DINO Lunsford

I just sent the following to Steve Beshear in an email:
DINO (Democrat in Name Only) is a well-earned label when it comes to Bruce Lunsford. Surely you have not forgotten that Lunsford ran a dirty campaign of character assassination against DEMOCRAT Ben Chandler in the Democratic primary four years ago. I haven't! Surely you have not forgotten that when Chandler responded by telling the truth about Lunsford's Vencor sleight of hand, Lunsford dropped out in a snit and supported Ernie Fletcher in the general election. I haven't! Perhaps you have forgotten his record of contributing generously to Republicans. I haven't! Maybe you think Democrats will forget by the next election you encouraging him to run against a genuine democrat, Andrew Horne, for the U. S. Senate. I won't! . . . And my friends won't.

Maybe you should forget Lunsford! Why would you support a cutthroat millionaire DINO against an Iraq War veteran? Expediency? Lunsford is not expedient. He hasn't beaten anyone. I'm sure Mitch McConnell would love to run against Lunsford. Is Mitch a friend of yours?

Spying on Americans

The United States Senate, in the next few days, will either cave in to this lawless administration by granting immunity to telecommunications companies for their violation of United States law and spying on Americans or the Democrats in the Senate will prove beyond doubt their lack of spines. The question is simple: Will you stand up for the United States Constitution, our laws, and American citizens or are you going to cave in to Mitch McConnell and George W. Bush?

The Democrats who need to answer this question are: Rockefeller (http://rockefeller.senate.gov/services/email.cfm); Bayh (http://bayh.senate.gov/LegForm.htm); Mikulski (http://mikulski.senate.gov/contactme/mailform.html); Pryor (http://pryor.senate.gov/contact/); Salazar (http://salazar.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm); McCaskill (http://mccaskill.senate.gov/contact.cfm); Nelson (FL) (http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm); Carper (http://carper.senate.gov/contact/); Nelson (NE) (http://bennelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm); Landrieu (http://landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm); Inouye (http://inouye.senate.gov/abtform.html); Johnson (http://johnson.senate.gov/contact/).

Senators Clinton (http://clinton.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm?subj=issue) and Obama (http://obama.senate.gov/contact/) need to put our Constitution above their campaigns and get back to Washington and vote on this issue. If you believe in the rule of law, you might find it worthwhile to let these people know.

Does George Bush and Mitt Romney Favor the Rich over Working People?

Ungrammatical and ridiculous on its face, this is the question Joe Scarborough posed to a Romney "senior" campaign official this morning. This is a great example of the so-called liberal media. First, if you are a person who works for a living, the answer to the question is a resounding "Yes!" Did the Romney mouthpiece get it right? Well, let's see. She was speaking for a rich Republican who wants the Republican nomination for President. The question was posed by a former Republican who is now a mouthpiece for rich Republicans on MSNBC, owned by General Electric.

Her answer was, "No, of course not." Without discussing how many million dollars rich people have saved under the Bush tax cuts (and accompanying record budget deficits), she talked vaguely about the thousands of dollars working people in Michigan have had given to them. Surely, this is great comfort to the 7.5% percent of Michiganders who are unemployed. In the course of the suspiciously scripted "interview," this spokesperson used our airwaves to invoke the "class warfare rhetoric" cliche in reference to John McCain (as though Mac is a friend of working people) and comment that Jack Welch agreed with her. Now let's see. If I had added as much as $100 million to my personal worth as a result of the tax cuts, would I agree they were a good thing? Those of us making less than a quarter million? Not so much!

The number of ways this conversation were (or "was" in Scarborough parlance) wrong deserves enumeration. (1.) The unchallenged assumption that taxes are inherently and always bad is a talking position directly from Grover Norquist. (2.) The use of public airwaves to masquerade political commercials as news blurs the line between news and propaganda. (3.) There is rich (pun intended) irony in the fact that Bill O'Reilly rails against MSNBC as "liberal media" while these right-wing propaganda chats by the likes of Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Patrick Buchanan, and Chris Matthews filibuster for the rich.

Bloomberg for President

The prospect of President Michael Bloomberg does not bother me in the least. Progressive social policies combined with fiscal conservatism. Bring it on. Bloomberg would combine fiscal conservatism with progressive social policy and he probably respects science enough to be right on such issues as global warming, stem cell research, and "intelligent design."

