Actually, I learn a great deal from that program, and do wish it were an hour long. I hang on to every word that Pat Buchanan and John McLaughlin utter. Eleanor Clift, sadly, has become my least favorite panelist ever since she drank the KoolAid last year, and her critical thinking has suffered — she just mouths the typical talking points we’ve all heard all week long on every cable news channel. She has nothing NEW to add, or rarely.

And, even when I was a Daily-Kos-lovin’ regular Kossack diarist (@ 2005), I loved TMG (The McLaughlin Group). And I never understood why it was verboten to say that I liked the show, or why there was a regular FRENZY about getting PBS to cancel the show. Whatever for? Because PBS was bowing to the wishes of the rightwingers in Congress who control their purse strings? Call me STUPID, but I have to ask this: Shouldn’t the elected “rightwingers” have as much say about funding PBS as the leftwingers? Ditto NPR?

Ideally, I suppose, no elected officials should mess with PBS’s and NPR’s programming. But obliterating all supposedly “rightwing” programming? That’s anti-democratic, and it proves why the leftwing can never be allowed to RULE our nation because their level of censorship will be more extreme than that of the rightwingers, I fear.

And why do the lefties ASS-u-ME that if anyone, like me, watches TMG, his or her thinking will be irrevocably damaged? That viewers can’t discern for themselves which POVs they prefer?

That someone like Pat Buchanan, whose astonishing memory for U.S. history is mind-blowing, should be silenced? God, I could listen to Pat Buchanan all day every day, and never be bored. I wish MSNBC would use him more. I wish Fox News would give him a huge deal, and give him an hour show!!! I wish he could replace Rush Limbaugh!!!

Clarence Page is another not-so-favorite contributor, but this that he said last Friday was very funny:

Search here to find the stations that carry TMG, and on what days and at what times.

HERE is the panel on PEBO and the USSC:

The Supremes

Issue Three: The Supremes.

PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA: (From videotape.) I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The Supreme Court is just what its name suggests — supreme — supreme over all the other 16,000 judicial bodies in the United States. The court’s nine justices interpret law and they set precedent for years to come. The nomination of these justices is by the president, and it is arguably his or her most enduring power.

These justices commonly outlive the nominating president’s terms. All nine of them serve for life, if they so wish. Thirty-two percent resign or retire. As a consequence of lengthy service, the justices’ age can be quite seasoned. In the current court, one of the nine is an octogenarian, John Paul Stevens. Three of the nine are in their seventies — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

Question: Why will it be easier for President-elect Obama to assess nominees’ judicial philosophy than for other presidents who have done so, or to do so? Do you understand the question?

MR. BUCHANAN: Sure.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you understand the question, Eleanor?

MS. CLIFT: I can guess at it. (Laughs.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Why is it going to be easier for Obama?

MS. CLIFT: Because he’s thoughtful and he’s a former constitutional lawyer.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: There you go. MS. CLIFT: And he understands that he needs to keep a balance on the court, which is now evenly split between left and right, with one swing vote, and the three most likely justices to retire are on the left. And so he needs — the best he can do, from my perspective, is to keep the court where it is and not let the right take over.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: He’s a lawyer. And in addition to that, he taught constitutional law for many years, did he not?

MR. PAGE: At the University of Chicago, one of those incubators for justices.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The University of Chicago. So he also knows what questions to ask the interviewee in order to discover what his judicial philosophy is —

MR. BUCHANAN: Let me say, John —

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: — or hers, correct?

MS. CROWLEY: Well, that’s right. He does have the background. But let’s be honest. I mean, when the country elects a president, they elect a political philosophy. So he’s not going to appoint conservative judges, and that’s his prerogative not to. We’re looking at between one and three vacancies, possibly, starting with John Paul Stevens, who’s about 89 years old. There are others. Ruth Bader Ginsburg —

MS. CLIFT: Eighty-seven, I think.

MS. CROWLEY: — is not in the best of health, and so she might retire as well. So there will be vacancies here for him. And he has made it clear that he wants somebody who is going to be able to reflect his political philosophy and approach the law that way as well.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Okay, more on the Supreme Court from Obama.

PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA: (From videotape.) And we need somebody who’s got the heart to recognize — the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Can you live with that, Clarence?

MR. PAGE: Well, we’ve seen that with Sandra Day O’Connor, her experience as a woman being discriminated against, in spite of her stellar qualifications. She said that had an impact —

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, he’s saying —

MR. PAGE: — on her — MR. MCLAUGHLIN: — you’ve got to have heart. That’s what he’s saying.

MR. PAGE: Right, right. And the candidates know this. I remember Clarence Thomas sounding very eloquent and passionate about his sympathy for the accused, and then once he became a justice, showed very little of it in his decisions. So I think, you know, there’s part of some salesmanship of —

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, what’s the primary — is heart the primary —

MR. BUCHANAN: John, heart is not primary. This is an absurdity.

