Progressive 680 is No More

It is official Progressive Talk 680 is gone. It started this summer when WSMB started carrying St Louis Cardinals games. In other words they were going to cut into Air America for 162 baseball games. There were other signs that future of progressive radio was in trouble here like the fact the WSMB site had not been updated in some time, and still had a picture of Al Franken on the home page even though it has been many months since Al left Air America. The station is now an all sports format connected to the Fox Radio Sports Network. However there are already two all sports stations in this market and course you can still get Rush, Sean, and the right wing talkers. It is depressing that progressive talk did not make it here, but I think they really did try because I remember the billboards around town announcing the progressive talk format. However, the idea never took hold and one gets the feeling this format change has been in the works for awhile now. Hopefully someone else will make the plunge but for now I am not holding my breath.

Using That 9-11 Prop Again

Just when you thought the Bush administration could not get any lower, they once again prove they have no shame and at best a shaky grip of what right and wrong is. The report on the troop surge may be on September 11. Which means General Petraeus will come before Congress to give a report on how the surge has gone with the symbolic day of September 11th hanging over the background. Instead of dealing with the war in Iraq in a straightforward and logical manner the Bush administration will once again be pushing the same tired emotional 9-11 button. By doing this they are saying it doesn’t really matter what the general says to congress that the real message is we can not leave Iraq and to do so will mean have not learned the lesson of 9-11. It is hard to be shocked by anything these people do any more, but it once again shows the depths the Bush people will go to distract, stall, or avoid talking about Iraq or anything else they do not want to talk about in a serious manner. It indicates that the whole thing is just a big political game, and that it’s not about the planning or execution of the war but how you sell it to the American people. Several administration figures have talked about the Iraq War in terms of message and that failures have come from not selling it properly to the people. So now we have the latest attempt to sell this war and put into their context. Yes we will have General Petraeus talk to Congress but we throw in this not subtle reminder of what it is really about just in case the people did not catch all the other references and reminders to 9-11.

MSM is full of it

The following blurb was on First Read, which is MSNBC political blog.

Stealing The Spotlight: Edwards’ poverty tour comes to an end today, with stops in Virginia and Kentucky and a major speech. Per the campaign, Edwards will use this speech to sum his three-day tour and talk about the faces of poverty he met. Yet partly overshadowing Day Two of the tour was wife Elizabeth’s comments to Salon about Hillary Clinton. They weren’t as incendiary as Drudge made them out to be, but Elizabeth still made news -- as she did when she called Ann Coulter, or when it was revealed her cancer had returned. And now there’s a brand new campaign TV ad that features her, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported on TODAY this morning. We knew it was possible that a spouse might become the story in this presidential race. But just we also thought it would be Bill, not Elizabeth Edwards.


This is the kind of passive story that the MSM puts out there that can drive you insane. It seems like NBC news is saying that “Gee we would really like to cover the substance of the Edwards campaign, but it just out of our hands”. The reason Elizabeth Edwards is the bigger story is you made the choice for it to be the story. Chris Matthews interviewed John Edwards yesterday on Hardball and half the five minute interview was about Elizabeth in one way or another. Instead of taking some of the responsibility for their actions as far was is and is not a story, the MSM says that we report what people are interested in and they have no control over content. NBC news represents a large part of the small group of entities that provide news and information for the majority of Americans, and for them to say they have no control of the flow of news is simply insulting.

John Edwards in Memphis

The John Edwards event at MIFA, Memphis Inter Faith Association, last night was a great success. A crowd of about 300 people gave a great speech about poverty in America and how we approach these issues as a people and a government.

The choir from the First Baptist Church performed first and did an excellent job. After the choir there were three people that MIFA is helping through their various programs, and each one told the crowd about themselves and how MIFA has helped them. Senator Edwards came on after that and he spoke about how government can help people, but that it is people that start these movements. He made a reference to how Civil Rights movement started in towns like Memphis and not in Washington. I also like the way he addressed the media and how they frame and talk about what people care and don’t care about. I liked addressing the media, because there have been so many goofy stories about Edwards that have nothing to do with the issues. The crowd was very responsive and I think there was great amount of energy and enthusiasm.

I really liked the way John Edwards talked about government and what they can do, but also talked about people and what they can do to help. The Bush administration and specifically the Iraq War has divided the country and made everything highly partisan. The Administration has really tried to play up on these differences as a tool for re-election and a means to push their agenda through. So I think it is very important that the next president is the president of the whole country and not just the people who support him. I think John Edwards could be the person to do that job, and I was very happy to my small part to help that effort. Hopefully we will see a lot more of John in Memphis and all over the country in the next year and half or so.

