Wisconsin was properly prepared!

September 28, 2010 at 9:05 pm (Politics) (, , , )

I work in Madison, WI. Today, on my way home from work, I noticed six dump trucks, empty, parked along the side of the major artery that leads out of the city. As this was causing a little bit of extra congestion, I was wondering what the heck was going on.

Okay, I wasn’t using language that polite, but allow for a *little* poetic license, please? This is a family-friendly post, after all.

Then I remembered the six (six!) police cars parked off the road at the end of the block near my workplace, which is the major route leading from that traffic artery to the capitol.

And the three parked at the entrance/exit ramps to that route. And the indicators of even more parked closer and closer to the capitol.

And then I remembered the folks are work talking about the President coming to give a speech at that capitol building. And it all became perfectly clear!

They figured they’d need the six dump trucks to haul off the bullshit when he was done! It all makes sense!

I keed, I keed… sort of.

Before anybody accuses me of being a Republican stooge, allow me to say that I plan on voting for at least one Democrat in the coming election, assuming he doesn’t say something that royally screws up my respect for him before then. And that’d take a lot, since we’re talking about the respect earned by being the only person who stood up to the PATRIOT Act, something I’ve covered before.

I’ll also probably end up voting for a Republican or two, though I tend to vote Libertarian when I have the chance….

No, not librarian, Libertarian. You know, the people who profess to believe that the Founding Fathers did a pretty good job when they wrote that 10th Amendment thing, and that the government should stay the Hell out of peoples’ lives unless they give the government a reason to get involved, like actively hurting somebody else.

At least that’s my interpretation of the ideology.

Now, back to the topic… Obama’s visit to Wisconsin!

He had a few interesting things to say, didn’t he?

Yeah… I guess he did!

That’s right.

The liberals? They’re not demotivated because they voted for Hope and Change, only to find out that apparently change meant “more state secrets privileges, more wiretaps, the CIA can assassinate US citizens, and expanded Special Rendition privileges,” and that hope meant “hope you don’t notice all of that.”

They’re not demotivated because they gave the Democrats a majority that could pass whatever they wanted with the mere requirement of having to listen to the Republicans bitch until their lungs got sore (and hey, most of them are old – how long could it take?!?) only to see them not stand up for a single significant issue.

They’re not demotivated because they somehow thought that electing a superstar Chicago politician would mean an end to business as usual politics – only to find that Chicago politicians practically taught Washington what business as usual was.

They’re not demotivated because they’ve seen the administration waste its time trying to affect massive changes, only to settle for relatively tiny ones after wasting large amounts of political capital, while ignoring the smaller changes that could lead up to the bigger ones later on.

They’re not demotivated because they’ve seen the world swooning over a man who hasn’t done a danged thing, giving away one of the most prestigious awards out there to that same man for the mere accomplishment of saying he wants to do great things.

They’re not demotivated by being told that the economy’s going to get better – but only if we stop digging our national fiscal grave with a shovel, and start digging it with expensive mining equipment.

They’re demotivated because they wanted too much.

And the Independent voters who made that massive “mandate” possible? They don’t really count, now do they?

Guess what, Dem’s – and Obama in particular – they do count. And they, along with the liberals you count on to make sure you get to keep filling the pork barrels, aren’t deserting you because they expected miracles, and they’re not getting them.

They’re deserting you because they expected things would be different – and they’re seeing that just because you turn the board around, you haven’t changed the game.

Take heart though. There’s at least some chance (one I’m praying for) that this won’t actually benefit the Republicans too much either – because I’m hoping that enough people out there will realize that putting the Repub’s back in power would only be turning the board back around yet again.

Of course, I also realize that that’s the absolute last thing you want to see happen. You’d rather see the House and Senate both go under Republican control than see the rise of the third parties.

Because as long as the same people are always the only ones playing the game, you know that nobody’s going to try and change the goal – lining your pockets and running the nation the way you see fit, Constitutional limits be damned.