MS. CLIFT: No, it isn’t.

READ ALL of the panel’s discussion of issues on Friday night.

I wish i’d spent more time hunting around for some of John McLaughlin’s priceless comments and his astonishing predictions — he is SO prescient (!). But perhaps all of you will do some huntin’, and you’ll share what you find.

OPEN THREAD!!!

It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at NoQuarter and many other blogsites to do the research on Barack Obama that the media, the democratic national committee, and our Congress should have done.   Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to make a difference in this election,  for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda, and the startling depth of his secrecy. 

Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth,  explosiveness, nor unpredictability of this phenomenon we have all witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama!   We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water or running away to avoid the explosion….

While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosion change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America.  We can use the  2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.

The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.

FOUR QUESTIONS 

I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country.  By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.

These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and existing judgments)before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond to them by December 1, 2008.  

While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter granted the writ of certiorari.  Even if, as some have said, Souter’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution and will determine if the Supreme Court decides to hear the case.

In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg and the questions raised in the case should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”.   The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.

The questions presented for review are:

1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candiate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibiity of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?

 The “questions presented for review” in the the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate,  but to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.  

Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed argue that (1)a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified.  It is also possible Obama would argue that the 14th Amendment permits “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” to be known as “American citizens” and thereby satisfies the requirements of Article II.

I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not release his COLB, citizenship records, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.”  He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond to that? 

If Obama responds in any other way, he will be forced to disclose and or describe why, how, and what steps citizens can take to assure the POTUS’s  eligibility, and perhaps then he may be forced prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II. Alternatively he could be forced to concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS.  Would the Supreme Court order him then to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?

One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure eligibility.  One would assume procedurally that “checks and balances” could mean legislative processes, acts, bills, or resolutions that would act as those “checks and balances”.  Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution passed by Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies.  This resolution could be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS.  In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill).

Justice Souter will then hear Berg’s response to Obama’s legal argument before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will take the issue up.  Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter granted the writ of certioriari.

How does the Supreme Court react?  Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the FEC, electors, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures?  Will they say that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?

And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama?  Is it up to your empoyer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation?  Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America?

Implications for the Future

The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more, and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s intentions in the next four years.

Just my suspician, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework.  I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures”.

As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions.  The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility.  I doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the constitution.

It appears that up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications.  We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution.  Looks like our age of innocence is over.

It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.  If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, wherein 75% of the states have to ratify.

The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong.  Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy or provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates.  Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud,  the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”.  I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”.  We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.

What is next for our country?  Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, we’d better start creating an alternative vision.  A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:

“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…”

*Photo Credits: (1)”Predictor”, EENR, Yellowstone National Park 2003. (2)British Columbia photo stock

Barack Obama paid ACORN more than $800,000 via one of their hundreds of subsidiaries operating out of the same address. The purpose: To “Get Out The Vote”. He trained early little ACORNS when they were just little nuts in Chicago–and denies it with his typical pathological liar dexterity.

Fannie Mae was the biggest fraud perpetrated upon America’s economy by the worst of criminals–members of congress,

Fannie Mae’s former CEO walked off with $90 million dollars as a reward for cooking their books and bringing down America,

Barack Obama has collected money from the brothers who live at a Hamas Compound and didn’t bother reporting it to the FEC,

AIG went on yet another trip on taxpayer money–this time to hunt partridge in England,

Nobody cares that Barack Obama is lying about his relationship with a domestic terrorist who still hates America and cannot wait to get his talons even further in the Subversion of America’s education.

Nobody notices that several additional members of the former Weather Underground are working hard to get Barack Obama elected.

Even more ironic, the Ohio Secretary of State needs the Supreme Court to tell her to do her job and allow the counties in Ohio to check several hundred thousand ACORN voter registrations to see if any of them is actually legitimate.

So who are they skewering? Why, Joe the Plumber of Course! A Wrench to the head for him! He questioned The One.

The Breaking News is that Joe isn’t a licensed plumber. And he was obviously a Plant! Obama showed up in Joe’s neighbhorhood and started talking to everybody while they Worshipped, and this guy Joe found out he was going to be there so he obviously moved into a house there really fast so he could pretend to be a resident and could be a plant! Yeah! That’s it…….

So Joe asked him a question like he wasn’t supposed to. He was just supposed to worship. Only it wasn’t a question The One wanted to hear.

And he’s a Republican, which I am assuming they regard as some kind of disease or something. I mean, inquiring minds want to know, Barack. Are you only planning to be President of the left wing of the left wing of the Democratic Party, Communists, Marxists, ex-terrorists and deadbeats? Or do you plan on getting rid of everybody else? You know, people who actually pay taxes and things? Just wondering.

