Home » Blog » Loss of Self-Control Leads to Crashed Standing
Blog for America
Loss of Self-Control Leads to Crashed Standing
Linked to groups: Rockingham/Strafford DFA
Any number of presidential candidates have promoted the idea that the moral standing of the United States in the world community is in dire need of being re-established. However, few have mentioned any particular actions they would take to accomplish that goal. Perhaps that’s because they haven’t really thought through what brought about the sudden collapse of the moral authority which the United States enjoyed after World War II.
It seems pretty clear, in retrospect, that the country which earned the respect of other nations was one which said what it was going to do and then did it. From stopping totalitarianism to sending men to the moon, the United States set goals and then achieved them. No longer. Ever since Ronald Reagan, the United States has taken to telling other nations what to do, while conditions at home were allowed to deteriorate. Although there’s a general consensus that the United States’ fall from grace was considerably accelerated (and has hopefully reached its nadir) during the last seven years, it’s noteworthy that George W. Bush actually invoked the importance of a nation keeping its word when he initiated the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. So, where did he go wrong?The answer, I think, lies in the difference between a promise and a threat; between a positive moral goal with which the world community concurs and a coercive exercise aimed at world dominance. Clearly, the debacle in Southwest Asia is an example of the latter. But, what should concern us even more is that it’s actually part of a pattern, a first step in a strategy that, like the Project for a New American Century in the late 1990s, is essentially out of control. We need not look far to find the evidence.
Recent votes in the United Nations on questions related to nuclear weapons and proliferation make it clear. From the Australian perspective:
The 2007 session of the United Nations General Assembly saw several significant new resolutions….Nuclear resolutions stimulated a total of 315 statements and 52 draft texts. Every resolution was adopted either by consensus or by large majorities of countries.
The USA isolated itself from the global framework for disarmament (my bold) by opposing nearly every resolution dealing with nuclear issues…..
The second resolution by Chile, New Zealand, Nigeria, Sweden and Switzerland received support from more member states. As in India’s resolution, it called for deflating the readiness of weapons. Additionally it invited states to negotiate bilateral agreements and advocated de-alerting as a means for confidence building between Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) and Non-Nuclear Weapon States. The resolution was supported by 139 states, with only three against (France, UK and US) and 36 abstentions. While Australia, as a state without nuclear weapons abstained, the resolution was supported by Italy and Germany, both of which host US nuclear weapons.
When it came to the Nuclear Weapons Free Zones, of which there are several, including the CANWFZ, the United States support for non-proliferation was, again, nowhere in evidence.
With the resolution L.27 “Nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas” Brazil and New Zealand called the states in the southern hemisphere to connect the NWFZs to make the whole hemisphere a NWFZ. Besides the NWFZs mentioned above, the NWFZ of South Pacific (Treaty of Rarotonga) and the Antarctic Treaty are referred to in the resolution. It also welcomes other approaches like the negotiation of a NWFZ in the Middle East, and the NWFZ in central Asia (Semipalatinsk Treaty). A vote was called, with 169 in favour, three against (UK, US and France) and eight abstentions….
No doubt the folks at the Heritage Foundation were pleased with this series of “No” votes, since they re-enforced the position that
U.S. strategic forces should not be used to exact revenge on an enemy foolish enough to attack the U.S. or its friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. They should be used to deter that enemy from attacking by making it clear that such an attack will fail.
Because, as a statement deploring the failure of the Congress to fund the Reliable Replace Warheads, asserts:
Nuclear weapons are no less essential to the security of the U.S. and its friends and allies than they were during the Cold War, but the requirements are different. Current and projected circumstances allow the U.S. to maintain a smaller active nuclear arsenal and stockpile of warheads, in part based on the deployment of effective conventionally armed strategic strike weapons and defenses. This smaller U.S. nuclear arsenal, however, makes it more important that the arsenal is fully modernized and tailored to meeting the demands of the damage-limitation strategy.
And the Heritage Foundation people aren’t just blowing smoke. The Congressional Research Service has put out a twenty-five page study, entitled “Nuclear Weapons in U.S. National Security Policy: Past, Present and Prospects” which explains that:
Tailored deterrence differs from Cold War deterrence in that it explicitly notes that U.S. nuclear weapons could be used in attacks against a number of nations that might have developed and deployed chemical and biological weapons, even if they did not possess nuclear weapons.
