What a great idea it is to have a 'gas tax holiday' from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
Each driver will save about $30 over the course of the summer- less for me, I drive a hybrid.But it is always politically savy to put money in the pockets of voters just prior to an election and this $.18/gallon savings is huge for Joe and Jane public.
It has the support of the president- he has even suggested it before-, the support of Hillary Clinton and the support of John McCain (who suggested it first in this current cycle).
But... wait a minute... If this is such a great idea why haven't they done it before?
Why Did Bill Clinton not do it when challenged by then candidate Bush back in 2000?
Maybe there is more to this.
You see, Shell Oil reported record profits again in the quarter just past. They are in good company with all the oil companies. There is also that nagging fact that our oil money tends to go into the hands of countries who do not agree with many of our policies on the global stage.
So while Gas may drop by 18c a gallon (I have my doubts about that since the oil industry has shown an amazing capacity for greed) big oil will continue to make there profits (potentially made greater by pocketing money that would otherwise go to the government if they raise prices, as I expect they will).
The road projects that are supposed to be funded by gas tax (you know those bridges that have had a recent problem of collapsing) will be put on hold. As a direct result (in areas where congestion is already a huge problem) there will be more time and fuel wasted sitting idle in traffic.
This idea is silly. It does not merit the attention it is getting. But some of our leaders will sell you anything if you are willing to eat it.
Ask any candidate what we can do about high oil prices and he or she does best to tell you that the first, best and only action we can take is to work with every fiber of our beings to get the oil man out of the white house.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
if you say it long enough and loud enough it becomes true...
Really, it does.
For instance, we now believe that Hillary staged a stunning comeback in New Hampshire- even though she consistently polled in the lead in that state at all points prior to the election and won by a slim margin. We now believe that Clinton pulled off a coup in Ohio- but again, she was projected to win there as well.
In Pennsylvania, the media (who we have been trained into thinking hate Clinton) have been telling us that Clinton achieved the unachievable. Again, anyone who watched the tracking polls would know that she was expected to win by 6-12 points.
We are also told, consistently, that Clinton 'won big' in Texas. Look again. Clinton won a norrow victory in the parts of the state that held a primary but Obama won in the areas that conduct caucuses. The net gain in Texas delegate count went to Obama- not Clinton.
War is Peace! etc.
Clinton says she is doing this for the good of the party. But now, her most ardent supporters are saying that if she does not get the nomination- they will stay home or vote for John McCain.
Somehow Hillary Clinton has created a paradigm where she can stand during a debate and say, "What I said at that time is inconsistent with what I had written and with what I knew to be the truth." and have noone call her out on the fact that she is admitting to lying (saying something that you know to be inconsistent with the truth).
There was this stunning thing that happened in Pennsylvania advertising that would be missed by anyone who is not a political junkie. Even some of the political junkies would likely miss it. The media certainly did.
Hillary Clinton ran a completely negative ad about Barrack Obama based on flase information about his voting record. Obama's campaign responded immediately with an add which refutes the disinformation ad with the facts- the kind of split screen "Hillary Clinton says.../ but..." ad we hav all seen- the very kind that most of us felt Kerry should have done against Bush four years ago.
The Clintons responded by saying that Obama's ad was 'the most negative ad any candidate has ever run.' That spin was then carried by the Clinton followers who love to argue that 'both sides are being negative.'
More and more, I have come to believe that the Clintons want to win at all costs. They say things like Hillary and McCain are ready from day 1 but that Obama is not and then say that saying such a thing is not negative. They say make comparisons to Jesse Jackson and say they are not being racist. They complain about the unfair obstacles that exist for women in campaigning (including a memorable recent comment from Hillary about how it takes longer for her to put her face on- which btw, if Obama wanted to go negative he could have had a lot of fun with on a variety of levels) and criticize the media and the debate process when things don't go her way. In the next breath they tell Obama that if he can't stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen when he raised concerns about the last debate.
The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton can do whatever she wants and complain about mistreatment for any variety of reasons. She can punch below the belt and she can create negativity about her oponent even to the extent of destroying his chances in the general election but as soon as Obama or a surrogate tries to point out what she is doing they are being negative and unfair.
So here is the problem. Hillary Clinton has a strong base of support among women. As such they are predisposed to dislike for anyone who would dare to run against her. The media is calling for a knock-out punch. But how can Obama possibly do that? He can't.
To do so would potentially alienate the women he needs for the general election.
People ask me what I like about Obama. Honestly, part of what attracted me to him first is that his last name is not Clinton (My first pick would have been Richardson). But what impresses me today is that he is not Hillary Clinton. He does not allow himself to be defined by how strong he is against his enemies. In fact the language of us verses them is almost completely missing from his lexicon.
In the end, I believe him to be the 'uniter' that Bush claimed to be.