As soon as a third, or even a fourth or fifth player starts to be involved, then you start having to worry that maybe somebody’s going to start calling shenanigans when you try to run roughshod over the nation. And they might start getting more popular than you are when the next elections come around.

And then you might have to actually come to terms with the one choice that makes you lay in bed awake at night.

Govern in the nation’s best interests, under the limitations presented in the Constitution, and let people run their own lives?

Or actually have to get a real job?


Permalink Leave a Comment


April 7, 2010 at 1:05 pm (Politics) (, , )

I thought I’d make a clarifying statement, since there seems to have been a little confusion:

I don’t really think that Obama was born in Kenya. I think that the First Lady mis-spoke (intentionally or through poor word choice) when using the phrase “home country.” However, I do believe that there are reasons, beyond racism, to question whether or not he meets the “natural born citizen” qualification for POTUS. For the record: I believe the same about John McCain. My belief is that, barring clarification by the courts of the definition of “natural born citizen,” both main parties ran, likely without realizing it, unqualified primary candidates.

Y’see, all legal usage of the term “natural born citizen,” in this country and in English Common Law (where the term was taken from), suggest that a Natural Born Citizen is somebody who, by virtue of birth, owes no loyalty or fealty to any other nation. In other words: You hold no other citizenship at the moment you are born.

At birth, citizenship is acquired in one of two ways (and, bear in mind, my legalese is horrible, so I may be misspelling these). jus soli or jus sanguinis. IE – through location, or through blood. Put simply, when you are born, you are considered a citizen of the nation in which you are born, and the nation to which your father is a citizen.

So, if you were born in Panama to a US military man, you are considered a born citizen of both Panama and of the US.

If you were born in the US to a Kenyan father, you are considered a born citizen of both the US, and of Kenya.

Now, this can be complicated when no treaties exist to govern dual citizenship. In those cases, there can be contradictory laws. For example: the 14th Amendment states that all people born on US soil are US citizens. Simple, right? Well… the Kenyan constitution states that all children born to Kenyan citizens are Kenyan citizens. Who wins?

Similarly, US military bases are not actually considered US soil for the purposes of the 14th Amendment, according to the State Department. So being born on a US military base does not automatically make one a US citizen (though jus sanguinis, presumably, still applies). The bigger problem for all these arguments, however, is that very few, if any, of these laws state that one is a natural born citizen – merely a citizen. So the question exists: What’s the difference?

The courts have never decided. Indeed, nowhere in the Constitution is any branch of the Federal Government told what constitutes being a natural born citizen, to this date – nor is it given the power to determine what does. Therefore, by the 10th Amendment, it falls on the states to define what a natural born citizen is for that state… which, to the best of my knowledge, no state has ever done.

Therefore, the question still exists, what constitutes being a natural born citizen? Without governing legal precedent in this nation, there are a handful of arguments:

1: All individuals who are born with US citizenship.
2: All individuals who are born only with US citizenship, and have no ‘natural’ loyalty to another nation, via jus soli or jus sanguinis.

If we assume 1, then we assume that it is possible to be born in a foreign nation (say, oh, China), be raised there, come to the US on your 35th birthday (already a citizen via jus sanguinis), and become President the day you arrive. Highly unlikely, but legal according to the Constitution.

However, it is not possible for any naturalized citizen – even one who sought political asylum here because of the oppressive regime of your native land – to become President, because it is assumed that you cannot escape having a natural loyalty to the nation of your birth, even if you hate it deeply.

If we assume the second, then it is only possible for people born with no other citizenship status – ie, only those with no “natural” loyalty to any other nation – to become POTUS. This would still have allowed, say, Lee Harvey Oswald to become president, but there you have it. This interpretation is also the one that seems to have been used historically, in the precedent of the legal system from which we established the term. Therefore, without further precedent to draw on, this is the interpretation that must be presumed to prevail.

