JFK: The Right Man at the Right Time - 3 Big Reasons

Today marks the somber 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas.

So much has been said in the media today and this week about JFK, Jackie and the fateful event, and I don't have anything to add on the crime other than I now think that while its pretty clear Oswald was the assassin...I still wonder who else was involved in setting it up. Lots and lots of questions on that.

But instead of getting into all of those theories and speculations, I'm going to take the opportunity of the anniversary to offer some thoughts in thanks that JFK was the president in the critical years of the early 1960s. Turns out, Kennedy was exactly the right person to be President at the exactly right time.

Think about it.

First, JFK had an active, curious intellect and a calm, cool demeanor. He also knew the real costs and sacrifices of war having served in WWII as a PT boat captain. And, as a result of his fortunate upbringing, he had a lot of experience traveling and seeing different parts of the world and meeting a wide variety of people. So, in Kennedy you had a worldly, wise, educated and leavened person as leader.

Next, remember who the Republican was who ran against JFK in 1960? That's right, then vice president Richard M. Nixon. Tricky Dick. Kennedy barely, barely won the election. So, if things had gone ever so slightly different, Nixon would have won. And in Nixon, you had an insecure person motivated by an "I'll show them who is tough around here" mentality who - as we learned later - also harbored racial prejudices. He did serve in the Navy during WWII as a supply and logistics officer, but did not see any combat.

Imagine if we had President Nixon during the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis and during key years of the civil rights movement. Yikes.This could have proven lethal for, potentially, millions and millions of people.

Think I'm nuts? I'll give you three big reasons why Kennedy was the right man at the right time, doing the right thing for the nation:

The Bay of Pigs. This was the covert operation to invade Cuba with an army of Cuban exiles that was backed, trained and funded by the U.S. via the CIA. It was a plan hatched under the Eisenhower administration and picked up by JFK that asserted that an anti-Castro army invading the island would spur a massive uprising by the Cuban people that would overthrow Castro. The CIA and U.S. military were 100 percent sure that the plan would work - so much so that the brand-new president took their word and gave it the go-ahead.

But, when the plan was unleashed and began to fail on the beaches, the Kennedy faced a decision point. Let the mission fail and avoid sparking off WW III or send in the U.S. military directly to ensure the success of the invasion and invite all the risks of Soviet reaction that may follow. He chose to not escalate to U.S. involvement. The invasion failed and it wasn't good for JFK's reputation domestically or internationally, but on the other hand...he did not set off a direct conflict with the Russians.

Meanwhile, I'll posit this...a President Nixon in 1961 would have been much, much more likely to double down on the invasion plan and send in the U.S. military. As a vicious anti-communist and someone eager to show he was a tough guy, he would have been quite tempted as a new president to "show everybody" what he was made of. And who knows where that would have led to. We'll never know.  But what we do know is that Kennedy - despite is unfortunately naiveté in believing the reflexive anti-communist leaders of the CIA - kept a cool head and did not let things escalate. While many would like to see JFK's actions as "weak," they actually proved correct in the end.

The Cuban Missile Crisis. If the Bay of Pigs was a significant point in the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis was THE pinnacle of confrontation and danger in that conflict. And once again, JFK proved to be just the right guy at just the right time.

Once it became known that the Soviets had installed nuclear missiles in Cuba, the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff urged - demanded - that an immediate air bombing campaign to eliminate the missile sites followed by a full U.S. invasion of Cuba was the only response possible. Such action would inevitably escalate with a Soviet response, likely first the takeover of West Berlin. From there, things would very likely get out of control fast in Cuba and Europe with the likelihood of full nuclear war very real.

As has been well documented, Kennedy did not acquiesce to the military demands as he did initially with the Bay of Pigs plan. Rather, he brought in a number of trusted, smart people in and related to his administration to quickly, calmly and rationally go through the options - ultimately settling on an overt blockade of Cuba and a behind-the-scenes dialog with the Soviet premier. While not without its risks, this strategy prevailed by showing the world the U.S. would not accept missiles in Cuba, while also secretly negotiating a way out with the USSR...which we now know was a deal in which the Soviets would remove their missiles from Cuba if the US removed its missiles in Turkey. The crisis de-escalated and we're all still around. Nuclear war avoided.

