The natives are getting restless

..taken out of context. Written by Ronni Bennett of the website TIME GOES BY.

I wish I trusted the president. What have we gotten from him in a little more than two years?

A transfer of untold riches from the citizens to banks and corporations
Collapse of housing values, impoverishing millions of non-rich people
Refusal to prosecute the perpetrators of this transfer of wealth
Continuation of senseless wars at the cost of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives
Reduced taxes for the rich
Elimination of public unions
And now he will not speak out to assure today's and future elders that he will defend the most successful social program in the history of the United States (probably the world), one the people have paid for from their wages and has nothing to do with the deficit.

Worse, it will not surprise me if the president signs a budget bill that includes those $1.7 billion in Social Security cuts.

Obama entered office at an extraordinary moment in American history when the people of the nation were in dire need, hurting nearly as much as during the 1930s. He could have used his office, his power, his bully pulpit to hold fast against Republicans and tea partiers and thereby have become one of the great presidents.

Instead, he bowed to the wealthy, leaving everyone else to fend for themselves.

No way do I believe that McCain/Palin would have done better. And I don't see a single person on the Republican roster whom I could vote for in 2012, even holding my nose.

That leaves only one recourse: constant, unrelenting protest via phone, email, blog posts, urging friends and relatives to do so too and, when the time comes, showing up for demonstrations in our cities and states.

Undecided? Sure you are.

Election time is approaching and I will probably vote although I said I would not. I lied. If you are not a registered democrat or republican and would vote for anyone who has a D or a R by their name, then you are confused probably like this comic illustrates. It just occurred to me, I should add the designation TP. Are the TP's good for us or bad? I really wish we were all I's then on election day not one vote could be taken for granted by the pol's. Oh there I go again, talking crazy.

Eisenhower identifed it and named it, he saw it up close and in full operation

Well that's half of the military industrial complex identified, now if we could just do something about the Halliburtons of the world we might find some funds to do what is necessary, besides waging wars.

W is still our guy for about a week yet. O will never be as funny as this guy. The shoe thing should have been a warning to the secret service: tighten up the security. Where were they?

Why is President Carter always a little right of the other Presidents? Shouldn't he be on the other side, maybe a little left of the other Presidents?

Sorry to hear about this. I liked the guy.




Richardson Camp Mum to Vetters on Pay-to-Play
Posted 20 minutes ago in Politics

(Newser) – Bill Richardson’s sudden exit from the prospective Obama Cabinet is causing some Democrats to question the transition team’s vetting process. Sources tell Politico that Richardson evaded the team’s questions about the “pay-to-play” investigation he cited as his reason for backing out. The investigation has been public since August. “Those guys were pressed for information,” the source said, “and they gave nothing.”

Richardson’s departure leaves Obama without his highest-ranking Hispanic secretary, but also removes a potential headache. Richardson said yesterday that he feared the investigation would lead to a tough confirmation hearing, and some believe Obama wanted to avoid the distraction of a second Blagojevich-esque office-peddling scandal. Transition officials say Richardson wasn’t pressured to resign, but neither was the timing terrible. “Better to rip the bandage off now,” says one Obama ally.

Source Politico

Is this how it works?

GOVERNMENT-CHICAGO STYLE

GOVERNMENT-Chicago style, written in 1916 by Carl Sandburg. Rough it was, rough it is. Different you think from others? No excuses from me extended for the outrageous, overt activity of the governor, but is it surprising? No. Any person who watches politics at all knows what goes on or can guess. Big time pols deal with big money all the time, and how many poor politicians leave office still poor?

GOVERNMENT

THE Government--I heard about the Government and
I went out to find it. I said I would look closely at
it when I saw it.
Then I saw a policeman dragging a drunken man to
the callaboose. It was the Government in action.
I saw a ward alderman slip into an office one morning
and talk with a judge. Later in the day the judge
dismissed a case against a pickpocket who was a
live ward worker for the alderman. Again I saw
this was the Government, doing things.
I saw militiamen level their rifles at a crowd of
workingmen who were trying to get other workingmen
to stay away from a shop where there was a strike
on. Government in action.