After all, this Joe The Plumber thing is critical stuff! No sense of covering something trivial, like say, Obama’s Old Friend and political fixer Tony Rezko, the shameful slum lord who bilked the taxpayers out of millions to “restore” buildings as living quarters for the poor–but instead turned off the heat and allowed family pets in the form of rats–while Barack Obama looked the other way.

Why bother worrying about Obama’s connections to Rashid Khalidi, former PLO member. when you can check into Joe The Plumber and hit him with his own basin wrench for disturbing The One’s reverie?

Why bother looking into why an Iraqi prison escapee with a mansion in Chicago would contribute to Barack Obama’s campaign when you can tell the world that Joe The Plumber isn’t licensed yet?

All that other stuff is just plain trivial. What’s important is, Joe The Plumber. Why? Well because, it’s not nice to question The One Joe!!!! You made him look foolish, man. That can be downright hazardous.

Deflect. Re-route. Change the subject to something else. It’s what the Obama campaign is all about. Ask them about his terrorist buddies and hear an answer about the weather (scuse the pun). Mention ducks and hear about bears. Deflect, Deflect, Deflect. And if you can’t do that, just kill the messenger.

Congratulations Joe, you are the perfect example of what an Obama Presidency would be like. Complain, show doubt, ask a question, and plan to suffer for it. And get that American Dream crap right out of your head, Joe. That’s a Flusher under an Obama Administration. We need to all be the same, Joe. You know, you fail, I gotta fail too. It’s the Socialist Way, Comrade.

But don’t worry about taxes in the future fella! When they are done with you , you won’t be paying ANY taxes, because you won’t be working! The Secretary of State of your state will toot right along, complicit with voter fraud for The One, but you, Joe…..you are doomed, you bad boy you! You evil person! You don’t even make $250,000 a year, Joe! But don’t worry, you never will when they are done with you.

Now, I have a suggestion for you, Joe. I hear you work 10-12 hours a day. Why bother working so hard, Joe? What you can do if Barack Obama is President is just work enough to make sure you pay no taxes after your write-offs. Then sit and wait for the IRS to give you a check! What a deal, Joe! We’re all going to do it. It’s going to be the Great unAmerican Giveaway!

Get with it Comrade! And for goodness sakes, stop asking questions, will you? It annoys Comrade Obama and gets in the way of the Glorious Cause. That freedom and Democracy stuff is all over-rated anyways. That’s why millions upon millions of immigrants came here to get away from guys just like Barack Obama.

‘‘If you believed (Obama), I’d be receiving his tax cuts,’’ Wurzelbacher said. ‘‘But I don’t look at it that way. He’d still be hurting others.’’

Not as much as he’s gonna hurt YOU, Joe. Your question made The One gaffe. That’s a No-No. You’re toast, fella.

Meanwhile. off to the Re-education camp with you, Joe!

From the first moment, McCain faced questions about Governor Palin, the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, and Slavery (yes, Whoppi asked if she should be concerned about slavery under a McCain administration!)

If you haven’t already done so, I highly recommend that you take the time to watch Senator McCain’s visit on The View. Here it is in three parts:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

A few items that stand out for me:

• Barbara Walters led off with a challenge to McCain to confirm his conclusion that Governor Palin was “the greatest vice presidential candidate in the history of the United States.” McCain deadpanned, “We politicians are never given to exaggeration. He went on to explain “The fact is I think she’s a great person, she’s a great governor, she’s the most popular governor in America, she understands the energy issues.”
• Regarding McCain’s successful and popular ads against Obama, Ms. Behar challenged, “We know those ads are untrue, they are lies.” McCain confidently responded, “They are not lies.”
• Regarding Obama’s insults to Governor Palin, when asked, McCain noted that Obama “chooses his words very carefully and he shouldn’t have said it.”
• Probably the most ridiculous and uninformed question came from Whoppi Goldberg who asked, “Do I have to be worried about becoming a slave again?” under a McCain administration and strict Constitutionalists on the Supreme Court. Barbara Walters reassured her and Ms. Baher, “… we’ll take care of you. Us white folk will take care of you.”
• Queried about bipartisanship, McCain specifically addressed Hillary Clinton, saying:

“I know that she wants to stay in the Senate, but I will work with Hillary Clinton because I’ve worked with her in the past, we’ve traveled together, Barbara, you know that, we have a working relationship that’s of mutual respect and frankly, appreciation,” he said. As she comes back to the Senate, he said, “she will be one of the most influential and powerful members of the Senate. You got to work together.”

• Cindy McCain joined the group on the couch in the latter minutes of the show and they then asked how many houses the McCain’s owned, Cindy drew a line on this question saying to substantial applause:

“You know something, that’s not part of this campaign. We’re fortunate enough to come from a family, particularly my dad and mom, who worked very hard to give me the best that they could and we are fortunate to be able to live a good life and share and give to other people who are not so fortunate.”