Helping John Edwards in Memphis

Today I went out for a few hours and gave out flyers to promote the upcoming event that John Edwards in Memphis. It was the first of many chances where I get to help the campaign. I got a lot of different responses to Edwards and the event. Very little negative but I did get a little. One snooty Republican type told me “We do not need a Democrat in the White House”, and another lady was nice but firmly said “Sorry I am a Republican” I guess that means heck no. However several people were very excited about John and the event. One nice man said the John was just the kind of man he wants to vote for. The most interesting response came from two people giving away Red Bull. They were very excited about the event and the girl thought John was cute. I was not sure if they were excited about John Edwards or just riding on the buzz of one too many Red Bulls, but either way they were very nice and told us they would tell others about the event. Overall it was a very positive experience and I hope I was able to help in a small way to make sure that John has a good event here in Memphis.

To Impeach or Not To Impeach

Impeachment seems to be on a lot of people’s minds these days. Cable news, blogs, columns, and just about anybody with an interest in politics has an opinion on the subject. There are some who think that Bush and Cheney have committed multiple crimes against the American people and the Constitution and should be brought up on charges. Some who think the any kinds of charges are unfounded and that any attempt at impeachment is just a cheap political ploy. Then you get the split the difference people who say while there is a possible case for impeachment that is politically risky for the Democrats to try. I guess I fall in the middle myself. You can read the Washing Post articles on Cheney or see John Dean on Countdown and not see that Bush administration is operating by its own rules. Under the guise of the War on Terror that anything is justifiable under the excuse of keeping the country safe. While this has been harmful to our country and made a shamble of reputation there is not much we can do about it right now. One of two things would have to happen to make impeachment viable either there would need to be some major defections from the Congressional Republicans so that the mathematics would overwhelm the White House or something that would have to come out that proved beyond a shadow of doubt that Bush and company knowingly lied or did something illegal. Much is of the administration’s defense is built around executive privilege that he has the right to do these things because he is president. That has been challenged somewhat, but not completely. From this defensive position Bush, Cheney, and company have fought, scrapped, and dodged any attempt by the Congress to find what’s going in the White House and Vice President’s office on a myriad of topics like torture, spying, The War on Terror, Iraq, and the attorney firings just to name a few. From this position they can draw this process until the end of the term especially if the Republicans in Congress back them up. While I think the things these people have done is beyond horrible and in a just world they would be brought up on charges I don’t think that can realistically happen. Instead of a possible impeachment they Democrats should focus on winning the White House and expanding their majorities in the Congress in 08. Also try to figure how to gather more Republicans into the fold on getting us out of Iraq. I think would be easier to convince Republican Congressmen nervous about re-election that they need to rethink their views on Iraq. Besides a large portion of the Republican are very depressed about Iraq, immigration, and their choices for 08. There is nothing that will fire that base up faster than fight. Even if they are not happy about Bush’s performance, they will defend if they think he is being attacked by the Democrats. I still think it’s a possibility that the Democrats could go after impeachment, but I do not think it should be their main focus. Get us out of Iraq and get a Democrat in the White House 2009 because no matter what January 20, 2009 George Bush will be heading back to Crawford.

McCain in Freefall

I am not sure who the Republican nominee for 08 is going to be, but it is becoming clear that it will not be John McCain. For a long time I thought McCain was going to win almost by default, because the conservatives would not buy Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani. However after a couple of really bad months for him the McCain 08 campaign appears to be in complete freefall mode. His campaign manager and chief political strategist have both just resigned. This is on top of having to fire staff and taking stands on Iraq and immigration that managed to anger both moderates and conservatives. The problems may have started by speaking at Liberty University because the conservatives saw it as a ploy to woo them and it angered the moderates who liked the McCain that spoke against the religious right. The McCain Straight Talk Express is short on ideas, cash, and apparently time. He has faltered badly and now the question can he regain his traction. I think it is possible for McCain to recover, but it does appear to be an easy path for him. He has tied his reputation to Bush’s Iraq War and the news from there does not appear to be changing any time soon. The latest news is that the new Iraqi government has met none of the benchmarks set up before the surge and the news that will come out in September will not be good. He tied his name to an immigration bill that is DOA and only managed to make the conservatives he was courting furious. The McCain bills for immigration and campaign finance might be seen as trying to be bipartisan in some circles, but to the mostly conservative primary voters is only seen as a sell out and reasons not to trust him. As far as the other people running Fred Thompson seems to be the conservative darling du jour and to make matters worse Romney and Giuliani are hanging in there. McCain is not out yet but he needs some good news really, really soon.