Which suggests that even with “everything on the table,” there’s absolutely no incentive for any nation to abjure nuclear weapons, since they’re likely to be attacked regardless, whenever they fall out of favor with a nation that’s proved incapable of deterring itself.
I should note that there’s actually some good news. The Democratic Congress in passing the omnibus budget, which GWB signed, eliminated funding for the development of the Reliable Replacement Warhead, for now. Senator Domenici, ever the optimist,
remarked hopefully that he expected the RRW or something like it to re-emerge “sooner rather than later.”
So despite all the hoopla about the nuclear threats posed by the Axis of Evil (Iraq, Iran and North Korea, in case you’ve forgotten) new nukes haven’t made much progress and the nuclear laboratories are laying people off. And, in the interest of fairness, we should take note of Rep. David Hobson’s (R-OH)contribution, according to the Los Alamos Study Group:
David Hobson (R-OH), ranking member of the House Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee and one of the architects of the budget cuts in question, has said:
I spent much of my time…traveling to many DOE facilities…I saw hundreds of staff dedicating their professional lives to our national defense…I also saw a weapons complex that could be viewed as a jobs program for Ph.Ds – the ultimate in white-collar welfare…where business practices were two decades behind the times (April 11, 2004).
In our experience Hobson’s assessment is correct. We believe that the best scale for LANL is one that is much smaller than LANL today, quite apart from our disarmament agenda.
If you didn’t notice this good news, it was probably because the Administration was quick to grab the headlines:
Administration Plans to Shrink U.S. Nuclear Arms Program
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 19, 2007; Page A01The Bush administration yesterday announced its intention to modernize and sharply reduce the size of the nation’s aging nuclear weapons program by closing or abandoning 600 buildings at facilities across the country and gradually reducing the associated workforce by at least 7,200.
Hans M. Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists called the 15 percent cut announced yesterday “a bookkeeping event,” since the number of warheads deployed with bombers, missiles, and submarines will not be substantially reduced, including the number kept on 24-hour alert. He also noted that the weapons taken out of the active stockpile will be transferred from the Defense Department to the Energy Department for storage but will not be dismantled.
And the cancellation of the RRW shows up as not only an after-thought, but as a good example of lemons turned into lemonade.
D’Agostino said agreement by Congress to eliminate funding for the next-generation Reliable Replacement Warhead program, which the Bush administration has long backed, would not affect plans for extensive modernization of the complex. The plan still faces public hearings and must go through an environmental impact review.
Makes it sound like the Administration had “long backed” the elimination, doesn’t it? But who was paying attention on December 19th anyway? Not to mention that it may not be much of a victory.
But is the defeat of the RRW a momentous victory for nuclear disarmers? After all, the U.S. government still possesses some 10,000 nuclear weapons, with thousands of them on launch-ready alert. Moreover, the Bush administration is promoting a plan to rebuild the entire U.S. nuclear weapons complex. Called Complex 2030 and intended to provide for U.S. nuclear arsenals well into the future, this administration scheme is supposed to cost $150 billion, although the Government Accountability Office maintains that this figure is a significant underestimate.
One wonders how this fits into the restoring moral authority agenda. Perhaps it’s a question our presidential candidates could be asked.
Barack Obama made a stab at it in the New Hampshire debate, but his answer didn’t fit into Charlie Gibson’s script:
Let me just add one thing, though, on the broader issue of nuclear proliferation. This is something that I’ve worked on since I’ve been in the Senate. I worked with Richard Lugar, then the Republican head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to pass the next stage of what was Nunn-Lugar, so that we would have improved interdiction of potentially nuclear materials. And it is important for us to rebuild a nuclear nonproliferant — proliferation strategy — something that this administration, frankly, has ignored, and has made us less safe as a consequence. It would not cost us that much, for example, and it would take about four years for us to lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are still floating out there, and we have not done the job.
How about expanded nuclear weapons free zones and the inspections that go along with them? Senators?