Everywhere I saw that Government is a thing made of
men, that Government has blood and bones, it is
many mouths whispering into many ears, sending
telegrams, aiming rifles, writing orders, saying
"yes" and "no."

Government dies as the men who form it die and are laid
away in their graves and the new Government that
comes after is human, made of heartbeats of blood,
ambitions, lusts, and money running through it all,
money paid and money taken, and money covered
up and spoken of with hushed voices.
A Government is just as secret and mysterious and sensitive
as any human sinner carrying a load of germs,
traditions and corpuscles handed down from
fathers and mothers away back.

I am amazed that those right wing ideologues such as Limbaugh and the other guy who shout at us over the airwaves daily, have such a huge audience. I understand the economics of negativity and its ability to draw crowds, but what a one trick pony they are. Do you think they can turn off their public scorn, their rant and raves at will, while displaying an absolute lack of any form of objectivity? Or is that their normal mindset, and they must they go through life ticked off at any divergence of their way of thinking? Or do you think that maybe its all an act and they turn it on and off each day at showtime?

Sometimes though I have more sympathy for the people in the peanut gallery who listen to every word they spout and believe it has come from the mount. The notion that he is already amassing sticks and stones against the new President-elect when he has not yet even spent a night at 1600 causes the bile to rise from my craw. Oh well to be a politician one of the prerequisites are to develop a thick skin and one deaf ear. Well I'm done now and I will wish the new guy in the White House very good luck and I'm sure Limbaugh etal does too, even though it will be bad for business.

Appeared in the New York Observer. For those who never watched Star Trek, McCain is depicted as Capt. Kirk, the emotional one; and Obama as Dr. Spock, the unflappable one. But wait. What is that strange hand gesture? Hmmmm.

This has to be McCain's finest moment. His thoughts and concerns had to be on the country and the consequences if he let the dialog continue in the way it was headed. Good for you Senator McCain.

McCain calls Obama 'decent person,' is booed

McCain sort of can't win here.

Parnes reports from Minnesota:

A man in the audience stood up and told McCain he's "scared" of an Obama presidency and who he'd select for the Supreme Court.

"I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don't have to be scared of as president of the United States," McCain said as the crowd booed and shouted "Come on, John!"

"If I didn't think I'd be a heck of a lot better, I wouldn't be running for president of the united states."

If it's not the Times editorial board jeering him, it's his own crowd.

ALSO: Whoa:

A woman at the town hall asks softly: "I've heard that Sen. Obama is an
Arab."

McCain quickly cuts the woman off.

"No, maam. He's a decent family man and citizen," McCain says. "He's
not. Thank you."

NOTE: Some reports from the ground said the woman used the word "terrorist." She didn't.

By Ben Smith 06:09 PM

While looking at the newspaper this morning over my second or third cup of coffee, I happened upon Nat Hentoff's column entitled: Presidential candidates on you tube is a good thing. After the third paragraph I decided he was really on to something.

I tried to find the column somewhere on the net so I could at this juncture insert a hyperlink to the column, but had no luck finding it, so I will summarize the first three paragraphs that caught my eye.

He first cites a C-SPAN program, which if you haven't run across it and watched it, you should, called PRIME MINISTER'S QUESTIONS. The program where the Prime Minister of England stands up before the whole House of Commons and answers questions and faces criticism of his governments policies. Before which according to National Public Radio in England, "they have to devote several hours to preparing for all sorts of questions, and they go in there and they know that it's to be live on television" while many citizens are watching, and remembering.

Former conservative party leader Howard emphasizes that this weekly breakthrough of government transparency-when the house of commons is sitting- "ensures that, first of all, the prime minister knows what's going on".

Hentoff goes on to say that not only in the Bush administration, but in some previous administrations, it has been far from certain that our president does know all that's going on in his government's most controversial practices.