What’s the point of all this? There are legitimate questions regarding the eligibility of both major candidates that ran in 2008. These questions have been consistently avoided by the courts. There are “birthers” who agree with my general thesis – that neither candidate was qualified, under the Constitution, for the job.

How can these questions be remedied? Fairly easily.

A: The Courts can rule on what a “natural born citizen” is.
B: The States can pass their own interpretations of what a “natural born citizen” is.
C: The Constitution can be amended to define what a “natural born citizen” is. Yeah, that’s a harder one, but it’s a simpler amendment to pass than most – you’re not creating new rights, you’re not taking rights away, you’re simply saying that “these words mean this.” Similar to an amendment requiring that the VP, since he could end up serving as POTUS, must be qualified to serve as the POTUS as well. Which we’ve already got.

I would prefer the solutions in the reverse order of what I’ve listed them, honestly, but I’ve listed them in the order I suspect is most likely to happen.

Alternately, you could ’simply’ amend the Constitution to remove the word ‘natural born’ from the Presidential requirements, as many people would like to.

But the fact is: None of these have happened. Therefore, there are legitimate questions that need to be answered. These questions are not motivated by racism – as you’ll see, I question the legitimate candidacy of both Obama and of McCain. I am not alone in this concern. I suspect that the vast majority of the “birthers” would be satisfied if any of those solutions were to happen – if somebody were to say, in law, “this is what it means to be a natural born citizen, and Obama does count,” and therefore establish what the heck the words mean. I certainly would be.

The interpretation of law is all about the interpretation of language. I give you another President, who famously quibbled over the definition of the word “is.”

Racial motivations are behind some of the people who would like to see Obama retroactively DQ’d for office, I’m sure. Political motivations are behind even more of them. However, to paint all the people who are simply insisting that some proof be given that he meets the current given understanding of what “natural born citizen” means legally as racists is to demonize them – to suggest that their motivation is simply because he’s black, and that no other evidence exists to suggest he might not actually be a natural born citizen.

Current legal understanding of the phrase, combined with US and Kenyan law, suggests that there is a need for clarification.

Things like the video I linked to prove that there are things that must be explained, even if they can be explained easily. For example: “I was trying to burnish my husband’s ’street cred’ as being ’suitably black,’ despite not sharing a history of ancestral slavery with the majority of the US black population. I misspoke.” There. Done. Explained away. Hell, how about this? “I was reading the speech I was given. The guy who wrote it was a moron. Kenya is not his homeland, never has been – he wasn’t born there, his father was. It’s his ancestral homeland, but not actually his.” There. Done.

Still leaves us with questions as to the legal definition of ‘natural born citizen,’ but that’s something that the First Lady can’t explain away herself.

However, it’s easier to create an “us versus them” mentality – more politically expedient. That’s why Joe Stack was obviously a right-wing conservative nutball who flew his plane into an IRS building. Despite being a card-carrying registered Democrat. That’s why the Hutaree are all, to a man, right-wing conservative militia whackjobs. Despite at least one of them being a registered Democrat. That’s why it was impossible that Nidal Malik Hasan could have been motivated by radical Islam, despite shouting “Allahu el Akbar” while he was shooting down soldiers. That’s why James von Brunn was only a white supremacist, not a white supremacist with a long history of radical socialist/communist writings. It’s why “tea party” protestors against the health care bill reportedly shouted racial and homophobic slurs at lawmakers… despite absolutely zero evidence of that happening, including the statements of other black lawmakers dealing with the protests. It’s why “Tea Party” supporters are ‘obviously’ in league with the militias, despite the fact that they simply aren’t. It’s why the militias are inherently bad and evil, despite the fact that they’re called for in the Constitution. It’s why blacks are universally anti-white, dangerous, unintelligent drunkards… despite the fact that the vast majority of them that *I* know are highly intelligent, reasonable, friendly people who’ve made more of an effort to get to know their employees – mostly white employees – than any of my previous employers have – including the white ones.