M/HShow: Expand All Reply
Re: love/hate fest.
There's a saying that there are only 2 emotions, love and fear, and that love is not an emotion. Love, if healthy, is actually a choice. If it's not a choice, then it's coming from some not healed place inside. You can't make people love, but you can certainly instill fear in them.
When people attack JE, I don't consider it hate; I consider it fear.
It's also becoming clear that people choose cands for different reasons. Some choose for personal reasons ( my son will have more money for education, lower taxes etc); some for emotional reasons and some for other various reasons.
With BO, I would most likely have more money in my pocket, but I'm not interested in that...I'd like to see taxes raised on those who can afford a bit/lot more.
I'm an issues voter. Concrete issues. Issues that could help save our country. The 3 issues that most concern me at this moment are: the Constitution (all 3 fail miserably); the war - Edwards wants out including no bases; Corporate Media power - Edwards wins that one hands down since he has said he'll go after the corporations, and we all have discussed that fascism is the marriage of state and corporations. So...Edwards is wanting to pull us back from fascism.
I, of course, will vote for BO, if I have to...but he'll not win the gen'l IMO unless it's a JE/BO ticket and even then, I think we're prolly toast, once the fear card and election fraud again rear their heads and American people are much more motivated by fear of death than love of country.
If we're to have a chance at all, we need hand-counted paper ballots and none of the 3 cands are calling for that, are they ?
I wonder if Gore could take it at the convention if JE ends up Kingmaker. How could that work, Phil? Is it even possible? With so little talk from any of them about the environment, I would think Al is upset...a lot....
My 2 cents. Notice that I did not attack BO.
The Deans are first. Al Gore is a close second.
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the only other major Democratic contender still in the race, was a distant third at 9 percent in the national poll.
CAN YOU SAY TOAST
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1554681020080116
FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE BROUGHT UP THE QUESTION OF BUSH TAKING ALL THE LIVES OF OUR SERVICEMEN DURING HIS TERM IN OFFICE AND AS TRAGIC AS ANY LOSS OF LIFE IS, YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN THE FOLLOWING FACTS.
Subject: BET YOU DON'T KNOW THIS!!!!!
Subject: MILITARY DEATHS FOR TWENTY YEARS---
Bet you didn't know the following! I surely did not..
Military losses for 20 years
These are some rather eye-opening facts: Since the start of the war on
terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time
period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through now, we have lost
over 3000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively
serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
>>>1980 .......... 2,392
>>>1981 ......... 2,380
>>>1984 .......... 1,999
>>>1988 .......... 1,819
>>>1989 .......... 1,636
>>>1990 ......... 1,508
>>>1991 .......... 1,787
>>>1992 .......... 1,293----------------------------------------------------
>>>1993 .......... 1,213
>>>1994 . 1,075
>>>1995 .2,465
>>>1996 ......... 2,318 Clinton years @13,417 deaths
>>>1997 .......... 817
>>>1998 ......... 2,252
>>>1999 .......... 1,984 -------------------------------------------------
>>>2000 .......... 1,983
>>>2001 .......... 890
>>>2002 .......... 1,007 7 BUSH years @ 9,016 deaths
>>>2003 .......... 1,410
>>>2004 .......... 1,887
>>>2005 ......... 919>>>2006...............920 ------------------------------------------------------------
> If you are confused when you look at these figures...so was I.
> Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the
> Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr.
> Clinton's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war? And, I was even
> more confused; when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President
> (Nobel Peace Prize) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities!
> These figures indicate that many of our Media & Politicians will pick and
> choose. They present only those "facts" which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth.
> Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?
> Our Mainstream Print and TV media, and many Politicians like to slant;
> that these brave men and women, who are losing their lives in Iraq, are mostly
> minorities! Wrong AGAIN--- just one more media lie! The latest census, of
> Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:
>>>European descent (White) ....... 69.12%
>>>Hispanic . 12.5%
>>>Black............................................. 12.3%
>>>Asian . 3.7%
>>>Native American ......................... . 1.0%
>>>Other ............................................ 2.6%
>
> Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:
>>>European descent (white) ..... 74.31%
>>>Hispanic .................................. 10.74%
>>>Black . 9.67%
>>>Asian ..................................... . 1.81%
>>>Native American .................... 1.09%
>>>Other . . 33%
> You do the Math! These figures don't lie... but, Media-liars figure...and
> they sway public opinion! (These statistics are published by
> Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at:
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
>
> Now ask yourself these two questions:
> "Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like
> these?" and "Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much as they do?"--BECAUSE IT SHOW UP THE LIES THEY TELL!!!