• McCain lamented, more than once, that Obama refused to travel the country with him for a series of townhall meetings. He suggested The View host them both, together.

McCain showed a presidential presence in sitting on The View with a mostly hostile group of women, many openly supporting Obama and several with a record of very hostile comments toward McCain and Palin. He used a warm smile and deft touch, even appeared to relish the questions. For the life of me, I cannot see Obama facing a group of successful women opposed to him.

“Nuance: Obama almost says Clarence Thomas didn’t have enough experience to serve”

And we know what horrible outcomes can arise when people without experience are placed in positions of great power. InstaGlenn accuses him of actually saying it but that’s not true: Watch him catch himself mid-sentence, the first fateful syllable of the word “experience” already out of his mouth, before he stops short and switches gears by basically calling Thomas a moron instead (at least, “at the time”) — an aspersion reinforced a moment later by the implicit contrast he draws in praising Scalia’s brilliance. A golden gaffe, narrowly avoided. Stay classy, Barry.

What is the worst of this is, as we all know here and have grown weary of trying to explain to others, is that Obama nearly expressed his OWN greatest weakness: His own lack of experience. Here’s the video:

You had better watch it, Barack. What you’re really saying that it is YOU who don’t have the experience — particularly in the inept ways you answered too many questions last night. And you KNEW it, which is why you stopped yourself suddenly. YOU KNOW IT TOO, don’t you. Not good.

As Taylor Marsh said, he needs a debate coach badly. But as I also said last night, no coach in the world can provide him with the one thing he does not have: Experience.

It was a significant — but foreboding — contribution to our discussion that, this morning, Reverend Amy mentioned that scolding letter that a betrayed John McCain sent in 2006 to the impudent, neophyte senator Barack Obama who did not know his place and did not even know enough to feign respect not only for his more senior fellow senators but also for the institution. Here is the opening salvo of that letter, which Reverend Amy reprints in full:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.

The experienced man lectures the young, immature senator that a man’s word IS HIS BOND.

What is shocking is that the experienced man had to give the lecture at all. Surely, one can almost certainly assume, that a man who has achieved the rare distinction of becoming a United States Senator would have learned that lesson long ago. Apparently not.

After all, as his supporters have learned — over and over and over again — in the past couple months, Barack Obama holds NO value, NO policy, and NO commitment dear enough that he isn’t willing, in a heartbeat, to toss it away like cheap garbage if it suddenly doesn’t suit his immediate overwhelming need for self-gratification.

The man is still a junkie. But his drug of choice these days is adoration. The masses must worship him. That is why a simple convention venue is not enough. There must be a stadium large enough to fit his ego.

NancyA called me this afternoon and asked me why the Democrats let themselves be transfixed by this wholly inadequately prepared candidate. There is NO rational explanation.

By thanks to their failure to conduct “due diligence” of this candidate, the Democrats are doomed to either an unnecessary, utterly preventable loss in November — in the one year they could seize victory firmly in their grasp — or to four grim years of a presidency by a unprepared, unschooled, inexperienced, unqualified man.

Historians will write about this for centuries to come.

It is tragic that we who are alive at this moment in time could not prevent this from having happened.

But our fate, and the party’s fate, has been seized and no one with any sense is listening.

The thunder rumbles. The lightning flashes. The sky is ominously dark and looming over all of us. But those who should know better are too dazzled by the power trip they’re on to stop and think about the imminent danger.

Choices to Make:

Ok, we’ve set the stage, How does it play out for the presumptive candidates?

Obama

For BHO, this is The Land of Dreams Come True. He can function pretty much as the king he imagines himself to be: commanding by fiat and having his wishes transformed into law. Surrounded by coteries of adoring acolytes and wizened viziers wishpering into his ear.

With the expected congressional gains the Democrats are likely to make and given their propensity to grovel, a rubber stamp congress for BHO is pretty much a done deal. If we had HRC in the executive we might actually see some groundbreaking legislation and the enactment of a number of sorely needed reforms. With BHO in the saddle we’re much more likely to see a repeat of the current farce. Largely this kind of administration is reflective of the nature of the person who is POTUS. We’ve just been through a seven year example of how this can go horribly wrong. BHO’s nature, both the revealed and the still hidden aspects - gives plenty of cause for alarm: narcissistic, solipsistic, arrogant, ignorant and truculent, he is a walking poster for exactly what to avoid when looking to fill an executive position with unlimited power.

McCain

For McCain, the picture is not quite so rosy, in fact, he’s more likely to be a caretaker president, given the majority the Democrats will hold in both houses.

There will be few initiatives from the Executive branch. McCain doesn’t have many new ideas, there may be some movement on campaign spending reform but certainly nothing on healthcare. With a Democratic congress there will not be any Supreme Court nominations even if all the sitting justices tripped on the steps and fell on their heads.