Fighting the Talking Points

I cruise by the right wing blog Townhall from time to time to see what is on the right's mind. It usually some form of whining about mean or clueless liberals or how the right is not tough enough. Today Lorie Byrd wrote a column about the Rosie vs Hasllebeck silliness on The View a couple of days ago. Anyway I could care less about Rosie or Elisabeth said but Lorie Byrd made her points with all the these Republican talking points. Here is a sample of the column.

"Myths are born when an untrue statement is repeated frequently enough, and loudly enough, that many come to believe the statement must be true because they have heard it said over and over again, usually with no refutation. For too long conservatives have allowed statements like Bush “stole the election” and “lied us into war” to be repeated with little if any opposition."

Perhaps because these statements are true and it is hard to deny the truth of them. Maybe if you keep repeating they are not true, you can make yourself believe that. You can even make yourself believe W is a great president or that Saddam really had WMDs or that there a was connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

Here is the rest of her column.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LorieByrd/2007/05/25/republicans_should_follow_elisabeth_hasselbecks_example

I am not a big letter writer but I wrote Ms. Byrd a letter just to see how or even if she would repsond. Here is the letter.

First of all I do not like Rosie O'Donnell or Elisabeth Hasslebeck. So I do not really care who said what to whom. I simply do not like the way framed the issues in your column. I disagree with you lumping 9-11 conspiracy theories in with Bush stole the election, Bush lied us into war, and Ron Paul invited 9-11 to happen.

Let's start with the debacle of 2000. Before the election you have Katherine Harris purging voters and then you see her handy work again in the hanging chad fiasco. Then there is the simple Al Gore won the popular vote. You had the faux the demonstrations that were really people that worked for Bush or the RNC who’s only purpose seemed to be to stir up trouble and muddy the waters in trying to decide who the next president would be. Last but last but not least you get the bogus decision by the Supreme Court in Gore v Bush. Maybe he not did steal the election but just received the benefit of the forces that are working for him, kind of like what Ken Blackwell did for him in 2004. Besides stealing the election would require planning and if there is one thing these guys have shown is that they are very bad at planning things.

Next is the idea that Bush lied us into war. This seems to hinge around the world lie, as in knowingly mislead people. This of course is difficult to prove because nobody will ever know for sure. However it does seem pretty clear that the administration was very selective in the information that they used as proof that Iraq had weapons. Plus they relied on men like Chilabi and his bogus information even though most people said he was a liar and a con artist. Once again this goes back to planning. The Bush Administration took their shaky intelligence and went a step further by creating one of the worst war plans in history. So if you want to get into a semantic discussion about the word lie that's fine, but it is clear the Bush was not completely truthful in presenting his case for war. He also had the benefit of the media and a compliant congress (yes both Republicans and Democrats), who were dozing off and for the most part failed to ask the right questions.

Then there is calling Ron Paul a 9-11 conspiracy guy. This is simply not true. I can see in the oversimplified conservative thinking where everything is black and white and there is no room for shades of gray. However in reality based world things are not always so clear. What Ron Paul was saying is that Western interference in the Middle East over the past 50 years has been a factor in men like Bin Laden wanting to attack us. The US bombing Iraq for the 10 years after the first Gulf War, having troops in Saudi Arabia, and abandoning them in Afghanistan after the Russians left. Now one may ask where Ron Paul got such a kooky, perhaps it because it is because what bin Laden said. This does not justify or make what happened on 9-11 right, but it does explain why it happened. That was not a just a random act of violence or because of the right wing talking point of they hate us for our freedom which may be partially true but is not the complete answer. What Ron Paul said in that debate is not some crazed conspiracy theory, but simply acknowledged that our actions in the Middle East have consequences and if we ignore this in our foreign policy we are doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again. So no Ron Paul is not a nut, he just dared not buy into the oversimplified Republican talking points.

As far as the Bush caused 9-11 or let it happen or the whole host of conspiracies. I do not buy into the idea that Bush was directly involved. Once again the whole it goes back to the planning thing. However the war president did screw up by not paying attention to terrorism until it was too late. Plus there are several questions that have never been answered about that day. Like why were the planes not scrambled when they noticed something was wrong. Plus what the heck was Bush doing just sitting there reading My Pet Goat when he knew the country had been attacked. Even there are questions about what happened on 9-11 most of the conspiracies are either too far fetched or just out and out wrong. The real crime of 9-11 was that Bush has used it to hammer anybody that disagrees with him and of course he used it as an excuse to invade Iraq.