Lots of real inflamed folks against BO because he mentioned how Reagan transformed politics.
Yep he did, for worse, but he did.
Dems want to transform politcs again.
It was smart BO mentioned the issues.
Folkd who think he is selling out the Dem party becasuse he mentioned Rambo are nuts.
Each of the three major dem candidates are flawed. Some more then others and each for a different reason. Each of us is going to have to work thru that one way or another.
BO has his reach out to all spiel down pat and he has shown he can play with others. Some think when you are swimming with sharks, the last thing you do is toss fresh meat into the water.
I find that more bothersome then talking about Rambo.
George McGovern has spoken out again on the things our country has done to lose our moral standing. He also spoke out in 1970 in the Senate.
McGovern was right in 1970 when he said the Senate had blood on their hands....
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1742
And in the WSJ recently he called for impeachment.
"Impeachment is unlikely, of course. But we must still urge Congress to act. Impeachment, quite simply, is the procedure written into the Constitution to deal with presidents who violate the Constitution and the laws of the land. It is also a way to signal to the American people and the world that some of us feel strongly enough about the present drift of our country to support the impeachment of the false prophets who have led us astray. This, I believe, is the rightful course for an American patriot."
let us not put all the blame on bush the dems have gone along with him all the way, they have the power to stop this madness but sold there souls, bush is a patey he not in control hes told what to say and he dont do that well either, the men at the top are the buildenburg CFR members look at these men then you will know why! can you handle the truth? google endgame, freedom to facism, terror storm all on google then you will know the real story, you wont like it. no one become president without them picking there man look back at all the pres, there all been to the meetings all but one raygun, then they try to kill him. dont belive me watch the video.
Reply to this
George McGovern has spoken out again on the things our country has done to lose our moral standing. He also spoke out in 1970 in the Senate.
McGovern was right in 1970 when he said the Senate had blood on their hands....and what did they do to him they try to kill him, shut up or die!
2.
I, of course, will vote for BO, if I have to...but he'll not win the gen'l IMO unless it's a JE/BO ticket
seashell
I guess you haven't been paying any attention to the polls.
I, of course, will vote for BO, if I have to
Why would you "have to" vote for BO or for anyone at all??
If you think BO would have to have JE in the lead to win in a general election, I would think you would be voting for Edwards in the primary.
7.
Joe Jackson
Fri, 01/18/08
Mr. Jackson,
California votes on February 5th there is also a debate on January 31st in LA. Please tune in to see the real race rather than the one the corporate media is telling American Democratic voters is already over.
btw, The 2008 DNC Convention is August 25-28 in Denver. You may want to tune to see who wins the Democratic Party's nomination. Nobody will know until then.
Jack Cafferty just referred to BO as a "rock star." Are we seeing an "American Idol" race?
I wish he hadn't said that. BO deserves better and frankly, I'm not thrilled about voting for a rock star. But that indeed is what he appears to be. HC is also being referred to as a rock star. Excuse me, what is wrong with this picture?
When I saw enraptured womens' faces the other day, while swarming all over BO, I felt embarrassed.... the way I felt embarrassed when women swarmed all over Elvis.
BO's a flawed man. Like Edwards. Like Hillary. LOLAnother view of Dan's casualty numbers
Includes link to spread sheet data.
http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/003...
Take a look at the actual US Military Casualty figures since 1980. If you do the math, you wil find quite a few surpises. First of all, let's compare numbers of US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents.
George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)
Even during the (per MSM) utopic peacetime of Bill Clinton's term, we lost 4302 service personnel. H.W. Bush and Reagan actually lost significantly more personnel while never fighting an extensive war, much less a simulaltaneous war on two theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan). Even the dovish Carter lost more people duing his last year in office, in 1980 lost 2392, than W. has lost in any single year of his presidency. (2005 figures are not available but I would wager the numbers would be slightly higher than 2004.)