On the other hand, there are some good points to a McCain presidency: first, there would not be an Obama presidency - I can’t stress enough how desirable this is.

Next, he’s not GWB - repeat that please: he’s not GWB. No more idiots in the White House, what a relief. Further, McCain is regarded as an honorable man and we could sure use someone honorable to represent us to the world again. BHO already show deficits in that regard. Last, we survived seven years of GWB, I think we can survive four years of McCain but I really question whether our country can survive a BHO cult takeover.

…And another choice we could make:

I’m going to push the Red Dirt metaphor a little bit here. With PUMA and JustSayNoDeal out there stirring things up, I’m thinking that there may be another way onward. The goal is to get some leverage in the political game they play in Washington. We’ve been a two party system for some time because, among other reasons, the parties field full slates for all offices, including POTUS. Even the smaller parties like the Libertarians and the Conservatives are always running a Ron Paul or Bob Barr. It’s pretty pointless, really, they’re never going to get elected - sure it’s an ego boost to say ‘I ran for POTUS’ but so did Lyndon LaRouche and Harold Stassen (many times each). It also feeds into the myth we have developed that ‘anyone can run for POTUS’, it’s really useful for the two major parties because it bleeds off the anger a lot of people like us feel about having been hosed, yet again, by the party of our choice. We get all fired up and run around pushing our ‘pet rock’ for the highest office in the land… and when the inevitable happens, we turn back into pumpkins serene in the knowledge that we’ve participated in the ‘democratic process’. But we haven’t really accomplished anything (Red Dirt Talk, remember?) and deep down, we know it.

What about focusing on some real power? If the Democrats pick up 15 seats in the House they will have a 248 to 187 advantage over the Republicans, pretty much tromping rights on everything.

What If some interested people were to begin building a political party organization - call it the True Democratic Party, for example, with a clear focus on the 2010 elections. Traditionally the party in power loses some seats in the off-year election, given BHO’s track record to date I would expect serious ‘buyer’s remorse’ if he should get elected, certainly McCain would not be likely to still be a crowd pleaser. Moreover, the seething anger that many of us feel toward the Gang of Four (Pelosi, Dean, Reid and Brazile - with a sly reference to their Maoist forebears) will, no doubt, be exacerbated by the time the 2010 elections roll around. The purpose of the True Democratic Party would be to pick the 50 most vulnerable Congressional districts and work to take at least 36 away from the Democrats. This would bring the Democratic House seat count to 212, that is 1 vote shy of a majority. Even half that many seats would scare the bejeebers out of the Gang of Four and would very likely lead to a significant amount of attention paid to the needs of True Democratic Party members by both major parties. This is called ‘leverage’, it is also what they call the “dish best served cold.”

For myself, I will not ever vote for Obama. When he is installed as the official nominee of the Democratic Party, I will leave the Democratic Party - after 40 years. If necessary, that is if the election looks to be close enough so it might actually matter, I will (figuratively) hold my nose and vote for McCain. I can see that there is a path forward, certainly not one I ever expected to take. I think our democracy needs some critical thinking, some untypical action and, desperately, some different results than we have seen so far.

Repressing competency for magical thinking is a sign of a culture in deep trouble. Reagan and Bush were both that kind of sign, I had hoped the sickness was limited to the Reaganauts and the Bushies but it appears to have spread to the Democratic party as well. This essay is an attempt to deal with the reality of a deeply flawed process and candidate. The issues are of coequal importance with the character of the candidate and integrity of the process; when one is degraded, the other two can determine the balance, when two parts are deficient there is no good solution.

Think, think long and deeply, consider well your options and remember: You get whatever you choose.

__________

Previously in this series: “Red Dirt Talk - Part 1, the Setup,” Red Dirt Talk - Part 2, the Positions,” and “Red Dirt Talk - Part 3, the Positions (2).”

No Quarter’s Bud White had a fascinating conversation with Heidi Li Feldman and Marc Rubin of The Denver Group. It turns out that Mr. White is a real pro (sort of a likeable and more intelligent Charlie Rose) and starts he things off with:

“Keeping the Democratic Party democratic.” That’s the motto of the newly formed The Denver Group. The Denver Group’s stated goal is an open, Democratic convention, with Hillary’s name on the ballot.

Their Web site says:
“To deny Senator Clinton a rightful place on the ballot in an attempt to foster a false image of party unity based on unofficial declarations by super delegates. It will fool no one and only create more disunity. It is in everyone’s best interest, especially the Democratic Party and its chances in November, to hold an open and honest convention.”

****

We’re joined this evening by the founders of The Denver Group, Heidi Li Feldman and Marc Rubin. Good evening to both of you. Thanks for joining us…

Please take a listen and we would love to hear your thoughts on this show.