He further suggests that if we had a regular 'Meet the President' on C-SPAN once a week, at least the President would have to bone up on what's actually going on in his administration. We the people would certainly benefit, as well. The column goes on, but I won't.

This proposition makes so much sense on two fronts that I am sure it would not, or could not be agreed to by any administration, but it would be great wouldn't it.

A CLIP FROM YOUTUBE OF 'PRIME MINISTER'S QUESTIONS'

OUR CANDIDATES


Is it just me or does this portion of the presidential campaign seem to be redundant and really of no value to the electorate.

I guess it all boils down to McCain and Obama saying just about anything to get elected. Well I guess that's what it's all about, but it leaves us, the voters, to wait until the election is over and one of the two is in office to find out what we got for our precious vote.

They adjust, then readjust their messages about the various subjects in answer to the others latest opinion of the same subject, and how it scored in the latest poll. So did they mean what they said initially or didn't we understand it exactly? Maybe we will like the latest press release of what they really believe deep down in their heart of hearts. We'll never know will we?

There is a very large amount of people who are not members of the far left, or the far right, who are somewhat open minded and who really do try to measure the candidate by what he says and what we sincerely think will be best for the good ole USA in these days of our lusterless image needing polished. But our candidates don't make it easy for us, or perhaps that is the idea. Keep us guessing so when election day comes we will vote for whichever one wears the tie we like best.

These two moments from two of America's best, where it seemed that they were thinking and talking on the same subjects in the 1950's. It seems rather prophetic about events that took place here in my country in the first decade of the twenty first century.

Along with that, Senator Hagel this week is coming to the conclusion that perhaps it is the time for a third party, a party for men and women of more independent thinking to be thought of more seriously than ever before. Here is the piece from Google video:

Chris Matthews while interviewing Jim Doyle, governor of Wisconsin, made a remark which I believe he had thought about previously, but said seemingly off the cuff. The subject was Obama and they were discussing Obama's ability to turn a phrase and make people cry with hope as they showed video clips showing just that on the campaign trail. He said most great politicians were able to give great speeches and he cited John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

I believe he is right. The great speakers are great because they are expanding on their dreams for us and for our country. To be great you have to be somewhat of a dreamer, able to edify what you see, to be able to make the listener think you are talking to them personally, evoking word images of how great we can be. In Franklin Roosevelt's case, he had to relieve our fears and give us hope when we had too many of the prior and none of the latter.

Kennedy was able to inspire us to dedicate ourselves and work together to accomplish a goal. We thought we were included in the mission to the moon, we flew with those astronauts, we shared the fears of the endeavor, Kennedy made us a part of it.

Reagan made us proud to be Americans again. He gave us back our optimism and confidence.

But one of the best ever I believe was Winston Churchill when there was little hope that Hitler and his mob would be stopped from coming over the channel and conqueringing England. The United States politics of non-intervention made us just sit back and watch. The speech Churchill made at a time when there was little or no hope, inspired the island nation of England to stave off the nazis. He inspired the English people and the RAF. They rallied. If they hadn't, history would have been drastically different.

This was their finest hour.

http://www.fiftiesweb.com/usa/churchill-finest-hour.mp3

I don't know about you, but I've been caught up in this cycles presidential race. I find that I am really enjoying the political shows, as the hosts and their guests get caught up in the excitement.

It's a little different this time around with the conservative radio hosts, Limbaugh, Beck and the newspaper conservatives ranting and raving but to no avail when it comes to the voters. It seems that they have come upon a disconnect with the thoughts of most of the voters, at least for this cycle, which of course, is the direct result of the Bush failed presidency and the desire for change with a big C.

I also am finding it exciting that the participants are finding a way to be civil and talk about the issues for a change, except of course for Hillary's husband there in S. Carolina. But she seems to have found a way to muzzle him, at least for a while. That too seems rather odd, him being the political animal that he is and the reaction from the voters to knock it off. I don't know how long the civility can last, but at least for now I really appreciate it.