In 2004, more soldiers died outside of Iraq and Afghanistan than died inside these two war zones (900 in these zones, 987 outside these zones).
I'm guessing that total deaths in 2005 are probably about the same as 2004. 2004 saw 848 deaths in Iraq, 2005 saw 846.
Joan, perhaps I didn't state that clearly. I'd vote for BO if he wins the nomination.
John Edwards will immediately close gitmo, restore habeus corpus, renounce and end torture and begin to pull the troops out of Iraq with no permanent bases. That will make a good start to restoring our standing. Then when we get to having universal health care we can actually join the civilized world.
Can anyone in Oklahoma City give a report of John's visit? Edwards: the fifty state candidate.
John Edwards speaks at the California Democratic Convention in San Diego, Calif. on April 29, 2007. California's Democrats love Edwards.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FcNVQqlK8g
Putziepoo is trying hard to match and surpass the numbers of his father and RR. He'll have to bring out the bunker busters if he wants to catch up.
more farmers die than soldiers if we want to evaluate dangerous jobs but 50,000 die on the roads, and hundreds of thousands each year from cigarettes
how many people did we kill might be a more appropriate question for our global military reach, but wars afe going on all over the world that don't involve us, many of the weapons used do
Hey, Phil, how do we find out the total of the JE fund-raiding?
Obama pulled off a coup with the culinary workers, I'm hoping he knocks of Clinton in Nevada (and BTW the town near the center of Iowa is pronounced Ne veigh da, and they don't like being called the state)
Welcome Reception, 2007 California Democratic Convention
“The genius of American democracy has somehow done it again. George Bush is the right president at the right time.”
So declared the consistently-conservative Las Vegas Review-Journal newspaper on the eve of the 2004 election.
The Review-Journal warmly endorsed Bush in 2000, as well.
If there is a Nevada newspaper that offers an unadulterated conservative line, it is the Review-Journal.
And who does this newspaper urge Nevada Democrats to support when they caucus Saturday?
Barack Obama.
In truth, the paper’s editorial on the Democratic contest is more an attack on Hillary Clinton than an enthusiastic embrace of Obama. In dismissing Clinton, the paper’s editors detail a bizarre list of particulars that begins with, “For starters, imagine Sen. Clinton and ‘co-president’ Bill Clinton invited onto a ‘This is Your Life’ talk show where they’re joined by Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky.”
It’s merely predictable right-wing Hillary-hate that underpins the rejection of Clinton.
John Edwards, on the other hand, is slammed for representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.
“Meanwhile,” the editorial grumbles, “John Edwards’ anti-capitalist populism is not in this country’s long-term best interests.”
Obama, on the other hand, is championed as “a good politician” who “knows how to speak to individual Americans and give them the feeling he cares about their concerns.”
The old maxim that says “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” holds true here. Conservatives hate Hillary Clinton for who she is. They hate John Edwards for what he says. And they can live with Barack Obama, who could finish off the Clintons, who eschews edgy populism for “hope” and who this week said of a certain conservative: “I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”
The soundest response to Obama’s insights regarding Reagan comes from the man whose populism so unsettled the Review-Journal.
“When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class to the working people,” said John Edwards. “He was openly — openly– intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country… He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment.”
“I can promise you this,” the former senator from North Carolina concluded, “this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change.”
Clinton got trashed.
Obama got the endorsement.
But this round goes to Edwards.
John Nichols is a co-founder of Free Press and the co-author with Robert W. McChesney of TRAGEDY & FARCE: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy — The New Press.
**********************************
OK, somebody explain -- what is the difference between the working people and the middle class? Do the middle class not work? What kind of a deal is this?
The fund raising is supposed to be viral seashell, and thanks for reminding me today is the day
swing batter
sea - nice post above - no BO attacks, thank you! let me ask about this, tho:
When I saw enraptured womens' faces the other day, while swarming all over BO, I felt embarrassed.... the way I felt embarrassed when women swarmed all over Elvis.