The interview runs 1 hour and 10 minutes.
-FEC recognized 527 group.
-They want to make ads to be shown in the mass media.
-They want to make sure the Democratic party stays democratic.
-They want a fair and open convention.
-Please contribute money to help this cause; $5.00–$5,000; whatever you can do.
You can visit The Denver Group at http://thedenvergroup.blogspot.com
Heidi Li Feldman’s personal blog is Heidi Li’s Potpourri at http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/
Marc Rubin’s blog is Tom In Paine at http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/
No Quarter is http://noquarterusa.net

Health Policy

Obama

Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All
Lower Costs by Modernizing The U.S. Health Care System

See Economic policy and advisors, above.

This one’s been gone over so many times that everyone on the planet probably knows it by heart. Fact is, in May of 2007, HRC put out her plan, complete with all the lessons learned from the 1994 debacle (which I must remind everyone again - was torpedoed by Democrats). HRC’s plan very cleverly included a roadmap to single-payer, the ultimate goal. Exactly one week later, just enough time to plagiarize and re-brand, BHO came out with his copycat plan. Except BHO’s plan dispensed with the single-payer option and places the mandatory membership subscriptions firmly in the hands of the private insurance companies - who is this guy working for again?

McCain

Will Reform Health Care Making It Easier For Individuals And Families To Obtain Insurance
Will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage
Making Insurance More Portable
Will Encourage And Expand The Benefits Of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) For Families
Cares For The Traditionally Uninsurable
Will Work With States To Establish A Guaranteed Access Plan

Bromides from the (R) side of the aisle. It’s glaringly obvious that McCain doesn’t give a rat’s ass about health care except in the context of preventing any public poaching of private party property (alliteration anyone?).

Energy Policy

Obama

Next in the examination chamber is Energy Policy, below are the BHO talking points

Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Support Next Generation Biofuels
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

More valueless drivel on a large scale. First, the chances of us reducing carbon emissions 80% by 2050 are vanishingly small (except for the small possibility mentioned below). Even if we did, by 2050 China and India will be producing 2 to 3 times our present CEs. This is not a US problem it is a global problem and must be addressed in that context. BHO utterly fails to address this.

Second, biofuels is a counter-productive deadend as is already becoming painfully apparent: fill your tank, starve a neighbor. BHOs reliance on pop solutions to real problems is emblematic of his incompetence.

Another personal rant: We need to bite the bullet - it’s time to dump petroleum. Take the $150 billion BHO proposes to enable the unsupportable biofuels economy and put it into nailing down hydrogen fuel cell technology. Find better, cheaper ways to crack seawater into its constituent parts. Hydrogen for clean burning fuel, oxygen gets liberated into the atmosphere and BTW we stop pumping thousands of tons of carbon into the sky. I could go on…

McCain

From his Lexington Project:
Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration and Use Domestic Supplies
Clean Car Challenge
Full Commercial Development Of Plug-In Hybrid And Fully Electric Automobiles Supports Flex fuel and Ethanol
Goes Green, Will Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies
Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants
Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D
Will Encourage The Market For Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power
Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Surprisingly, this looks to be a well thought out program combining accepted concepts such as Cap and Trade and Clean Coal initiatives. I like the tax credit idea and the emphasis on low carbon power. Not so much the expanded domestic oil stuff (can you say ANWAR?) but I want to talk for a moment about nuclear power.

It seems to be an article of faith in the leftie community that nuclear=bad. We need to stop engaging in knee-jerk responses to this. Yes, older nuclear designs were primitive and overly complex, some were even inherently dangerous, Chernobyl is the poster child for that. Yes, there is a problem with disposing of nuclear waste - but not an insoluble one. Yes, fission reactors are really only a way-station on the road to fusion. All stipulated. But. Let’s look at nuclear power with our critical thinking caps on, this is the Red Dirt Talk after all…

Nuclear Myth #1: All those nuclear power plants are creating more and more radioactivity all the time.

No, Johnny, only a very few nuclear reactors actually create new fissile material - fast breeder reactors, and even then they create the plutonium from uranium as it transforms to lead (this transforming takes a very, very long time). Mostly what reactors do is just transfer radioactivity from one place to another (see Nuclear Myth # 2 for more on this) Bad point here, fast breeder reactors are what you want to build when you want to make weapons-grade radioactives. Extended point: there is radioactive material all over the planet with a high concentration in Africa (remember the Niger Yellowcake?). There is even some speculation that high radioactivity levels in Africa are responsible for mutations that led to the development of Homo Sapiens.

Nuclear Myth # 2: That nasty nuclear waste will just sit around forever making everything glow in the dark.

