Not so Subtle

I believed them when they said there were weapons of mass destruction. I believed Saddam Hussein was a menace to his people and a threat to the region. I believed that it would of course be very easy for the US to topple his regime. But I did not believe that we should do it.

There were alot of reasons why I did not believe we should invade Iraq. For one, I did not feel threatened by Hussein or his regime, despite the best efforts of Cheney, Rumself & Company. I did not believe that the United States should engage in wars of choice in general. I believed our army should not be used as a police force and that our troops should not be expected to go to war unless there was no other alternative.

Our troops have performed above and far, far beyond their call of duty. Some have stayed for several tours more than they signed on for, while not getting the rewards that they were promised. The troops have done everything that we have asked of them, no matter how bad the situation on the ground has been. They have dramatically reduced violence all over the country during the Surge and made countless Iraqis’ lives safer than they have been since the war began.

There are alot of reasons why I feel we should never have started this war and why we should end it as soon as possible, but the biggest one is this: what more can we ask of from our armed forces? What else can they possibly do?

If the fighting in Basra and the attacks on the Green zone in the last week has proved one thing, it is this: the Iraqi army is nowhere near ready to take over security on its own, and that the country is far from the political and social reconciliation that is needed in order to stop the violence. The Iraqi troops threw down their uniforms and joined the Mahdi army, because their loyalties are not to their country but to their tribe. The Iraqi army has stabbed our troops in the back. By day we train them, by night they hunt us.

Asking our troops to stay in Iraq for another century, another decade, or even another day is asking too much.

You could say that we broke Iraq and that we need to fix it, but the truth should now be obvious: this country was broken long before we came in, and it will probably still be broken long after we leave.

We cannot expect our troops to uphold a corrupt government that is powerless to stop the cycle of bloodshed that has been running for more than 5 years now.

The United States armed forces is the most capable fighting machine in the history of our world, and they are meant for greater things than this. We cannot ask our brave men and women to hold on and wait for the Iraqis to get their act together and stop killing each other. That’s a job for Iraq, not for our troops.

I don’t think that it matters anymore what supposed reasons we went to war for. I think that whether you supported the war from day one, were dead set against it all the way, lost it somewhere between 2003 and now, or still believe in the mission, we can all agree that our troops have done an extraordinary service and should be rewarded for their efforts.

I can think of no greater reward for them than to bring them back home.

So call China and tell them to turn their fucking lights off.

Hillary is now trying to strong-arm Nancy Pelosi on her superdelegate position.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/27/2008-03-27_hillary_clintons_wealthy_pals_warn_nancy.html

This gives more credence to the growing chorus of voices who are joining the Republicans in calling the Clintons thugs and power-mongers.

To clarify my position on this issue: Hillary should not be forced to drop out of the race until somebody has enough delegates to win the nomination outright. You can’t expect her to drop out when the contest isn’t over yet. However, her increasingly nasty tactics while trying to secure the nod are really not good for her or the party.

Personally, I’m either writing in Ralph Nader or Ron Paul, so I don’t care. But if the popular vote decides that Obama is the better choice, then Hillary needs to just accept it without a wimper. Overturning the will of the people with superdelegates would be a disaster for democracy and might give the Republicans a guaranteed seat in the White House for another 30 years.

I didn’t think I would have so much material when I wrote the original post on this subject when the GOP fell in line behind Mccain when he got the nomination, but the Democrats have managed to surprise and disappoint yet again.

I could make this a weekly, or even daily running series, given how desperate the party seems to not win the presidency.

In previous installments: I said that one reason the Republicans always win is that they line up behind their candidate, even if they have major disagreements with the man or his policies. Of course this is partially due to a creepy hive mentality by the party faithful, but hey, it wins elections, so more power to them. Literally.  Also, I commented on the Democrats’ retarded nomination process and their alienation of Florida and Michigan, which could easily swing things into the red come November.

And now, the newest reason why the Republicans always win.

A new poll this week showed that if Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination, then 28 percent of Hillary’s supporters would rather vote for Mccain in the general election. If Hillary wins, then 19 percent of Obama’s would do the same.

Cu… wha??? Huh?