I thought you were a 'Crushie for Dean'. same feeling - different candidate.
re: rock star - I heard Cafferty dissing Edwards about wanting more media and I actually felt defensive for him - I think Edwards has had 'some' coverage but I agree with his point that he deserves more than the after the fact comments he often garners. also noticed today that when cnn puts polls up on the screen they're sometimes excluding JE entirely - man I hate the control those creeps have! I may be 'for' Obama, but JE is 'one of ours' and deserves a good defense.
Hi folks.
Ezra Klein:
The stock market has tanked. The job numbers are rough. Much of Wall Street is in turmoil. So I think Bob Kuttner is right to wonder why the Democrats seem so remote from these developments. His four, non-exclusive hypotheses -- that they're too unused to thinking ideologically, too in hock to large donors, too hemmed in by the rhetoric of deficit reduction, and too conscious and respectful of PAYGO's limiting effects -- all seem like significant pieces of the puzzle.
But, in general, I think there's another side, too: They lack a template. The Democrats haven't run with a sense of urgency since, at the least, 1992, and I'd suggest far before that. And their main emotional reaction to the moment has to do with the end of Bush rather than any of the underlying circumstances.
More info on Dan's data.
Here is the full report as referanced by Dan.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL3249...
The numbers he displayed are accurate.
What wasn't displayed are the deaths from hostile action.
See table 5: From 1993 thru 2,000, Bubba killed....1
The rest were accident, illness, self-inflicted, etc.
From 2001 thru 2006, deaths from hostile action: 2596.
During the same period, Bubba had 46 deaths from terror attacks while BushII had 55 in 2001.
So I don't think the spin that Dan reported makes sense. The deaths due to non-combat reasons is fairly constant..aprox 2200 or so per year. A lot of guys die in training. During my basic (1967), a troop a week died. There are lots of people doing dangerous things and people die...always...year in and year out.
A lot of troops die of illness and of course suicide. I never saw a soldier kill himself but I did see a lot of soldiers do stupid things and die.
Edwards, of the three, has certainly come closest to making his campaign about the state of the country, but Clinton's running on her ability to manage government effectively (in contrast to Bush) and Obama is running on his ability to bring people together (in contrast to Bush) and neither message is all that adaptable, at least in tone, to the demands of the moment, though I think Clinton is increasingly finding hers to be pretty adaptable in substance.
(last from Ezra)
Have been reading that fear, anger, and greed are what make us miserable. According to a really neat anthology I picked up, The Mystery of 2012: Predictions, Prophecies & Possiblities, published 2007 by Sounds True Press in Boulder, Colorado, a variety of writers from scientists to anthropoligists, to philsophers and writers such as Jean Houston address the coming end of the Mayan calendar.
Most are futurists that look at the trends beneath the corporate media from businesses that are committed to Green functioning, to helping people, to the environment, as well as earning a profit, to psychological and spiritual trends. For instance,meditation classes are held at the following businesses: Medtronic, Apple Computer, Google, Yahoo!, McKinney & Company, Huges Aircraft, IBM, Cisco Systems, and Raytheon Company. They've discovered that exhausted and stresses employees aren't creative, and what the 21st Century needs is creativity.
In one of the essays, the writer talked about how we spend our lives accumulating things to forge an identity and what we end up with is the clothes without an emperor.
Anyway, there's lots going on beneath the surface, and there's reason to hope for a more just, more balanced, more harmonious world.
And just an aside, I remember very well that Howard Dean was referred to as a rock star when he made the covers of three major news magazines. I don't take that stuff seriously.
And let's cheer that we have a good contest going, that different philosophies, temperaments, experiences, and policies are there for us to examine.
And let's cheer that we have a good contest going, that different philosophies, temperaments, experiences, and policies are there for us to examine.
~~~~~~~~~~~
hear hear
29,
Good point. Dems seems to be waiting around for Bush to go away and then they will take over. Not so fast. I don't see any Dem beating McCain in November. The polls may show Dems can mail it in, but don't anyone believe it. As a former Repub, the opposition is putting their finishing touches to their process and infrastructure. Once a candidate is determined, they will start blasting.