Meanwhile, assuming a President Nixon hadn't already got us all killed as a result of pursing a U.S. invasion of Cuba and Soviet reaction to the Bay of Pigs incident the year before, his personality would have put us all at risk again. With his drive to show how strong he was and how anti-communist he could be, and how he would not be out-toughed by the Soviet Premier, Nixon could very well have taken the military's lead and ordered the air strikes to take out the Russian missiles in Cuba. If tensions were high in the Bay of Pigs, the Missile Crisis was much more intense...with an almost assured response from the Soviets to be expected following bombings. And that would have at minimum meant some sort of clash with the Soviets up to and including nuclear war.

Civil Rights Movement. While all that business with the Soviets was going on, back home the Civil Rights movement was hitting a boiling point too. Sit-ins, marches, support from Freedom riders, non-violent protests and more had and continued to show the country just how racist and un-free many states (especially Southern states) were towards African Americans and other racial minorities. And many southern whites were all to pleased to add to the conflict by conducting church bombings, lynchings, cross burnings and so forth. These activities ratcheted up pressure on the Federal government to act - in the form of a Civil Rights Act to guarantee the rights of minorities and to protect those same minorities from harm. And, it presented the opportunity to not act in order to preserve racist culture.

Before becoming president and even in the initial part of his administration, Kennedy took a "go slow" approach to solving civil rights issues. However, largely spurred by his brother and Attorney General, Robert Kennedy, and pressure from Martin Luther King, Jr., JFK did move and decisively so at key times - moving the country critically forward on the issue of civil rights.

Perhaps the most famous incident was the conflict over the desegregation of the University of Alabama in the summer of 1963. Alabama governor George Wallace took a hard stand on not integrating the university and denying black students from enrolling - famously making his point by standing in the doorway of the administration building in a symbolic gesture to deliver on words from his own inauguration speech a few months earlier of "segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever." These actions and other related activities brought the issue to a head and provided the nation with a showcase for civil rights.

Ultimately, Kennedy decided to act. He called in the National Guard to ensure that black students could enroll. That was a HUGE move with a lot of risk for violence, social unrest and who knows what else. But JFK and RFK knew it was the right thing to do. And, on that same day...Kennedy went on TV to deliver an important speech on what he had done and why it was in the best interest of the nation. These two actions - calling in the National Guard and the speech - are largely credited with putting the Civil Rights Act on the fast track to adoption. And indeed, despite the murder of John Kennedy, that act was passed into law in 1964.

Now, compare that to a potential President Nixon in 1963. We know from audio tapes made by Nixon himself that he harbored racist feelings towards blacks, Jews and immigrant populations like Irish and Italians. For example, he said that blacks would "only strengthen the country 500 years form now, and only if the smart ones - frankly - inbred." He also is caught on tape calling African Americans "Negro bastards" and suggesting that "they want to live like dogs."

It is true that in his time as President, Nixon did do some things to further integration and set up certain affirmative action plans. However, these actions were well after the critical period where the direction was set on the issue. By the 1970s, he was basically just going with the flow with actions at least halfway motivated by electoral politics.

No, I believe that if presented with the hotbed of issues and critical decisions of the early 1960s, a President Nixon would not have acted. He would have declined to take the same actions as Kennedy did. I think he would instead of towed the "state's rights" and "go slow" mentality. This would have, at minimum, set back integration of schools in the south several years and at maximum touched of widespread violence and protest across the south or perhaps the nation.

So, once again...John F. Kennedy was the right man at the right time doing the right thing for the nation.