Hillary does not even claim to be a uniter. In fact, she revels in the idea that she is not a uniter- she will fight and fight and fight and fight. That's fine. But what if you are engaged in a conversation with someone who is supposed to be on the same side. At that point, being a fighter who doesn't give up ends up creating distinctions that do not exist and creating divisions that likely cannot be repaired.
So what does the end game look like?
The numbers still work in Obama's favor. But the Clintonistas are working overtime to change the rules- its about popular vote- its about Florida and Michigan- its about picking a name out of a hat- as long as you pick me. Any argument given by the other side will not be perceived as valid.
In the end there are rules. And rules matter. The rules will work in the parties favor if we stick to them. It may, in fact, be the rules that will, in the end, hold the party together.
For instance, we now believe that Hillary staged a stunning comeback in New Hampshire- even though she consistently polled in the lead in that state at all points prior to the election and won by a slim margin. We now believe that Clinton pulled off a coup in Ohio- but again, she was projected to win there as well.
In Pennsylvania, the media (who we have been trained into thinking hate Clinton) have been telling us that Clinton achieved the unachievable. Again, anyone who watched the tracking polls would know that she was expected to win by 6-12 points.
We are also told, consistently, that Clinton 'won big' in Texas. Look again. Clinton won a norrow victory in the parts of the state that held a primary but Obama won in the areas that conduct caucuses. The net gain in Texas delegate count went to Obama- not Clinton.
War is Peace! etc.
Clinton says she is doing this for the good of the party. But now, her most ardent supporters are saying that if she does not get the nomination- they will stay home or vote for John McCain.
Somehow Hillary Clinton has created a paradigm where she can stand during a debate and say, "What I said at that time is inconsistent with what I had written and with what I knew to be the truth." and have noone call her out on the fact that she is admitting to lying (saying something that you know to be inconsistent with the truth).
There was this stunning thing that happened in Pennsylvania advertising that would be missed by anyone who is not a political junkie. Even some of the political junkies would likely miss it. The media certainly did.
Hillary Clinton ran a completely negative ad about Barrack Obama based on flase information about his voting record. Obama's campaign responded immediately with an add which refutes the disinformation ad with the facts- the kind of split screen "Hillary Clinton says.../ but..." ad we hav all seen- the very kind that most of us felt Kerry should have done against Bush four years ago.
The Clintons responded by saying that Obama's ad was 'the most negative ad any candidate has ever run.' That spin was then carried by the Clinton followers who love to argue that 'both sides are being negative.'
More and more, I have come to believe that the Clintons want to win at all costs. They say things like Hillary and McCain are ready from day 1 but that Obama is not and then say that saying such a thing is not negative. They say make comparisons to Jesse Jackson and say they are not being racist. They complain about the unfair obstacles that exist for women in campaigning (including a memorable recent comment from Hillary about how it takes longer for her to put her face on- which btw, if Obama wanted to go negative he could have had a lot of fun with on a variety of levels) and criticize the media and the debate process when things don't go her way. In the next breath they tell Obama that if he can't stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen when he raised concerns about the last debate.
The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton can do whatever she wants and complain about mistreatment for any variety of reasons. She can punch below the belt and she can create negativity about her oponent even to the extent of destroying his chances in the general election but as soon as Obama or a surrogate tries to point out what she is doing they are being negative and unfair.
So here is the problem. Hillary Clinton has a strong base of support among women. As such they are predisposed to dislike for anyone who would dare to run against her. The media is calling for a knock-out punch. But how can Obama possibly do that? He can't.
To do so would potentially alienate the women he needs for the general election.
People ask me what I like about Obama. Honestly, part of what attracted me to him first is that his last name is not Clinton (My first pick would have been Richardson). But what impresses me today is that he is not Hillary Clinton. He does not allow himself to be defined by how strong he is against his enemies. In fact the language of us verses them is almost completely missing from his lexicon.
In the end, I believe him to be the 'uniter' that Bush claimed to be.
Hillary does not even claim to be a uniter. In fact, she revels in the idea that she is not a uniter- she will fight and fight and fight and fight. That's fine. But what if you are engaged in a conversation with someone who is supposed to be on the same side. At that point, being a fighter who doesn't give up ends up creating distinctions that do not exist and creating divisions that likely cannot be repaired.
So what does the end game look like?
The numbers still work in Obama's favor. But the Clintonistas are working overtime to change the rules- its about popular vote- its about Florida and Michigan- its about picking a name out of a hat- as long as you pick me. Any argument given by the other side will not be perceived as valid.
In the end there are rules. And rules matter. The rules will work in the parties favor if we stick to them. It may, in fact, be the rules that will, in the end, hold the party together.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Who Said...?