Hillary Clinton is most likely to move the Dow upward with her policies if that is the measure.
If the share of productivity gains captured by labor is the measure, you can bet on Edwards.
Bet on Iowa if you want to be a part of the new green economy. We have a shortage of workers, come on over.
myDD:
Why Obama's remarks touched a nerve with us It's his [Reagan's] enduring legacy of BS.
I won't deal with people he killed in wars, Aids neglect etc. They've been brought up by others. It's the think tanks altering the national perceptions - that still at work today. Obama buying into it - doesn't help.
Before Reagan, liberals were the people challenging the establishment - for all the right reasons. They were the rebels, the idealists - and they were cool. Conservatives were - your obtuse parents, missing the point on everything.
By the time RW bought the media and their think tanks spread their memes through it - it was all upside down:
Liberals were irresponsible, dirty hippies guilty of past "excesses". You'd think they meant drugs - but Reagan's base knew it meant civil rights - one of those secret code words like "states rights".
Their think tanks came with the "political Correctness" - another way to legitimize bigotry. It perfectly turned the tables on liberals. Now they were no longer the cool rebels but the prissy schoolmarms who will hit you with the ruler if you "innocently" say "nigger" - just for laughs. The conservatives became the free spirited, humorous ones that the PC police just wouldn't leave be! (later on this image was reinforced with blonde spokespersons like Coulter et al) The think tank media started calling conservatives "the cool kids" and liberals the PC police. And all the while, they were laughing all the way to the bank, cutting social programs and the rich people's taxes.
The lies have been sustained by the "liberal media " (that's one meme that died!) to this day.
McCain/ Huckabee can be beat but it won't be easy. but all three of ours are up to it
and Edwards/Obama would be competitive in darn near every state in the union but Idaho
"A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities."
and
"Nevertheless, by promising to side with those who worked hard, obeyed the law, cared for their families, loved their country, Reagan offered Americans a sense of common purpose that liberals seemed no longer able to muster."
If you can't just imagine, years from now, a candidate in your party, praising Bush's resolve in the war on terror and his accomplishments in promoting "family values"
For disclosure - I am speaking for people who LIVED during Reagan years. I am an undecided voter and have no goal of taking Obama down or helping any other campaign.
(last from myDD)
myDD:
Americans favor the Democrats to the Republicans by an 18-point spread. The Democrats' lead on the generic congressional ballot is likewise in the double digits.
And going beyond general environmental issues, there is just no way that the Republicans are going to have the type of resources that the Democrats will have. No way. In previous years, the Republicans were able to win by simply outspending the Democrats -- a tactic that couldn't save them last cycle.
This year, not only will the Republicans not be able to massively outspend the Democrats in the race for the House, they themselves are going to get badly outspent. Looking at the latest numbers, the National Republican Congressional Committee is still in debt. The committee does not have a net positive balance in its bank accounts less than a year out from election day.
The spread between the NRCC and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is likewise stunning, with the Democratic committee holding better than a $30 million advantage when debts and obligations are taken into account.
Obama has sold himself as being in the middle so I'm not surprised, and he did get crossover Republican voters in Iowa, that are now Democrats.
Good thing military casualties are in the norm ,so there is no reason to go to war against Iran because they are helping kill Americans in Iraq
Hi cChalfonte,
For what it's worth. My husband and a few others work with voter data. In our county, we have more Republicans than Democrats, and the largest number of all is Independents, but they've worked with the figures. We have to win over a certain percentage of Republicans is we want our candidates in the Democratic Party to win.
Just a supposition, but I'd bet that the campaigns of all the candidates have done the numbers, and I would bet even more that Obama's people know they have to have crossover voters for him to win.
There's a whole science behind elections now, and it does influence what the candidates say, to whom they direct their appeals, and how they get their supporters out to vote.
Just saw this and thought I'd share.
"Lawrence O'Donnell
by Keith Olbermann [Subscribe]
Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:00:01 AM PST
Forgive the fairly minor focus here but I spot at least three diaries on his appearance on Countdown last night to discuss Obama, Reagan, and Edwards.
Those of you complaining about it are right.