Let’s say that this is just idle threats during a heated part of the campaign. Nobody likes to lose. So let’s say that only half of these people would actually follow through on that threat and vote for Mccain in November. In the worst case scenario, that’s about 10 percent of the Democratic voters, which is MORE than enough to win the White House for the Republicans. (Nevermind the fact that Mccain is already ahead of both of them in head to head polls by several points at least.)

So, why are Democrats intent on shooting themselves in the foot? Sexism, perhaps. Racism, maybe. A thorough disgust with the party’s nominating process and disillunsionment with the party’s leadership? Probably.

But honestly, I don’t know.

The Republicans picked a (kind of) moderate war hero to lead them after a divisive draft dodger got the country stuck in a giant hole both at home and abroad. Meaning they have changed directions (at least in theory.) That’s clever. That’s called learning from your mistakes. It’s something that the Democratic party and voters should learn to do, if they ever want to see their guy or girl in the Oval Office again. Even if they figure out the only way to win is through a unity ticket, it may be too late. By August the GOP machine is going to be in full stride with all the momentum in the world.

The electoral college is bad enough and has cost the Democrats one election this decade already, it’s time that they completely revamped their voting rules and threw this superdelegate horse shit to the wind.

Where you get your news from will likely have a big impact on the way you perceive it. I really don’t know a great number of fellow political junkies or where they get their news. Personally, I steer away from TV and radio. The only news show I care for is the News Hour on PBS, and I watch that rarely at best. I’d like to take a moment to review the more prominent political magazines on the internet; which is where I get my news, analysis and opinions. This is the future of political grassroots communication.

I am not a lib and I am offended at the characterization. If you paid attention you’d see how critical I’ve been of the Democrats in this cycle. I am, like most Americans, a moderate. I am not registered to either party. I have no agenda. My stances on the issues are entirely devoid of an over-arching ideology.

Alright. Here are my major magazines, ranked in no particular order.

1. The Nation is the flagship magazine of the liberal media. It is well written, thoughtful, and hopelessly biased. I become more disenchanted with them every day, due partially to their blind support for Barack Obama and their repudiation of more serious progressive candidates. They are almost entirely hostile to religious ideas, which makes some of their holier-than-thous hard to swallow. But this is the place to go if you want to hear the latest lefty talking points and a bunch of mindless commentary.

2. The National Review: the magazine that began the conservative movement, the counterweight to the Nation in opinion. You will not find moderate Republican voices here. If you love the free market, support the troops, believe in “family” values and think Scalia isn’t a bad guy, you will find a home here.

3. The New Republic: This is a more moderate liberal magazine that also features some very good arts reviews. They have lately also become enamored with Barack, but still manage to balance things better than the others.
4. Real Clear Politics: This is the most comprehensive political news site out there: you will find polls, numbers, and commentary from all sides, while most of the articles they put out themselves lean to the hard right. If you can’t get enough of this stuff, make it your home page and you won’t be disappointed.

5. The American Conservative: you may be surprised to learn that this is by far my favorite political publication, Buchanan run though it may be. For the longest time I considered myself a Libertarian, and this magazine is one of the strongest voices of that movement that I’ve found. There are no neocons here. The magazine is critical of both Republicans and Democrats, and wishes for a return to a more reasonable government. It’s critical of all 3 major political candidates and their foreign policy ideas, and offers its own solutions. I highly recommend this to anyone who considers themselves independents, or old school conservatives. Sadly, they only update the site once every few weeks, but the content is well worth the wait.

There are of course, hundreds of others, but these 5 are where I get the majority of my information. I don’t care much for Daily Kos or Human Events.

My hope is that more people will decide to become informed through print rather than video or audio: it’s much easier to manipulate the truth through mediums that only require you to sit on your ass and not think about anything.

I’ve commented a few times on this Rush Limbaugh phenomenon, but I don’t think I’ve really expressed my feelings. In case you haven’t heard, Limbaugh called on his listeners to change party affiliation and vote for Hillary in Ohio and Texas because, apparently, he’s terrified of Barack Obama.

A lot of Republicans went out and did just that. The problem is that at least in Ohio, they engaged in voter fraud, which is a felony.

But forget for the moment that they broke the law. Let’s look at it from a strictly intellectual standpoint.