For the record – refuted statements up above do not reflect my politics, they reflect the politics of the people that I’ve been dealing with for the last few months. Especially that last one. Gyeah.

“Us versus them” is politically expedient. It’s easier to manipulate people who you’ve convinced are On The Right Side, when the other people are people that they’ve been convinced are On The Wrong Side. Last administration did it, current administration is doing it, every administration has been doing it for over a hundred and forty years.

It’s binary thought – We Are Right, They Are Wrong. Read back in my archives a ways if you want my opinion of this – I call it binary thought disorder for a reason. If there’s one thing that I wish I could do, it’s break down the freakin’ monoliths that people have created. Not all Republicans are God-fearing homophobes washing their white sheets on the weekends before the Klan meeting – the majority of them aren’t! Not all Democrats are atheistic heterophobes who want to destroy Capitalism – the majority of them aren’t!

The majority of the people in power, either party, are people who want power, for whatever reason. Generally, I’m afraid, for reasons they believe are good ones – they sincerely believe that they know better than the people who chose them. Now, you figure that one out. “I was selected by the people. Therefore, I know better than they do. The morons who elected me are actively wrong about how the country should be run. That’s why they chose me.” What sort of messianic arrogance does attitude require – whatever party you belong to?!?

Monoliths do not exist in politics. People are individuals – they have their own values that they place on things. Person A values the environment, therefore he wants to see a forest protected. Person B likes trees and animals well enough, but he places a higher value on money and the things it can buy him – therefore, he wants to see the forest clearcut so a factory can be built there. Person A isn’t “right” and Person B isn’t “:wrong.” Similarly, Person B isn’t “right” either. They simply have different goals, different desires. That’s where compromise comes into play – Person A could, for example, pay Person B for the land. Using that money, Person B can then go buy other land, build there, and possibly make a profit on the whole deal – everybody’s happy. Alternately, if Person A owns the land already, Person B could offer him enough money to overcome his desire to maintain the environment – enough to overcome the differential between their values. Or, if the differential is too high, Person B realizes that it won’t be profitable and moves to another piece of land.

Of course, these days, one side or the other would resort to lawsuits or eminent domain laws to pull it off, forcing their desires down the throat of the other without any serious efforts at compromise, probably with a group of other people on their side. It ends up taking years, pissing everybody off, and nobody walks away really happy… except for the trial lawyers involved, who’ve made a bundle off of it. Whoever ‘won’ would be gloating, but that’s not really being happy with it – that’s mugging for the camera and getting your 15 minutes of fame in the worst way you can, short of flying a plane into a building.

Yeah… you might notice I’m a little fixated on the Joe Stack incident. Blame the fact that I work in a tall building for the state tax agency, it’s got everybody a little edgy.

Anyways, I’ve rambled on long enough – off to go take another hit of Ny-quil and hope it’ll knock my sinuses back into alignment.

Permalink 4 Comments

Proud member of PETA

June 18, 2009 at 9:20 am (Politics) (, )

People Eating Tasty Animals, that is.

Ladies and gents, he swatted a bug. If this is the only reason they’ve got to get in the paper, maybe people should stop paying attention to them. Leave the drama hounds behind.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Meaningless Steps Forward

March 18, 2009 at 7:43 am (Politics) (, )

Well, the UN is prepping a declaration of gay rights.  And, while they didn’t do it under the Bush administration, the Obama administration is planning to sign on.

On the one hand, and let me make this clear, I want to applaud the administration for doing so.

But I’d like to know what exactly this means, beyond “yep.  Equal rights are a good thing, fer sure!”  It’s a UN Declaration.  It doesn’t have force of law.  It doesn’t mean that DADT has been pulled.  It doesn’t mean that Prop 8 is being dropped.  It doesn’t mean that your bank can’t consider you a single income home even if you’ve been in a dedicated same-sex partnership for 27 years.  All it means is… we don’t think you should criminalize homosexuals.

It doesn’t *make* them stop doing it.  It doesn’t apply sanctions for doing it.  It just says ‘we don’t like it, and we think you should stop.’