Well, yes and no… if you pick a remote place that is geologically stable (say Yucca Mountain) and sequester the waste in sealed glass containers and then store them several thousand feet underground in salt formations, you will get the glow in the dark scenario, but if you think critically about it there is a handy solution - take a deep breath here, assumptions are about to be challenged: go out into the middle of the ocean and build a floating launch facility, put your nuclear waste in a rocket and shoot it into the Sun. The Sun will know what to do with it. Yes, we’ve actually been sending nuclear materials into space for years. No, it’s not inherently more dangerous than burying it in salt mines. Yes, rockets used to be famously unreliable and would blow up at the drop of a hat. No, that’s no longer the case… did I mention that the launch takes place in the middle of the ocean?

Nuclear Myth # 3: All nuclear plants are unsafe.

They used to be exactly that, especially idiot designs like the open graphite reactors the USSR dotted all over the landscape. The fact is that many countries have relied on nuclear power for a substantial portion of their energy needs for decades (see France). They have developed new, simpler, inherently safe-by-design nuclear reactors, Pebble Bed reactors for instance. We in the US get about 14 percent of our energy from nuclear reactors. They’re here, they’re staying, they’re getting safer all the time - get over it.

Nonetheless, there is a salient point here: fission is inherently dangerous by virtue of the fact that you have to gather relatively large amounts of radioactive material together in order to make it work at all.

So what’s the solution? Glad you asked: fusion. This holy grail of energy production has been pursued by every capable agency on the planet for over fifty years. Why doesn’t it work? Actually it does, the latest Tokamak reactor produces about 102% energy output from energy input - not very impressive. What is even more unimpressive (more unimpressive?) is the paucity of R+D spending on fusion research. In the decade of the ’90s the total R+D investment by all the IEA members (the US, EU and Japan) totaled US $8.9 billion - total - for, essentially, all the countries of the world - combined - for ten years. Plainly we’re not serious yet about energy independence, when we are, we’ll know it because we’ll be putting in about $100 billion per year into R+D and pilot production and ramping up to bringing fusion online to the grid.

Why should you be happy about this? Here’s the interesting thing about fusion: if it breaks, it turns off; if you make a mistake, it turns off; if the bad guys get in and blow something up, it turns off. No muss, no fuss, no lingering evil cloud, no China Syndrome, no cancer down the line - no radioactivity.

It. Just. Turns. Off.

Did I mention that Exxon made US $40 Billion in profits… this year?

Immigration

Obama

Create Secure Borders
Improve Our Immigration System
Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
Bring People Out of the Shadows
Work with Mexico

Once again, BHO doesn’t have strong positions on this, though I must say that cracking down on employers who hire illegals would go a long way to solving the problem outright.

McCain

Secure borders
Welcomes immigrants and guest workers

This is a McCain signature issue, he’s been highly visible out front on this and has garnered the respect of Hispanics in Mexico as well as the US.

Space Program

Obama

Zero, zip, nada on his website, however his previous position (stated multiple times) was idiotic Go here for a deeper look at this)

Essentially BHO’s opinion is that the Constellation program (our next generation space vehicle system) should take a break for, oh, say about 5 years so that he can funnel NASA funding into - education (paging Bill Ayers). Seriously, he’s gonna bring the US$240 billion/year space industry to a grinding halt for 5 years… and then just flip the switch on ‘em and crank it up again!?!

McCain

Strong supporter of NASA, the space industry, exploration, science, truth, justice and the American way - on this one anyway.

Supreme Court

Obama

Nothing on website, vaguely supports Roe v Wade and claims that: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

Apparently, BHO - the constitutional scholar, is off eating waffles somewhere.

McCain

Strict Constructionist
Supported Alito and Roberts

Well, he’s a Republican. What you see is what you get here.

From my blog, The Heraclitan Fire.

First, we have — shudders — a presumptive presidential candidate who talked gansta style in Philadelphia on June 13th. From my story, “Obama’s Gangster Mentality“:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Obama’s words are dangerously poor examples to our nation’s youth. Obama’s words are unbecoming of a presidential candidate, let alone a president.

We’ve long known that Barack Obama is highly vulnerable on the issue of gun rights due to his all-over-the-map statements on gun ownership rights — and, most seriously, his voting record.

Before gun-lovin’ Idaho’s primary, Obama talked the talk about gun owners’ rights. But, during his terms as an Illinois state senator, he voted for laws that will disturb any gun ownership advocate. A CBS News story, “Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics” — its subtitle is “Eight Years As State Senator Were Full Of Controversial Votes, Including Abortion And Gun Control” — reports:

He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. And the list of sensitive topics goes on.

With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn’t have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes. …

More from “Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics” — “Eight Years As State Senator Were Full Of Controversial Votes, Including Abortion And Gun Control”:

Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic “assault weapons” and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.

He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.

Supporters framed the issue as a fundamental question of whether homeowners have the right to protect themselves.

Obama joined several Chicago Democrats who argued the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41-16 and ultimately became state law.

“It’s bad politics to be on the wrong side of the Second Amendment come election time,” said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. “It will certainly be talked about. You can take that to the bank.”

