the first company to refuse to participate in an oil spill drill. Less than three months later, in February 2006, Chevron spilled 31,000 gallons of crude oil just off the New Jersey coast.
• In 2007, while Berman lobbied for Chevron, the company reported its highest ever yearly profit of $18.7 billion, despite record high prices at the pump.
• Berman’s lobbying clients from the oil and gas industries have donated $105,300 to McCain’s campaigns since 1990.

Charlie Black

• Black is John McCain’s chief political adviser and chairman of BKSH and Associates, a major Washington lobbying firm. Black’s wife, Judy, is a top bundler for McCain, as she has raised at least $500,000 for his campaign.
• Since 2001 Black has received $1,725,000 to lobby for three major oil companies, including Occidental Petroleum and the Russian company Yukos Oil.
• Senate disclosure records show that in 2005, when the Senate voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Black was employed as a lobbyist by Occidental Petroleum, the fourth largest U.S. oil and gas company.
• Black was hired in May 2004 to lobby for Yukos Oil, months after the company’s founder, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, was arrested on charges of fraud and tax evasion.
• In 2003, while Black was employed as a lobbyist for Occidental Petroleum, soldiers guarding the company’s pipeline in Columbia killed three local labor leaders. These leaders were falsely said to have ties to guerilla groups that attacked Occidental pipelines. Occidental employees were also responsible for giving incorrect coordinates to Columbian military pilots in 1998, resulting in the deaths of 18 civilians after a village located near an Occidental pipeline was hit by cluster bombs.
• Black’s lobbying clients from the oil and gas industries have donated $18,550 to McCain’s campaigns since 1990.

John Green

• Green is McCain’s congressional liaison, coordinating efforts between the McCain campaign and Republicans in the House and Senate. Green has also raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the McCain campaign.
• Since 2002 Green has been paid $3,450,000 to lobby for four major oil and gas companies, including oil giants Chevron Corp and Hess Corp.
• Senate disclosure records show that in 2005, when the Senate voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Green was employed as a lobbyist by Chevron Corp, Amerada Hess Corp, and the American Petroleum Institute.
• In 2007, while Green lobbied for Chevron, the company reported its highest-ever yearly profit of $18.7 billion, despite record high prices at the pump.
• Over the last seven years, Green’s lobbying firm has been paid $1,430,000 by the American Petroleum Institute. According to a recent House committee investigative report, the API successfully persuaded the Bush administration against regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, despite support from many officials for these actions.
• Green’s lobbying clients from the oil and gas industries have donated $106,050 to McCain’s campaigns since 1990.

Steven R. Phillips

• Phillips is a McCain bundler who has raised between $100,000 and $250,000 for the campaign.
• Since 1999 Phillips has been paid $3,130,000 to lobby for major oil and gas interests, including BP and Irving Oil.
• Senate disclosure records show that in 2005, when the Senate voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Phillips was employed as a lobbyist by Chevron Corp, Amerada Hess Corp, and the American Petroleum Institute.
• Phillips’ lobbying clients in the oil and gas industries have donated $40,950 to McCain’s campaigns since 1990.

For the complete report go to: http://www.campaignmoney.org/files/Its_A_Gusher.pdf

Posted by Trish Purcell at 12:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)