A little more substance in the gay rights support, please?  Like maybe taking a few steps to clean up *our* back yard along with it….

Permalink Leave a Comment

Spending Priorities

January 27, 2009 at 7:44 am (Politics) (, , , )

Well, the Democrats are debating *their* new spending package, and some of the stuff in it has started to come out.  For one thing, despite a promise of ‘no pork,’ there’s pork in it.

Everybody who’s surprised, raise your hand.  Those of you who’ve raised your hands, please verify that your brains are actually *inside* your head, and that they didn’t leak out of your ears last night.

However, there’s one bit that folks are up in arms about that I actually agree with Pelosi on (I know, I shuddered too.)

Using some of the funds on birth control.

We’re not talking about forcing people to use birth control or get abortions – China-style population control.  A lot of people seem to think we are, so let’s get that out of the way first.  Based on what I’ve heard about it, these hundreds of millions for ‘family planning’ are primarily for making contraceptives available for free/at reduced cost to low-income individuals.

Not only to the unemployed, but to the underemployed and college students.

Now, will this stimulate the economy?  Not immediately, no.  But funding birth control is one of the best returns on investment the government has ever tripped over.  It’s certainly a better return than abstinence only sex-ed!  Why?

Because doing this allows people who *don’t* want to have kids and can’t afford them – regardless of race or social status – to not have them.  This keeps families from having to take welfare from the states and federal government.

It also means that the kids who are born will, presumably, be born more often to families that can afford to raise them.  This gives *them* better odds in life of ending up in college and better jobs.  It keeps *them* from perpetuating the poverty cycle that leads to a continuous upward-spiral of welfare, crime, and related issues (I am *not* saying that everybody on welfare is a criminal – my family was once too.)

Perhaps more importantly… making contraception easier to get means that abortions happen less often.  I’m pro-choice, but that doesn’t mean I want to see abortions happen more often.  Which is a better expenditure, by the government or *anybody*?  A buck for a condom, or $600 for an abortion?

That right there pretty much makes contraception a good investment, if you ask me.

Ultimately, this sort of expenditure actually has an impact on future expenditures by the state.  Should it be bundled in with the stimulus package?  I don’t know.  But it *is* a good place to spend money.  Maybe if we can get comprehensive sex-ed on the menu next, we can make sure people actually know how to *use* that contraception once they can get it….

Permalink Leave a Comment

I spoke with Joe!

October 22, 2008 at 4:08 pm (Politics) (, , , , )

Or, at least, that’s what the DNC would like me to believe.  You see, this last Saturday, I got a robo-call from “Joe, a plumber in Wisconsin.”  His recorded voice went on to explain how he raised an issue with McCain while he was campaigning, which McCain ignored before using him to launch false attacks against Barack Obama.

Now, I’ll give ’em the benefit of the doubt and say that it *was* Joe, a plumber in Wisconsin, who recorded that call.  However, it wasn’t the “Joe the Plumber” who McCain referenced – including by name – who is in Ohio, not Wisconsin.

Not the Joe everybody on the Obama side of the ticket was thrilled to discover had some financial problems, because it’s so much more PC to smear an individual than it is to smear entrepeneurs as a whole, which is who “Joe the Plumber” was chosen to represent.

Now, say what you will about Obama’s tax plan.  But if I’d donated money to his campaign, I’d really, really be pissed off that he’s using it to pay somebody to pose as another person entirely.  That’s generally called false advertising….

Or, y’know.  Politics.

Permalink Leave a Comment

“That One?”

October 9, 2008 at 11:48 am (Politics) (, , , )

At the recent debates, McCain referred to Obama as “That One.”  And while the thinking world groaned and shook its head at a dismissive reference that shouldn’t have been made, the rest of the world lit afire.  Why do I say that?

I’ve seen folks arguing that it was a racially motivated slur, for the love of Xenu!