On the other hand, Obama parted company with gun control advocates when he backed a measure to let retired police officers and military police carry concealed weapons. …

Now, for today’s new twirl from the typical Obama “dance” around the issues:

Here’s that “inartful statement” featured today at ABC News’s blog, Political Radar:

ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Alexa Ainsworth Report: With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.’s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator’s views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.

In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’"

http://www.topix.com/content/trb/2007/11/court-to-hear-gun-case

The Chicago Tribune clip from Nov. 20, 2007, is an inaccurate representation of Obama’s views, according to Burton, because the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has refrained from developing a position on whether the D.C. gun law runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

When Obama has been asked on multiple occasions to weigh in on the D.C. gun case he has regularly maintained that the Second Amendment provides an individual right while at the same time saying that right is not absolute and that the Constitution does not prevent local governments from enacting what Obama calls "common sense laws."

Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation’s capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

…

Remember this debate question by ABC’s Charlie Gibson?

Asked by ABC News’ Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms at ABC’s April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."

In stark contrast, Sen. McCain has been a straight-shooter on the issue, reports Political Radar:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., by contrast, has been forthcoming when it comes to the D.C. gun law. 
He signed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, signaling not only his belief in the Second Amendment but also his view that the DC gun ban is incompatible with it.

Our friends at Reason magazine call Obama’s slippery statements “fishy.”

Earlier, Barack Obama had issued a fishy retraction of last year’s unambiguous statement that “the gun ban is constitutional.”

Remind me, would you: What is it that rots from the head?

One of my heroes died Monday. It was sad to watch. Because it was a public slaying. Even worse it was a planned suicide.

I can barely force myself to repeat the words. But here they are. And please don’t blame me if you suffer the same adverse reactions as I did. Warning: This is painful to read.

Gore Endorses Obama as a Solver of Problems

Mr. Gore and Mr. Obama strode onto the stage arm in arm to thundering applause from a crowd of nearly 20,000 people at a downtown arena. As Mr. Gore ticked through a long list of challenges facing the nation, he hailed Mr. Obama as “clearly the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America.”

And yes, the emphasis is mine.

How could Gore or anyone in their right mind say this? Just what actual accomplishments does Obama have that make him this mythic shining solver of problems? Can anyone offer me even one example where Obama solved a problem? I mean besides the thug crap that got him elected in the first place. And hoodwinking. And bamboozling. I mean seriously… go ahead and enlighten me. Please.

And if this wasn’t bad enough, Gore opened his mouth and said the most ironic thing.

“Take it from me, elections matter. If you think the next appointments to the Supreme Court are important, you know that elections matter.”

No one in the press even caught this. Yes Al, elections matter. We remember Florida in 2000. That is why we cannot imagine you supporting a candidate that not only lost Florida, he lost it cheating. And when people tried to have a re-vote, it was the candidate you are endorsing that stood in the way.

Then you have the nerve to go to Michigan of all places and endorse him.

Yes Al, elections matter. That is why it discredits what credibility you carry when you support a candidate that thought so little of the voters of Michigan that he took his name off the ballot. Then he stood in the way when many people tried to include him on the ballot anyway get a re-vote there. You support a candidate that received illegitimate delegates that he didn’t earn in Michigan.

Not exactly a problem solver there Al. Except maybe a solver of his own problems. Does the name Alice Palmer mean anything to you?

And this Supreme Court nonsense. When are you people going to stop playing all these lying games about the Supreme Court? As a former President of the Senate you of all people should know that it is the Senate that determines who sits on the Supreme Court. I mean, I can understand how Obama might not know this since he has been MIA when it comes to Senate responsibilities for nearly a year and a half now. Didn’t even have time to chair a single meeting for the only committee he has any leadership responsibilities on.

Not exactly a problem solver Al! What are you thinking?

If this wasn’t ironic enough we have the words that Obama used to introduce Gore. Hold onto something sturdy because chances are you are about to fall flat on the floor. And it won’t be from laughing hysterically.

Al Gore endorses Barack Obama

Obama stoked lasting Democratic anger over the 2000 outcome when he recognized Gore as “the winner of the popular vote for president.”

“You remember that,” Obama said as the crowd of 20,000 erupted in raucous applause.

Are you all ok? Or should I call a medic? I know that I had more than a few problems after I read this. I’m still not quite right. But you have to hand it to Obama. He certainly has the audacity. In spades.

Am I the only one that can’t imagine him introducing Hillary at a campaign event with the words:

“She won the popular vote for the Democratic nomination! You remember that?“

Did the irony just dribble onto my chin? Do I need to wipe?

And just in case you were of the mistaken notion that there is “party unity” among Obama supporters, the way Michigan Governor Granholm was booed for even mentioning Hillary’s name should disabuse you of that notion immediately. And completely.

These are the followers of the so-called problem solver you are supporting Al. Call me dense but he isn’t solving any of MY problems.

Rest In Peace