Keith Olbermann's diary :: ::
His HuffPo piece was news to me.
Shouldn't have been, obviously, but it was.
I don't read every blog, nor everything written by my guests. I often don't know until an hour beforehand who will be a guest on a given show (if it matters to you, these scheduling nightmares tend to come in waves for some reason, and last night was a Nor'easter). Also, to announce, on-air, each guest's preferences, prejudices, shillings and shiv jobs, would reduce the rest of the show to "Good Evening. Call Me Ishmael. My Boat Sank. The End. Good Night." And Lawrence O'Donnell's insight is almost always perceptive, relevant, and enlightened.
But even with these caveats, the point about this appearance, especially in the wake of such a freshly-written piece, is well-taken and I'm very sorry.
It will be addressed tonight on the show.
Thanks.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1...
I wrote one this morning, but had to run out to get my car fixed.
This was my diary.
Psssst, Larry O’Donnell, us REAL Left Democarts Are Who Vote
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/...
ciao!
Pat
I work with those numbers all the time, and DFA won't let you out of their training until you understand them.
The wild card is the people that don't vote.
Both Obama and Edwards will draw new voters by the millions but for different reasons. Combine the two on a ticket and they would be formidable.
I worry, Phil, about the corporate media, the corporations and their cronies going after John Edwards. They certainly helped do Howard Dean in. I know that the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party will largely support John Edwards, but is that enough, especially if there's a concerted effort to convince the American people that he's a socialist, will kill off business, will plunge us into a depression.
I wonder what the Independents, centrists, and Republicans think of his policies. I'm cautious after what was done to Howard Dean.
I would bet even more that Obama's people know they have to have crossover voters for him to win.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't disagree with that.
the problem (for me) becomes what the resulting legislation looks like that comes out of that coalition
a program that makes Republicans comfortable makes me uncomfortable (and may just leave enough people at home because they can't see a difference in the parties to give it to McCain on security)
if Huckabee's message of populism doesn't have a counter (and no one has argued Obama is a populist) and Huckabee is paired with MCain, Obama's choice of a running mate becomes determinate since the VP choice determines 3-4% of the vote
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...
(01-17) 22:30 PST San Francisco --
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama launched a direct broadside Thursday at New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's claim that she is the experienced Democratic candidate who is "ready to lead" - saying that her experience is "presumed through osmosis, as a consequence of having been first lady."
"Sen. Clinton keeps touting her experience but has no management experience that I can see in her resume," he said in a wide-ranging interview with The Chronicle editorial board in San Francisco.
Obama argued that the success of his own presidential campaign, "where I went from zero, starting from scratch, to compete with a legendary political organization 20 years in the making, built by a former president ... is not an accident."
I think McCain is someone to worry about. The superficial knowledge of the average American voter will see McCain as a war hero, as someone who is a straight talker, who has a certain amount of charisma, who has lots of experience.
Huckabee with his latest promise to amend the Constitution to make this into a theocracy I hope will turn off some voters, but who's to know. His charm has been compared to Reagan's.
Off for dinner, will check back.
-
By Jeff Morris on Jan 17, 2008 10:11 PM ESTThe US has never sunk so low, so fast, as under the Bu$hCo Regime. Though the US down-slide began long before these Corporate Criminals stole office. The same forces that stopped the Kennedy brothers, are still calling the shots today. The torch was just passed to the next generation. Generation "Neo-Con"! Our moral standing and reputation have never been so bad. Gee, just a guess here but...you don't suppose it has anything to do with we now torture people? We torture and hold people in secret prisons around the world? Without charging them with anything and not allowing them access to an Attorney? (suspension of Habeas Corpus) We now illegally spy on our own innocent citizens? (NSA warrant less domestic spying program) That doesn't really worry the world, does it? They're not thinking it's not the same America, are they? They're not saying "America is under the grip of a dictator," but it's citizens are too stupid to know it, are they? After 7 years of Bu$hCo and Deferment Dick's expanded Executive Branch Powers, and shredding of our Constitution, our Country now looks more like the old USSR to the world, than what America once was and stood for. Nice article Monica!
Jeff Morris- Saugerties, N.Y.- DeJaVu57