To finalize, on this somber anniversary, I think these three major events in the history of our country present a clear case that President Kennedy was exactly who we needed as leader in a three year period PACKED with danger and opportunity. His personality, skill, experience and leadership style were precisely what helped us through those times without thousands if not millions of people losing their lives. Sadly, it may be because of these decisive actions that some hated Kennedy to the degree of wanting him dead.

On this day, I'll celebrate what JFK did - that he acted - and what that has meant long-term for our country.

Thank you President Kennedy.

Presidents Day

It's Presidents Day 2013. I hope you have the day off!

In honor of the day, here are a few posts I wrote about U.S. Presidents in the past...

• My List of the 5 Best and 5 Worst U.S. Presidents
• Great Presidents Behaving Badly, Bad Presidents Behaving Good
• Far From a Great President - Ronald Reagan
• W Writes a Book

Ronnie Not As Great as So Many Want to Believe

The other day, one of my conservative friends posted a picture of Ronald Reagan with the following quote...

"It's time we reduced the federal budget and left the family budget alone."

And of course the person added some typical commentary about Regan being a great president and such.

Now, one could certainly argue over whether government spending (federal budget) should be reduced and/or if any changes need to be made to the tax code (family budget) should be made and how. Sure.

But, I think it absurd is holding up Ronald Regan as some sort of paragon of virtue or riotousness. I am constantly amazed that people still think he was a good president. And I KNOW today's conservatives would tar and feather the man as far, far to liberal for their Republican Party.

But anyway, set aside that Regan was AN ACTOR playing the role of president and that his actions while in office actually created many of our current day problems. If you want to boil Regan down to a quote, don't forget the following things he said...

"Facts are stupid things."

"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself."

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles."


"All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk."

"Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources."


"I can't remember" (repeatedly when asked about his knowledge of the Arms for Hostage scandal).
"What we have found in this country, and maybe we're more aware of it now, is one problem that we've had, even in the best of times, and that is the people who are sleeping on the grates, the homeless who are homeless, you might say, by choice."


"A tree's a tree. How many more do you need to look at?"




And no, these aren't things Ronnie said while trying to elicit a laugh or come across as a good guy. These were hard boiled comments that give you insight into just how little this guy had going on upstairs.
Oh, and here's another one for you: Reagan didn't even utter the word (or acronym) A.I.D.S until the last year of his second term.

Gas Prices and the Presidential Election

Four years ago I wrote about how gas prices would magically come down during the Presidential election cycle. You can see my posts HERE and HERE.

The premise of my posts at the time was that oil companies and the energy sector of our economy has enjoyed such spectacular and historical profits with Republicans in the White House that they would be willing to take a hit for a few months to help ease one very painful economic issue that most Americans ascribe to "the economy"...and therefore, in theory, lessen their likelihood to turn out to vote or to vote for Obama on the need for a better economy and more likely to be open to vote for McCain.

Based on my personal experience at my local gas pumps that year, I can say that I was right in my prediction about prices.

For the exact same reasons, I now predict that gas prices will rise steadily over the next several months and into prime time election season. To be clear...the energy sector wants a Republican as president for the major deregulation and massive tax breaks they believe a conservative will bring to their industry. Therefore, it benefits them for the electorate to have a reason to be mad at the Democratic incumbent and more likely to vote for the Republican alternative. Gas prices are such an ever day reality in virtually every Americans' life that a steady or steep  rise would really hurt. So, I think oil companies will find ways to raise prices during this election season.

Sure, you'll hear about the threat of a nuclear Iran, reduced refining capacity in the U.S. and general screwed up global economy as reasons. And yes, some of those things do have an impact on gas prices here in the U.S. But think about this: four years ago we were in "hot" wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the absolute depths of the economic crises...and prices at the pump when down!

No, what you need to do is compare all that international and infrastrcuture reasoning with the motivation of US energy companies to sustain record profit margins on a quarterly basis...and my opinion is you see the primary reason for gas prices going up now. It's a long term strategic play by big oil to do what they can to maximize the chances of a Republican winning the presidency...and more seats in Congress if possible.