People, he called him “that one.”  He didn’t call him “that nigger,” “that black,” “that coon,” or even “that boy over there.”  Though given the age/experience difference, that last one could be justifiable.  He called him “that one.”  A dismissive reference, and one that ‘subtly’ refers back to attacks on Obama’s celeb-appeal, referring to him as “the One.”

The only way you can make that into a racially motivated slur is if you are taking the approach that McCain wouldn’t have said something like that about a white candidate.  Now, I’ll admit, I haven’t listened to McCain regularly.  But I know his reputation, and I’ll say that it’s entirely plausible that in the more casual environment of the town-hall style debate, he simply slipped into the markedly more casual style he sticks with.

Unforgivably rude, yes.  Racist, I don’t think so.  If I were considering voting for McCain, this might make me reconsider if Obama’s policies didn’t worry me so very much more than impolitic wording.  I’m not voting for either of them, and this certainly isn’t making me reconsider that approach.

So if you’re gonna call McCain on this one, call it for the right thing – being remarkably rude to his opponent on national television.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Who’s Right?

September 27, 2008 at 9:35 am (Politics) (, , , , , )

Phew!  Things have been busy down at the ol’ hermitage, so I’m afraid I haven’t had a chance to post for a while, despite many interesting things happening this week.  Well, time to start scrawling on the walls again….

How many of you listened to the debates last night?

How many of you who listened realized that the fastest way to commit suicide during them might be to devise a drinking game where you take a shot every time you hear the words “That’s not true” from either candidate?

I’ll confess, I didn’t listen to the whole thing (I had errands to run, and lousy reception on the radio where I was running them).  But with what I did listen to, I was struck by the fact that their were three messages you could come away with.

  1. John McCain is old, and has been in the Senate a long time.
  2. Barack Obama’s voice is much easier to tell from Jim Lehrer’s than John McCain’s, and he hasn’t been in the Senate such a long time.
  3. One of the two of them – or both of them – was lying through his teeth for much of the debate, proving that they were fully qualified to serve in the Senate.

I take that last message from the fact that, frequently, one of them would say something, and the other would reply with ‘that’s not true’ or some variant thereof.  So, either the one who had the floor was lying at the time, or the one protesting was.  They couldn’t both be lying about it, could they?  And they couldn’t possibly be telling the truth, could they?  So how do you know who to believe?

Well, here’s the thing.  Most of the time, they were both telling the truth.  And they were both lying.  Not only in the same breath, but in the same words. You see, in the words of Obi Wan Kenobi, “everything I told you was true… from a certain point of view.  Many of the things we accept as truth, are only true from a certain point of view.”

Let’s take this one, for example.

Obama says “If you’re making more than $250,000 a year in taxes, your taxes will go up under my plan.  But I’m going to give 95% of American families a tax cut, the people who need it.”

McCain says “Under Senator Obama’s plan, your taxes could go up if you’re making $42,000 a year.”

Obama interrupts with “that’s not true, that’s just not true.”  Rude, but I’ll let him slide – McCain did it too.

Now… which one of them is telling the truth?  Both of them.

You see, under Senator Obama’s plan, if you’re making $250,000 a year, your taxes will go up, and he’s going to give a tax cut to 95% of American families.  But he’ll also potentially raise your taxes if you’re only making $42,000 a year.  Because, from a certain point of view, you can only be making $42,000 a year at the very same time you’re making $250,000 a year.

Here’s how it works.  Let’s say you run a small restaurant, or other business.  You can easily be making $250,000 a year – gross.  Now, that $250,000 a year is promptly chewed up by the cost of supplies, salaries you pay out, rent on your business, registration… and taxes that you’re already paying.  After all – at that level, if you’re not a corporation for tax purposes, you’re in the 35% tax bracket, and firmly within the realm of the 26% AMT.  You end up taking home about $42,000 a year… net.  So they’re both telling the truth.  By the way.  Tell me – in a typical double-income household (huband and wife), is your shared net income $42,000 a year?  Would you consider yourselves rich?  You’re making just as much as the guy who brings home the $42,000 above, so why not?