Democracy is great. It is so great in fact, that millions of Americans have died to protect it over the years, from the Revolutionary War, to Iraq today. Our country was founded on the notion that the private citizen was to hold the power, not a monarch or a select minority of rich elitists. The vote is our greatest gift and weapon against fascism.

The Republicans who call themselves good Americans and threw their votes away in an attempt to maintain power over the White House should be ashamed of themselves, because they’ve betrayed the very idea of democracy.

You have a chance to vote for the person who you want to be the most powerful man or woman in the world, you have a chance to shape the reality that we live in by exercising your voice honestly and openly. But the knuckleheads in Limbaugh’s audience decided it was more important to preserve Republican power than to engage in democracy. The urge to supress all political opposition regardless the consequences is called fascism, my friends. The political spectrum is not just about left and right; there are other things to take into account. The up and down struggle is between freedom and fascism.

 For example, you can be a liberal fascist, or a conservative fascist. An example of a liberal fascist could be Stalin, or Castro. An example of a conservative fascist could be Henry the 8th, or Dick Cheney. Forcing your own political agenda on the populace and supressing the opposition through fraud or violence is appealing to both the left and the right. This leads to massive disenfranchisement, and sometimes millions of people being killed.

There are freedom fighters on both sides of the aisle. Ron Paul is an example of a conservative who leans towards freedom, rather than fascism. If more liberals and conservatives got their views from reading rather than the radio or TV then no matter who gets nominated, we would be veering away from fascism. It’s frightening how much power one maniac with a radio show can wield in our society. Make up your own minds and vote based on your values, no matter what they are.

I have friends who are fighting in Iraq right now because they believe democracy is worth fighting for. But Rush Limbaugh and his ilk don’t seem to care, as they’re so willing to squander that sacrifice and throw away their votes. That kind of reckless disregard for American principles is not only voter fraud, it is treason.

Electability. I’ve never heard the word before more in my life. It’s actually not a word at all, but let’s not get into that.

I have been thinking about electability alot over the last few weeks, trying to answer a critical question in the Democratic primaries.

Hillary Clinton has generally won the big states, including New York, California, and Ohio. She has used this to claim that it proves Obama cannot win in large states, and therefore is more susceptible to losing to a Republican in the general election. I was sceptical of that claim, to say the least. Conventional wisdom would say that though he may have lost the contests in the primaries, Obama would still certainly pick up the big Democratic states in the general election, plus do better than Hillary would in the smaller, redder states, which would mean a much better chance of winning the popular vote come November.

There’s a reason why nobody trusts conventional wisdom, anymore.

I have been weighing this for some time, trying to come up with a real answer before I wrote about it. Today’s Real Clear polls finally gave me the answer I was looking for.

In a theoretical General election matchup between John Mccain and Barack Obama in Ohio, Mccain leads by 7 points. In Florida, he leads by 6.8 These are crucial battleground states that have secured the last two elections for the Republicans, (though you can argue whether 2000 was actually an election or not.) In the same contests, Mccain is a half a point behind Hillary in Ohio, and only 3 points ahead in Florida.

God bless Rush Limbaugh for being wrong about practically everything. Those hoping to get Hillary the nod because Obama is a tougher opponent in the GE are being proved very very wrong. These polls clearly show that in battleground states and large delegate states, Hillary Clinton has a clear edge over Barack.

Yes, Obama has a delegate lead that would be very tough for Clinton to overcome at this point, but to keep saying that Hillary needs to drop out for unity’s sake is unfair and unrealistic. The longer that Barack Obama is in the public eye, the more his magic will wear out. By the time the big election comes, it may not be nearly enough to defeat John Mccain.

So who’s unelectable now?

Comedian Jim Gaffigan on Easter:”Easter, the day Jesus rose from the dead, what should we do?”

“How bout eggs?”

“Well, what does that have to do with Jesus?”

“Alright. We’ll hide em.”

“I don’t follow your logic.”

“Don’t worry, there’s a bunny.”

…

I believe that on this day, a long time ago, Jesus Christ, the son of God, was risen from the dead.

When you become a Christian, every aspect of your life is supposed to change. The reason that you do any act in your day is to honor God. There is no compartmentalization. You cannot separate God from the rest of your life. This means that your belief influences your diet, your finances, your friendships, your personality, and your politics.