Anyway I will see what happens.

Al Gore in 08

The more time passes and the more times Al Gore says he is not running, the more I believe he is not running. I think there are several reasons to think that he is not running. Number one on that list is that he simply does not want to run. Also the Democrats are much happier with their choices for president. The main reason Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich are seriously thinking about running is that the Republicans are not pleased with their choices. Thompson is running double digit in the polls by only giving a few interviews and some speeches. Al Gore on the other hand seems to be facing an uphill battle against Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. I think several months ago that Gore was being coy about answering the questions about are you running in 08. He was saying no but giving himself an out by saying things like as of now I am not running. Now he is more definitive about saying he is not running for president. Aside from the fact there is a strong field of Democrats Al Gore likes just attacking the climate change issue. Also after running several times maybe Gore does not want to go through all the headaches and hassles that comes with running. He knows firsthand about the endless fundraising, handshaking, and giving the same speech over and over again that is required to run. That has to be very draining and you really have to have to be strong willed to go through that. All of these factors seem to point to the idea that Gore is not running.

This brings me to the question why do some of us want Gore to run anyway. The answer to that question seems pretty simple, and that is it only seems just and fair that Gore gets another chance. Candidate Gore is was not overly impressive but then again neither was George Bush. Then the whole Florida debacle happened and Bush was able to weasel his way into the White House with the help of James Baker, Katherine Harris, and the Supreme Court. Six years of George W. Bush as president has been an utter disaster, and it has only increased the idea that his “winning” in 2000 was a grievous error and simply wrong in so many ways. About the only good thing that has come out this administration is that his train wreck of a presidency has the set Republican Party back at least ten years and has destroyed the coalition that was created under the Reagan Revolution. Other than that I don’t there is anything you can point to out of this gang has done as being a major accomplishment. So given the disaster Bush has been maybe it is that sense fairness that some of think that Al Gore deserves another chance. However, that was then and this is now, and I can’t blame Gore if he does not want to go through that again. It just makes you wonder what President Gore would have been like.

Jerry Falwell

I have been thinking about the best way to express myself about the way I feel about the death of Jerry Falwell. It seems to me the right is too quick gloss over the bad parts of the man and all the left wants to do is focus on them. While I am probably more apt to lean to the negative when somebody like Christopher Hitchens comes out with a double barreled shotgun blast of what awful person Falwell is it makes me feel a little sorry for the man. However I think the good reverend is one of the main reasons the country is where it is now. Very divided and polarized and while some of that is the Iraq but I lot of it is the Religious Right making everything us versus them. Everything becomes how Christians are such martyrs to their faith and how they being chased out of the public square by the evils of secular culture. Gays, abortion, The ACLU, and any other symbol of secular life because the target of the Religious Right. Falwell was at the front of this movement in the 80s when he helped Ronald Reagan become president. Falwell and his ilk have turned religion into abortion and homosexuals even some people within the evangelical movement have come out and said being a Christian even being a conservative Christian is more than a couple of hot button issues. Even though Jerry is gone there are still people like Dobson and Robertson to keep hitting those hot buttons, and his Liberty University will continue to churn out college graduates who major in narrow minded thinking. Maybe Bill Maher said it best on Real Time Friday night, "Death isn't always sad."

Ron Paul on the Sunday Shows

Of the Sundays shows I watched this week I noticed Ron Paul came up in a sense because CNN had an interview with him and Fox News Sunday talked about the debate but the exchange with Rudy Giuliani was not even brought up.

On Fox News Sunday they talked about the debate they hosted on the All Star Panel segment. Most of the talk was about the exchange between Mitt Romney and John McCain. Ron Paul did not even come up. I think Ron Paul puts Fox News in awkward position, especially for Bill Kristol and Brett Hume. Kristol likes to paint the Democrats as weak on national defense and Ron Paul taking a less hawkish view means that not Republicans are in lockstep with the Bush foreign policy. It was little odd seeing the talking heads trying to justify that Paul was winning the poll after the debate, or in the post debate interviews Sean Hannity was very nice to most of the candidates except for Ron Paul who he tried to bully but Ron held his ground and did not give in to the bully boy routine. So when it came to Sunday the Paul/Giuliani exchange it just did not come up. I guess Juan Williams could have brought it up but he did not. I think like the poll it Ron Paul and anti-Iraq war Republican does not fit the Fox News narrative.