Since we learn best from good examples, perhaps we can reacquaint ourselves with what civility means, or at least until it gets toward the end and the ends become more important than the means. But I hope not.

I have become an Ipod user and it helps me keep up with many of the political shows and columns. Some of the shows I load up with and watch at my leisure are Bill Moyers journal, Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews Hardball show, Slate magazines look at Todays newspapers, and a show that I have watched on television since it first started quite a while ago, and then lost track of it, but have rediscovered is The McLaughlin Group. It covers the events of the week with just enough nonsense and yelling to make it interesting. One of the original panelist and still hanging in there is Eleanor Clift. She gets my award for grit and she has plenty of it, but has to overcome a female voice with less volume when she is vying for attention from John the host while all the men talking at once try to out yell each other. It's a fun half hour.

Is the Iraq war over? Did we win? Can we go home now? You say we did win, good. What did we win? You say we can't go home, you say we will stay here another 100 years if necessary. Well if we won, could we at least divert some of the oil from there to our country? No we can't? You say we will have to stay and offer all the assistance we can to return the country to its normal state of affairs. What is that? You say our taxes will increase so we can afford the billions needed to fund our presence. You did say we won the war didn't you? Well anyway we must be thought of as heroes by the Iraqis, at least that's something. No, you said, they don't like us and they want us to go home. Well sometime in the next hundred years maybe they will like us, then everything will have been worth it. I am proud of the men and women who have fought this war. I really am proud of the new medals being awarded, the generational medal, for instance. It goes to all the families that have had the husband, the wife, and now their offspring serving in Iraq. I especially like the new commercial on television that shows the family that fights together stays together, it's touching. Well anyway again, at least war is quick and final, it is certainly a better option than talking and talking and talking and talking. I bet if we had just tried diplomacy, and you know what that is, just talk and talk, we would probably still be talking, and......wait a minute, maybe if....no that was just a errant thought I just had, let's get on with the war.

I don't know what to make of Joe Liebermann.

On one hand I applaud his independency, but on the other hand can a politician stand with one foot in each camp?

Is he a man of character or a man who is acting out of spite because the Democrats did not claim him as theirs in the last general election? He ran as an independent and won providing him with the proper props I would think to go his independent way, and I like that.

On the other hand how can he caucus with the Democrats and then turn around and endorse the Republican for president?

Evidently the Democrats have made up their minds and have stripped him of his super delegate status for the Democratic convention, which seems right to me.

So on the left side of my brain I say that the Democrats should read him out of the party. On the other hand I say Joe Liebermann is what most of us strive to be, an independent man, beholden to no one, but willing to take the consequences of that path.

Should Joe Liebermann be a chapter in Profiles in Courage, or be made to shorten his current title from Independent Democrat to plain Independent. That's not all bad is it?

It seems that the way skewed to the right-righties of the Republican party are ganging up on the possible candidacy of John McCain. But if I were to vote Republican in the fall, even if I was not too enamored with McCain, this notorious threesome would almost make me vote for him anyway.

Why? Well he must be doing something right if he has a group so animately against him that include Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Tom Delay. Can you think of a worse bunch of idealogues, non-objective, and in the latter example, a little crooked bunch of people.

One thing that really galls me is what just happened between McCain and Romney. They hurl the worst epithet they can think of at each other, they called each other Liberal.

If you listen to these guys you'd think anyone other than them should wear a big red L on their chest. I cringe when I hear it. Especially when I hear it from McCain. What it brings to my mind is that they are becoming world class panderers, pandering for the conservative rights blessing.

McCain now labels himself a proud conservative. He's never been conservative enough for those he now panders for their approval. He has always been a moderate Republican, a vanishing breed for sure. I have always liked moderate Republicans, there have been some great ones in the past before it became a part of the Republican presidential litmus test to have to run the gauntlet of acceptability, acceptability from the conservative right that is. To become a first class panderer.

It makes me sick to see McCain doing what he is doing because he finds it necessary if he wants to win the nomination. He is a proud man, sometimes a flinty hard man, but never a panderer until now.