It seems to me that a great many people in this country have that confused. They think that God is supposed to fit into their political ideology. I don’t think he would agree. If you’re a Christian, your belief in God should inform your politics, not the other way around.

Historically, this has manifested itself through so-called “values voters.” These are people who vote for candidates based on their position on abortion and gay marriage. For the record, I agree with these people on those issues. But I think they’ve confused the letter of the law with the spirit of the lord.

Nothing offends me more than these same people who claim that God hates homosexuals. You may have seen some of them picketing at Heath Ledger’s funeral. These people obviously either fell asleep or weren’t paying attention during the sermon that commanded them to love thy neighbor. Then they go out and vote for a man mostly because they seem to hate homosexuals as well.

This demographic is changing. We’re seeing it all over the country for the last few years, starting with the mid-terms in 2006. Values voters decided for the first time in recent memory that the war in Iraq was the greater disaster than men sleeping with men or women sleeping with women. Sadly their votes were misplaced in handing the majority of Congress to a corrupt, inept, useless Democratic party, which has failed miserably in bringing the war to an end. However, this trend is going to continue, regardless of what happens in Iraq. Christians in this country are tired of having their votes taken for granted. You saw this in the primaries when they flocked to the candidacy of Mike Huckabee, rather than the party’s mainstream front-runners.

While I don’t condone it, I believe there are far more pressing issues than abortion in this country, and I believe I’m not alone. For too long our politics have been crippled by the same old, divisive issues that neither side is going to budge on. It’s time that the Christian voters in this country really shined a light on the things that are truly important to all of us.

After a recent post I was told that when I got older, I would learn to accept war, disease, and hate as inevitable. With all my might, I pray that the day never comes when I’m so “mature” that I give up in believing we can stop these things.

If Jesus were living today as a political pundit for MSNBC, I don’t believe he’d care too much about Obama’s pastor, Mccain’s age, or Hillary’s schedule. I don’t believe he’d be distracted by pointless allegations of racism, sexism, or ageism. I believe that he would tell us that it doesn’t matter who we vote for, as long as we remember him as we do it.

The latest polls show John Mccain with double digit leads over BOTH Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the general election. This is a dramatic change from just a week ago when Obama had a several point lead in a potential GE election. So what happened? The biggest story this week has been Obama’s Pastor making some very controversial remarks during a sermon.

Jeremiah Wright has a history of making extreme statements about American foreign policy. Here is some of what he said in a sermon after September 11:

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Wright said. “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

These comments didn’t make a big row at the time, but now that one of his flock is running for President, he is facing severe scrutiny, accusations of hating America, and racism, and for some reason Obama has had to defend himself from the same things.

You can say all you want about birds of a feather, but no man should be held accountable for what another says. Barack should not have to defend his faith or his beliefs because his pastor said some inflammatory things.

But are the things he’s saying really that far out of line? Were we not the first nation to use nuclear weapons? Do we not have a legacy of violent racism and imperialist foreign policy?

Apparently not, according to every media outlet in this country, who have all been weeping and crying foul since Wright’s comments were made public.

I believe this country had a noble beginning and purpose. I believe that America has been great and can be great once again, but I don’t believe in this blind nationalism that so many of us have gotten swept up in since the end of the second world war.

Why don’t you ask a native american how they feel about America’s legacy of greatness?

Why don’t you ask a woman how she feels about our promised equality for all men?

Why don’t you ask a kid with leukemia whose parents can no longer afford their treatments how they feel about our health care system?

Why don’t you ask an African American how they feel about the original Bill of Rights, which conveniently overlooked the problem of slavery?

It’s time we took the blinders off. Rev. Wright spoke to the people whose experience in this country hasn’t exactly felt warm or welcoming or anything resembling the words on the Statue of Liberty. I for one feel that he was right on target. Maybe that makes me an extremist or maybe that means I hate America. But maybe that means I can see that there’s another, darker side to our history and the every day reality of living here. If more of us could see what it’s like to be Poor, Black, Hispanic, Women, Asian, or Muslim in this country, then maybe we wouldn’t find his comments so shocking.