If Bloomberg will make good business decisions about the budget, social security, health care, lobbyists, global warming, immigration, and the other issues that bedevil us, I’ll support him. . . . maybe even against Clinton or Obama

War Profiteers

Is it more obscene to be war profiteers or to mention war profiteers?

Below are ten corporations who are not contributing to the John Edwards campaign. Out of idle curiosity, I checked the stock quotes of ten top (as in $20 billion annually down to $2 billion in annual government contracts as of 2004) defense contractors. I was surprised to see that Halliburton profits were up only 84% until I remembered they had spun off KBR in 2006. Doesn’t that mean Cheney’s company is really up about 300%? The rest of the economy, as represented by the DJIA, grew much more slowly than these friends of John McCain, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush. As a technopeasant, I have not figured out how to tab in this blog, so on each line is listed Company Name, Stock Quote 1/10/2001, Quote 1/10/2008, and % change.

1. Lockheed-Martin 33.77, 108.54, 222%

2. Boeing 60.38, 80.52, 33%

3. Northrop-Grumman 43.03, 79.43, 85%

4. General Dynamics 35.00, 88.83, 154%

5. Raytheon Company 32.75, 61.41, 88%

6. Halliburton 19.66, 36.19,84%

7. United Technologies 36.12, 72.39, 100%

8. Computer Sciences 55.25, 41.45, -25%

9. Humana 14.38, 85.07, 492%

10. L-3 Communications 36.00, 106.81 , 197%

KBR 11/16/2006 20.75, 36.11, 74%

DJIA 11,000+ or -, 12,850, 17%

Speeches and Specifics

Bill Clinton, who I do not dislike, recently made a comment about Barack Obama’s generalizations, his speeches about hope and change. I am not going to rely on Bill Clinton to learn about Barack Obama or John Edwards to learn about Hillary Clinton or any Democrat to learn about any Republican and certainly vice versa. In fact, the most salient question to ask when one candidate undertakes to tell us about another candidate is, “Don’t you have anything you think is worth telling us about yourself?

A friend gave me a book, Speeches that Changed the World. Included are memorable speeches from Moses, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy, Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Nelson Mandela, and many others. These great speeches inspired first and then informed. So speeches are not about specific plans and strategies; candidates need them to inspire more than inform.

Anyone who wanted to know what is in the platforms of candidates should be able to go to their websites and read about their positions. In fact, I was very impressed with the detail and organization of Barack Obama’s position statements under the issues tab. . I always check to see what position a candidate takes on the Federal budget and was pleased by what I found here.

Of course, Hillary Clinton has also taken positions and they are fairly well-delineated at her website.

John Edwards may sound like a single-issue candidate in his speeches, but his website fleshes out his policy positions.

Since the others (Thompson, Willard Romney, Giuliani) are all lies and pandering, the only Republican websites you should look at are those of John McCain, because what he says there is probably the truth as he sees it and Ron Paul, because you may have forgotten what a real conservative looks like. I didn't include Huckabee because this country doesn't have a position for head priest/preacher.

CHANGE

I'm no particular fan of Dave Barry, but this is a good sum up (or send up) of the NH primary.

I Confess to Reading Hemingway

Recently, I read Across the River and Into the Trees by Ernest Hemingway.  It was like coming home.  So, imagine my disappointment when I learned the cognescenti panned it.  The cognescenti just cannot relate to the quote by the main character, Richard Cantwell, who was a brevet general when WWII ended and was then demoted to colonel, probably for following orders.  (I did NOT think there was anything Freudian about his name.)

Love is love and fun is fun.  But it is always so quiet when the goldfish die.

Two Naomis for Your Reading List

Two very smart women who have moved past "whither thou goest" to speak truth to power:

Naomi Klein, who writes about capitalism run amok.

Naomi Wolf, who writes about feminist issues and freedom.

Strange I haven't seen these women on TV talking about their books.

By the way, follow this link to hear a rendition of "Whither Thou Goest" that will bring tears to your eyes.  Leonard Cohen still has it and Anjani Thomas is pretty good, too.

Parody Dripping With Sarcasm

This guy breaks me up.