Ron Paul was interviewed on CNN and if nothing else Congressman Paul is feisty. He is not afraid to defend his foreign policy positions. Although it seems like his ideas on Republican foreign policy is a bit dated. He talked about Republicans getting us out of Korea and Vietnam. However the non-intervention Republican foreign policy seems about as current as poodle skirts. Maybe that is the overall point about the current Republican Party. When Reagan made the coalition with the Religious Right that means that Republican Party would no longer not be involved in people's personal lives. The current Bush administration has only made those connections stronger. Just looking at the discussion over Giuliani's pro-choice stance shows the power of the Religious Right. Speaking of W because of him and his administration the other shoe has fallen. The Republican Party under W is behind a far more aggressive foreign policy where the policy of not interfering with other countries is a thing of the past. Also the idea of not spending a lot of money is gone too. So Ron Paul may reflect the Libertarian views of the Republican Party it just does not seem to be the same party any more. I think Ron Paul would like to see more of that in his party but it just does not seem to be the case at least in the near future.

Pat Buchanan on Ron Paul

You could fill volumes of things I disagree with Pat Buchanan about, but when it comes to foreign policy I tend to agree with him. In general Pat thinks it is not our job to police the world. Not only will that policy not work but will be very expensive. The fiasco seems to support this theory, because we are stuck in somebody else's civil war that is costing a fortune.

But Who Was Right Rudy or Ron

Today Pat wrote about the dust up between Rudy Guiliani and Ron Paul over the cause of 9-11. The general talking point especially from the right is that Ron Paul says that we brought 9-11 on ourselves. That we did nothing wrong and the evil terrorists attacked because they hate freedom and want to destroy our way of life. I got to give Pat credit he slices through this talking point like a hot knife through butter.

"When Ron Paul said the 9-11 killers were "over here because we are over there," he was not excusing the mass murderers of 3,000 Americans. He was explaining the roots of hatred out of which the suicide-killers came.
Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahideen whom we, in the Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army from Afghanistan. We sent them Stinger missiles, Spanish mortars, sniper rifles. And they helped drive the Russians out.
What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?
Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahideen were declaring war on us."

In other words Ron Paul said that our foreign policy was a factor 9-11 because Osama bin Laden said it was. This does not seem all the complicated. We don't like to think that America can screw things up, but even when out intentions are good it is possible that our country can get things wrong. This makes a lot more sense than the oversimplified talking point of they hate us for our freedom.

Tony Blair

Like just everybody else that has been involved in some way with support of the Iraq War, Tony Blair is latest victim of being tied to closely with W's inept war. Blair and W had a press conference today as part Blair's last visit to Washington as Prime Minister. There is a clip where Bush is saying how Blair is very well respected and a stand up guy. I could not help thinking too bad he had to be dragged down by you and your horrible foreign policy. Oddly enough I had just watched The Queen this past weekend, and you see a younger and more energetic Blair with visions of newer and better England. Now we see a Tony Blair leaving office and who is strongly disliked in his own country for being too close to Bush. It always seemed like Blair gave Bush intellectual cover when came to the War in Iraq. While both men tended appeal on a kind of emotional level, Blair could articulate his feelings with a kind of eloquence the Bush finds almost impossible to duplicate. We usually see the smiling smug frat boy Bush or the pissed off indignant Bush. Like most world leaders of the modern television age Blair has the power of articulation and does not sound like a second grader reading a book report when he gives a speech. Now like so many leaders in other countries and Republicans here in the states, the Iraq War claims another victim. Now we will see how the next Prime Minister will handle W and the Iraq fiasco.

Ron Paul

All of the chatter that has been created over the Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani exchange at the Republican debate further shows how out of touch the party is, especially on the topics of terrorism and Iraq. Basically Ron Paul was saying that one of the main reasons 9-11 happened is that our bad foreign policy decisions in the Middle East over the past 50 years has consequences and has made people angry. This sent Mr. 9-11 in to some kind of fit about how dare Ron Paul say that America could be the cause or reason for being attacked and told him he should take that back. Ron Paul not only did not take back but pointed to the fact is all you have to do is look at the quotes of Osama Bin Laden and they said that they did like what we did to Iraq for 10 years, having troops in Saudi Arabia, and numerous other other blunders the west has made over there. The media for the most part sided with Rudy on this saying that this was his shining moment and saying Ron Paul said that 9-11 was America's fault and that we brought this on ourselves. It is like all they heard was blah blah 9-11 our fault blah blah blah. All this nonsense plays into Republican talking point of they hate us for our freedom, and that because America always means well and our intentions are good and because of that we can do no wrong. To attack America or American ideals is to attack freedom and liberty itself. It's just amazing Ron Paul is far from liberal, but because he dared question our foreign policy he is some left wing tin foil hat wearing moonbat. The Republicans need to ease up on that testosterone and red meat diet, maybe try decaf.