But, you say, you’re not making $250,000 a year gross.  You’re probably right, so by that standard you’re not rich.  But, again, it’s all a matter of your point of view – net pay, or gross pay?

Similarly, Senator Obama will give out a $1000 refundable tax credit to 95% of American families.  Why?  Well, because they’re just so wonderful they deserve it, I guess.  Where will that money come from?  The extra taxes paid by all those ‘rich’ people out there.  Whether he ‘raises taxes,’ ‘closes corporate loopholes,’ or does both at once (or, for that matter, whether or not there’s a difference between the two), he doesn’t deny they’ll be paying more.  They’re funding, among other things, that $1000 bucks.  The only way this isn’t a forced financial redistribution is if he plans on making that credit one that you pay back the next year, in which case it really isn’t that helpful.  Is a forced financial redistribution a bad thing?  Maybe, maybe not.

But a lot of the people in that 95% already get a refund back.  Now, I’ll be the first to admit that I wouldn’t really mind an extra digit on my tax refund, but is it fair to arbitrarily say “since you don’t make as much money as Mr. X, we’ll take his money and give it to you?”

Tax credits are great… when they’re there for a reason.  When you have a tax credit to help people recoup the costs of college, that’s a good use for it.  When you give people credits to make sure their dependents are taken care of during the day so they can work, that’s a good use for it.  You’re using a credit to stimulate specific activity that you want to see.  But just saying “I like you, have some money” isn’t the purpose of a tax credit (that’s what Christmas is for!)

So, who’s right?

They both are.  They’re both telling the truth, and they’re both lying.  Politicians rarely want to get caught in a bald-faced lie – that’s why they’re so very good at twisting the facts.  Perhaps the best recent example of this was Bill Clinton’s infamous line – “That depends on what your definition of the word ‘is’ is.”

Lies cause scandals.  Half-truths, twisted truths, and lies of omission just give jobs to advertising executives.

EDIT:  For further examples, please take a look here.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Coming down on one side….

September 18, 2008 at 5:04 pm (Politics) (, , , , , , , )

I’ve said before that I want to stay neutral here.  But I can’t any more – I haven’t been around here long enough to say ‘vote this way because I say so.’  But while poking around to see what searches brought people here, I tripped over an interesting one – ‘Obama treason.’  Now, why would that lead somebody to this blog?  I’m not sure, it doesn’t pop up in the Google search.  However… well, guess what did pop up.


Doing a bit more research turns up this, from the New York Post.

Both claims are supported by the Daily Telegraph.

Now… I don’t like to support a lot of media sources out there.  The bias involved – on both directions – is irritating.  But when I come across something like this, with three separate sources, I’ve gotta start taking it seriously.  Especially when the defense – from the Obama campaign – is this.

“In fact, Senator Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a Strategic Framework Agreement governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.”

While they do follow up with a statement pointing out that Obama says that such an agreement must be reviewed by Congress, the fact remains that he wasn’t advocating they insist on Congress reviewing it (BTW – unless you consider this a treaty, which it isn’t, such review would be… well… unconstitutional.  It’s an agreement related to the strategy to be pursued, which I would think is under the Commander in Chief’s jurisdiction, not Congress’.)

What he was advocating was that they not make such an agreement until Bush is out of office.  In other words, he told the leaders of Iraq that they shouldn’t deal with the current administration.

It doesn’t matter what the reason is – this is despicable conduct for a presidential candidate.

Doesn’t matter who does it.  The fact is that a presidential candidate shouldn’t be screwing around with the operations of the current president, whether he likes him or not, unless it’s in the context of another official position he already holds.  I don’t hear about any other Senators bugging Iraq to not make agreements about how long our troops are there.

Maybe this is change we can believe in.  If that’s the case… I don’t think I want this particular change.

Do you?

Permalink Leave a Comment