"The reason (these) tactics work so well now is that you have all these economically insecure white people who are scared to death."
That was candidate Bill Clinton in September 1991 as quoted in the Los Angeles Times.
The Huffington Post elaborates in this article.
Yeah, and some people say these two are good. But let's take a closer look at the attitudes of Hillary Clinton toward the 'lunch bucket' people.
As reported in another article in the Huffington Post:
In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.
"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."
The statement -- which author Benjamin Barber witnessed and wrote about in his book, "The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House" -- was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching "Reagan Democrats.
Perhaps even more telling than Hillary Clinton's proclamation, however, were the words from her husband that followed. As reported by Barber, Clinton "stepped in, calm and judicious, not irritated, as if rehearsing an old but honorable debate he had been having with his wife for decades.
"I know how you feel. I understand Hillary's sense of outrage. It makes me mad too. Sure, we lost our base in the South; our boys voted for Gingrich. But let me tell you something. I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys, who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it, every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They're the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Now, we are the party of progress, but let me tell you, until we find a way to include these boys in our programs, until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others, we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks."
The article continues:
If the tone and tenor of the above sounds familiar, it's because the message, Boyte says, is remarkably similar to what Obama was trying to convey in his now controversial remarks about small town America.
But these comments weren't brought up in the insufferable ABC debate.
That was candidate Bill Clinton in September 1991 as quoted in the Los Angeles Times.
The Huffington Post elaborates in this article.
Yeah, and some people say these two are good. But let's take a closer look at the attitudes of Hillary Clinton toward the 'lunch bucket' people.
As reported in another article in the Huffington Post:
In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.
"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."
The statement -- which author Benjamin Barber witnessed and wrote about in his book, "The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House" -- was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching "Reagan Democrats.
Perhaps even more telling than Hillary Clinton's proclamation, however, were the words from her husband that followed. As reported by Barber, Clinton "stepped in, calm and judicious, not irritated, as if rehearsing an old but honorable debate he had been having with his wife for decades.
"I know how you feel. I understand Hillary's sense of outrage. It makes me mad too. Sure, we lost our base in the South; our boys voted for Gingrich. But let me tell you something. I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys, who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it, every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They're the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Now, we are the party of progress, but let me tell you, until we find a way to include these boys in our programs, until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others, we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks."
The article continues:
If the tone and tenor of the above sounds familiar, it's because the message, Boyte says, is remarkably similar to what Obama was trying to convey in his now controversial remarks about small town America.
But these comments weren't brought up in the insufferable ABC debate.
So what do you say if you are the President of the United States...
upon greeting a Pope at the White House for only the second time in History and hearing the Pope's words to the nation: (after applauding you approach the Pope grasp his hands and say)
"Duh, that was an awesome speech!" Heck while you're at it throw in a 'Dude' or two.
Unless you are not an idiot, then you might say something different.
"Duh, that was an awesome speech!" Heck while you're at it throw in a 'Dude' or two.
Unless you are not an idiot, then you might say something different.
Monday, April 14, 2008
I am bitter--
Just read the title of this Blog.
I am bitter, and I am frustrated that my government does not act in a way that represents me in matters of war and peace and economic justice and matters of moral credibility.
I do not cling to guns or isolationist attitudes- but I know people who do. And some of those who do would not say that they are bitter. In fact, if they are bitter it is unlikely to be about the issues I mentioned above.
Anyone who does not recognize, within themselves, at least a small sense of frustration or anger or'bitterness' about the way our government has been behaving, or about the way our government has been ignoring the concerns of its own people (Remember Dick Cheney's reaction to the polls against the Iraq war "So?") is simply being either dishonest or out-of touch.
So I am bitter about the way our country is being run. I also am feeling a sense of disconnectedness about that - after all, what can we really do?
And so I turn to my own sphere of influence- that area where I can make a difference and empower others to do the same. Some may go so far as to say I am clinging to religion.
Religious organizations, when they function at their best, can and do perform many functions that government cannot and probably should not do. They also perform functions in our society that government chooses not to do.
Obama may have been lazy in his choice of words but when I heard and read his comments they did ring true.
I am bitter, and I am frustrated that my government does not act in a way that represents me in matters of war and peace and economic justice and matters of moral credibility.
I do not cling to guns or isolationist attitudes- but I know people who do. And some of those who do would not say that they are bitter. In fact, if they are bitter it is unlikely to be about the issues I mentioned above.
Anyone who does not recognize, within themselves, at least a small sense of frustration or anger or'bitterness' about the way our government has been behaving, or about the way our government has been ignoring the concerns of its own people (Remember Dick Cheney's reaction to the polls against the Iraq war "So?") is simply being either dishonest or out-of touch.
So I am bitter about the way our country is being run. I also am feeling a sense of disconnectedness about that - after all, what can we really do?