Republicans and the Ticking Clock

One of the more unique exchanges that came out of Tuesday's Republican debate was when Brett Hume put forward the hypothetical situation of the country had been attacked and we have the attackers in custody and they know about when another attack will happen. So we take a script out of the show 24 and plop in front of the Republicans and ask them is it ok to justify torture under such circumstances. This of course this very reason 24 exists in the first place, is to get across the idea this is a dangerous world and we have Jack Bauer to do the dirty work to protect us. John McCain, who actually was tortured in Vietnam, said that ticking bomb scenario was unlikely and they he would not torture people under any circumstances and the military people agree with him on this. All the others used code words like "enhanced interrogation" to basically say they support torture more or less. Tom Tancredo went a step further in the macho tough talk saying in that situation he wants Jack Bauer out there and torture is fine by him. This is just further proof of bizzaro world of the current Republican party. America is the do no wrong shining beacon on the hill, but if we have to invade a few countries or torture a few bad guys to preserve that way of life that's ok too. Of course this overlooks the minor details of the ticking time bomb hardly ever actually happens, how do we know the information we get through torture is correct, and what happens if we accidentally get a innocent person that does not know anything. I guess I am just one of those crazy liberals who does not see the big picture of keeping the country safe from the bad guys.

W and the photo op

I have to give credit where credit is due. W and his gang of misfits may not be able to do much right but gosh darn it they can do some photo op. From the standing on the pile rubble after 9-11 to the now infamous mission accomplished fiasco, W seems to always have that right look for a photo op. There are multiple times he appears with troops as props trying to look presidential. Once again like with Katrina today we saw the hard working W without a coat and tie with sleeves rolled like he was going to personally pitch in and try and to help. Today he is touring the disaster in Kansas. It is like he is saying I can't be bothered with all formalities even though I am president I can still be a regular guy. If we just needed a figure head for photo ops W may be the greatest president ever, it's just those other minor details of actually doing the job that seem to trip him up.

Hard Out There For A Republican

After the two monster debates in the past couple weeks where 8 Democrats and 10 Republicans squared off to decide who will replace George W Bush. The current president's presence was felt at both debates. The Democrats attacked Bush more than the attacked each other. The Republicans talked about Reagan more but Bush's Iraq war and the war on terror in general were big topics of conversation. In some ways the debates were similar. The top three candidates in both parties did well and did not do anything to hurt themselves. The lower tier candidates did well but nobody did a good enough job to jump into the upper tier. The were some pretty big differences too. Most notably to me the Democrats for the most part were against Iraq and most of the talk was on how to get out. Also all the candidates were on the pro-choice side. The Republicans on the other hand were generally supportive of Iraq most complained about the handling of the war instead of whether or not we should be there with the lone exception being the Libertarian Ron Paul. Predictably all the Republicans were staunchly pro-life. The exception was Giuliani was trying to say I hate abortion but I'm still basically pro-choice.

The Democrats all did well overall. Even Mike Gravel sounded a little kooky but made some good points. Hillary did better than I thought she would. She sounded well prepared and comfortable answering the questions. She did blow me away but she looked and sounded good and she did nothing to hurt her chances. The same could be said for Obama I think he did a good and just has a look and sound that touches something with people. The thing he needs to work on in the substance of his answers he tended to answer in more generalities. John Edwards I think stayed in the rest with his answers but there was nothing that was good or bad. Of the lower tier I liked Joe Biden I think he got it right on dividing Iraq up. I don't think this helped but he did a good job in the debate. He got the laugh of the night by just answering yes to question could he control long answers and not make verbal mistakes. The oddest moment was a exchange between Obama and Mike Gravel about using nuclear weapons.

From the diverse field in the Democratic Party we switch to the group of 10 old white guys who make up the Republican field. Grouped together in the Reagan library each try lay claim to the title of the new Saint Ronny. It is very odd of how this group of pro-life people were talking how precious life but later talked about how important the use of the military was. In other words life is sacred unless you piss us off and then you are toast. Rudy did his usual I changed New York and I was there for 9-11. He had a major stumble on the choice issue. Overall he did good. I just don't think the Republicans will buy the whole Rudy package. Speaking of package how about that Mitt Romney right out of central casting as the good looking guy to play the president. He was sincere and honest and straightforward. Just like a few years ago he was just as sincere about woman's right to choose. At one point he got the question what do you dislike about America, and instead of addressing something that could be fixed with America he gave this flag waving Mom and apple pie answer. Oh Golly gosh I can't think of anything I don't like about America. You big phony why don't think for a minute about that. So the question would be which Mitt is the real Mitt. Speaking of real was the straight talk John McCain of 2000 or the waffling trying to please McCain of the last year or so. I think we maybe saw some of both. I think he generally the best of the Republican big three, but neither Rudy or Romney did anything to hurt themselves. Of the others I thought Mike Huckabee but like Biden for the Democrats I am not sure how much he helped himself. Besides he raised his hand with uber pro-lifer Sam Brownback and angry anti-immigration nut Tom Tancredo that they do not believe in evolution. Bill Maher had a great line about that Friday. You may not believe in evolution but your campaigns will die off as stronger ones survive. Although not as kooky sounding Mike Gravel, Ron Paul the Libertarian provided the counter voice to the status quo especially when it comes to Iraq and the military in general. Paul wants a very restrictive role for government. That line of think used to have more traction with the party. It is just when W came in and messed a lot of Libertarian ideas. The oddest moment may have been when Chris Matthews lobbed up a softball about Bill Clinton being back in the White House basically letting them tee off if a few easy shot on the Clintons. So After 90 minutes of chest thumping and bible thumping of the Republicans on who is best to be the Daddy next no one came out as the clear winner. Other than maybe Fred Thompson who may jump during the Summer some time.

How I got here

Well here we are at my first posting on this blog. I want to make my feeble little observations about life, politics, and stuff in general.

I guess the question is how did I get to where I am about my feelings and thoughts about politics and the nature of politics. I guess my earliest memory of politics was probably the Watergate scandal. As I recall I did not know what going on or what it was about but that it was on tv all time. The next thing I guess would be Saturday Night Life which my first exposure to politically based satire humor. I remember Dan Aykroyd doing Jimmy Carter and then later on people doing Reagan.

Which brings me to Ronald Reagan the president of the 80s. Really the whole 80s considering H W Bush took the good feelings and wave of the Reagan years into the White House in 88. Anyway in 1984 I voted for the first time and it was the first and perhaps the only time I voted for Republican for president. I guess looking back he seemed like a good president and Walter Mondale did not really seem all that exciting. Up until this time I had never really know people who were political or talked politics. That changed around 1985 I was working with a group of people who were not only political but very liberal. So not that I was this uber conservative before that I wasn't really anything. There was some good things about Reagan but it seems like looking back it was the power of his personality more than anything he actually did in the White House. As Bill Maher says it was morning in America but I'm not really a morning person. I think he tried to improve the country but in the long run who did he improve the country for.

We are up to 1988 the second time I voted for president. I still was not all that political but knew more than I did in 1984. Not it was George H W Bush the vice president taking another shot at the big chair. I felt the 8 years was enough of the Reagan era. However the country did not agree and the fact the Democrats picked Michael Dukakis that year did not help. Man what were the Democrats thinking electing that guy. He may be worst nominee for either party in my lifetime. Anyway I think the rest of the country caught up with me in 1992. After 12 years of Reagan/Bush and without personality of Reagan to drive things a lot of people were ready for a change. That change came in the form of Bill Clinton.

I would say the 8 years of Clinton were mostly good, maybe after 6 years of W the Clinton years look better and better. Clinton had the same kind of dynamic personality that Reagan did.He may be full of it but least he can complete a sentence and not sound like an idiot. I voted for the man twice and would still be willing to vote for him again.He ran against two pretty bland Republicans in Bush and Bob Dole. There was some unique things about Clinton when he ran he was the first 60s era guy to run and was trying to be hip. There incidents you had not seen out a guy running for president like playing sax on Arsenio Hall, the I did not inhale silliness, and the infamous boxers or briefs question. I thought the whole impeachment thing was total crap and was more the Republicans trying to stage a bloodless coup more than any actual wrong doing by the president. I would like to see what would have happened to W of the Republicans in congress had been as concerned about W invading Iraq as Bill Clinton getting a blow job.