And so I turn to my own sphere of influence- that area where I can make a difference and empower others to do the same. Some may go so far as to say I am clinging to religion.
Religious organizations, when they function at their best, can and do perform many functions that government cannot and probably should not do. They also perform functions in our society that government chooses not to do.
Obama may have been lazy in his choice of words but when I heard and read his comments they did ring true.
A New Approach to Abortion?
This Article from MSNBC highlights how two anti-abortion Democrats are supporting Barrack Obama and suggests that there is a change in the air regarding this issue. The article suggests that both Democratic candidates for president are looking to difuse the hostility on the issue and focus more on finding the common ground that will successfully reduce the number of abortions.Asked last night at a nationally televised forum on religious and moral values if there can be "common ground" on abortion, Obama said that "people of good will can exist on both sides." With Casey watching from the audience at Messiah College outside Harrisburg, Pa., he added that while there will always be irreconcilable differences between opponents and supporters of abortion rights, "we can take some of the edge off the debate." (Robert Casey is a pro-life Democrat from Pennsylvania).
But Clinton has also sought to break from party policy, as she, too, made clear last night. She said that "I will continue to do what I can to reduce the number" of abortions, so whoever wins the nomination, Democrats are likely to try to defuse the issue in the general election. Clinton co-wrote, with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), a significant abortion-prevention bill in January 2005; Obama signed on early as a co-sponsor.
So, it would appear that both of the Democratic candidates have demonstrated a willingness to enter into a new dialogue about the issue.
Unfortunately, the other side is less likely to engage in such conversation. Already several conservative talking points are being circulated among pro-life groups that Obama is ' the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run for president.'
If that sounds familiar it should. They have used that line since Michael Dukakis ran in 1988 and probably before.
But Clinton has also sought to break from party policy, as she, too, made clear last night. She said that "I will continue to do what I can to reduce the number" of abortions, so whoever wins the nomination, Democrats are likely to try to defuse the issue in the general election. Clinton co-wrote, with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), a significant abortion-prevention bill in January 2005; Obama signed on early as a co-sponsor.
So, it would appear that both of the Democratic candidates have demonstrated a willingness to enter into a new dialogue about the issue.
Unfortunately, the other side is less likely to engage in such conversation. Already several conservative talking points are being circulated among pro-life groups that Obama is ' the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run for president.'
If that sounds familiar it should. They have used that line since Michael Dukakis ran in 1988 and probably before.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Before it gets more blown out of proportion
in the news--- Obama said this in California at a fundraiser- to a group of people he wanted to receive money from.
The context apparently is that he is explaining the challenges faced by the campaign. He is not grousing about people -as has been suggested by one of his challengers. Nor is he apparently 'out-of touch' with the working class as was suggested by the other. My take on it is that he has pretty accurately described a very real situation.
He says, in part:
"Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
"Now these are in some communities, you know, I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical."
I think dissecting this in a way that tries to make Obama out to be aloof or elitist is utter nonsense.
The context apparently is that he is explaining the challenges faced by the campaign. He is not grousing about people -as has been suggested by one of his challengers. Nor is he apparently 'out-of touch' with the working class as was suggested by the other. My take on it is that he has pretty accurately described a very real situation.
He says, in part:
"Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
"Now these are in some communities, you know, I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical."
I think dissecting this in a way that tries to make Obama out to be aloof or elitist is utter nonsense.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Hillary Clinton has Problems
The attached article shows how Hillary is losing her lead in Pennsylvania.
Yesterday, the news in the morning opened with Hillary Clinton explaining to a crow that she has a disadvantage to her male counterparts in the campaign because she has to spend more time 'putting on her face.'
I didn't post about this yesterday because there were so many ways to go and I couldn't decide.
On the one hand there is the all to easy crack about having two to choose from. On the other there is the parody you can see being prepared by SNL about having to put the 3 AM phone call on hold while she puts on her face.
But the most obvious one is the continued playing of the victim card. How is it possible that this person can keep reminding us of how hard it is for a woman to run and at the same time, sometimes in the same breath, scream that she is not being treated fairly? It is getting annoying.
Yesterday, the news in the morning opened with Hillary Clinton explaining to a crow that she has a disadvantage to her male counterparts in the campaign because she has to spend more time 'putting on her face.'
I didn't post about this yesterday because there were so many ways to go and I couldn't decide.
On the one hand there is the all to easy crack about having two to choose from. On the other there is the parody you can see being prepared by SNL about having to put the 3 AM phone call on hold while she puts on her face.
But the most obvious one is the continued playing of the victim card. How is it possible that this person can keep reminding us of how hard it is for a woman to run and at the same time, sometimes in the same breath, scream that she is not being treated fairly? It is getting annoying.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