After 8 years of Clinton it was Al Gore's chance to run for president and was running against the son of H W Bush, George W Bush. I recall that seeming to be a pretty awful choice at the time. Al Gore just seemed like a big stiff. All you have to do is look at Al kissing Tipper on tv which may go down as the unsexiest kiss in history. I really did have anything against W at the time but he nothing he did or said really impressed me. So I voted for Gore by default. Then all the fun started and at the end of the day after all the counting ballots, hanging chads, Katherine Harris, protests, old people voting for the wrong people, and whole lot of bs we ended up with a second president Bush. I was pissed Bush won but after that I was like well its not like the president can really effect my life and for the most seemed to be true and most 0f 2001 was uneventful W was plugging along as president and the 9-11 happened after that things got weird. I think W had the good will of the country and world behind him. He could have really brought the country together and really work for change and national unity. The good will was short lived. Karl Rove the president's political guru saw this chance to dominate and divide more than a chance to unite. So we get the odious patriot act, tax cuts for the rich, torturing people, and of course Operation Iraqi Liberation. W said you either with us or with the terrorists. Little did we know it would come to mean people who dared question his idiotic policies.

Which brings us to the ill fated election of 2004 with another bad candidate from Massachusetts (Just seems to be something people from Mass not named John Kennedy running for president). The thinking at the time was anybody but Bush as turned out it was anybody but Bush well maybe not John Kerry. By the time 2004 came around I was more political than I ever been. I regularly watched the news and was reading various sites on the internet. I have to be honest I was not all that excited about John Kerry, however I would have never voted for W and I really wanted a Democrat to pick the Supreme Court Justices. Also by this point you think Kerry would be working on a way to get the hell of Iraq by now and not send more guys over to be killed. I had thought about trying to help the Kerry Campaign but in the end did not. I guess he did not impress me enough. November 5, 2004 was a very sad day for me. I did watch the returns because I had driven to Nashville to watch the band Ministry and by the time I got out of the show it was down to Ohio. I don't think it was bad as Florida but I still think something fishy went on Ohio. In both cases Katherine Harris in Florida and Ken Blackwell in Ohio were both running the Bush for president for the state and the election. Its not like W was all that popular at the point but things had not been bad enough for some people to vote for Kerry. Iraq was chugging along but many thought it had a good chance still, Katrina had not happened, enough independents approved him, and Karl Rove got people to fear the idea of a President Kerry enough to vote for Bush. One wonders if some of things like Iraq going south and Katrina happened in 2004 and not 2005 would have happened. Seems like Katrina was the tipping point so much that he was at fault for hurricane but the reaction to it pointed up flaws in his administration. Having idiots like Michael Brown at FEMA, doing photo ops while New Orleans is under water, and his seeming detachment with reality. What people were saying what we see on tv is not matching up with what W is saying. Hey if he is wrong about this maybe he is wrong about Iraq. From that point it has all been downhill and leading to the Democrats taking over both houses of congress in 2006.

For some of us 2006 was a breath fresh air. Hey guys thanks for coming to the party you guys are little late but what the hell. I think the next couple of years are going to be long ones for Bush. The Democrats are trying to get us of Iraq. Henry Waxman, John Conyers, and other leaders in the congress are looking into the whos, whys, and hows of the 6 year Bush dictatorship. We are also as a country never has there been more interest this early as to who is going to be the next president as now. In the recent debates there 8 Democrats and 10 Republicans saying they want to president. With Newt Gingrich, Fred Thompson, Chuck Hagel, and maybe Al Gore thinking about running with Fred Thompson probably the most likely of that group to jump in. In both parties you have three clear front runners with Obama, Clinton, and Edwards for the Democrats and McCain, Romney, and Giuliani for the Republicans. I think for the most part are happy with their choices and Republicans are not sure. Thus you have someone like Fred Thompson who seems to be more famous for being on Law and Order than anything he actually did in politics. Personally I have been in contact with the John Edwards campaign about doing some work for them. Which the first campaign I have ever worked on. I have also met some of the local members of Moveon.org about working with them. Lastly I went to a meeting of the local Libertarian Party. That was interesting but I am not sure what third parties can do but it is good to get another opinion and I do agree with much of what they say. I guess my problem with the Libertarians is there ideas of a much smaller government and no taxes sound great in theory but I am not sure if it is actually possible in the real world.

So here I am in 2007 wondering about 2008 and beyond. Wondering if I can change things. Wondering to small degree if it even matters. I would like to think it matters and want to work to change things.