So to close, gas prices at the local Shell station near my house in the Seattle area at $4.09 per gallon today, March 13, 2012. I'll check back with you in the early summer and then October to see where we're at and if I'm correct on my prediction.

Reactions to State of the Union and Response

A few reactions to the State of the Union address and the Republican response...

It was very informative to see the distinct Republican contingent sitting in stony silence when Obama talked about how Osama Bin Laden had been killed and when he spoke in favor of eliminating tax incentives for companies to offshore jobs to other countries.

The rest of the chamber was applauding, and I have to believe most Americans also are in favor of such radical notions of killing Bin Laden and eliminating tax breaks for companies to ship jobs overseas.

So, the Republicans sitting there by contrast in silence spoke volumes about their values. Think on that for a minute.

Then, in the Republican rebuttal they trundled out the supposed rational moderate of their party (notice he is not running for President, however) who proceeded to unpack the same old hypocritical, conservative BS where all of a sudden they are concerned about debt and "big government." People, while both parties are certainly owned by big business and certainly we all agree that huge debt is not good, the Republican Party presided over the crashing of our economy.

Quite literally, during their control of the House, Senate and Presidency, their prescription for the economy - low taxes for the rich and corporations, doubling down on oil as our energy source, and deregulation of most sectors - is the exact reason we're in our situation now. The Republicans are not credible....not. Dress it up as a "respectable" moderate all you want, but that guy is saying the same thing that Newt, Romney, Paul and Santorum are.

What they are credible on is the ability to take what they are guilty of and projecting it on their opponents. So, through them we get Obama as the debt creator, Obama the job killer, Obama the class warrior, Obama the creator of big government. Sure, Obama should have more balls, but these things are not true. But hey...just say it in your "rebuttal" and it starts being taken as truth.

In closing, I will repeat my questions...

• Who do you think will be the first and primary beneficiaries of a Republican presidency and Congressional control? Will it be the mother or father in a poor to middle class family who finally gets a job because somehow the magic of tax cuts for the rich unleashes a new wave of new jobs? 
• Will it be the elderly who will suddenly benefit from lower housing and drug costs because of the "unseen hand of the market" forces prices down following more deregulation? 
• Or, will it be the Wall Street bankers, energy companies and the upper class who suddenly get new tax breaks and less regulation on their businesses? 

I think we all know the answer. And we know this because WE JUST LIVED THROUGH IT over the past 10 years.

Know Your History: Labor Day

Most people associate the Labor Day holiday as a nice long weekend at the end of the summer - a chance at one last warm weather "harrah" with friends and family before the realities of Fall weather, school or work settle in.

However, at at time when the U.S. economy is in the dumper, corporations are laying people off and outsourcing jobs overseas, unemployment is at a 25 year high and people are working longer hours or multiple jobs just to get by, the realities of why Labor Day came to be are worth revisiting I think.

Here are three things to know about Labor Day in my opinion:

1) The first celebration of labor in the U.S. The first civic observation of labor in the United States happened in 1882 after American labor leader Peter McGuire witnessed celebrations of labor in Toronto, Canada earlier that year. McGuire organized a similar celebration in New York City complete with parades. From that point forward there were increasing numbers of cities and states recognizing labor with a special day or celebration - all usually in that early September time frame. However, it would be another 12 years before nationwide Labor Day came to be. To know why the did this, you need to know more about...

2) The Origins of the Labor Day holiday. As the economies of world modernized in the 1800s to become far more industrial, along with that came the need for workers to work in the factories, mills, printing presses, transportation and other key components of the economy. These jobs did not pay very well, but for many they represented a potential way forward for themselves and their families compared to farming - especially for the continuing waves of European immigrants coming to the U.S. during this time.

But here's the thing. There were no laws governing pay, hours worked, number of days a week worked, age of workers, safety of workers. Neither were there any benefits for workers other than their minimal pay, no social security, no Medicare, no weekend etc. The U.S. economy operated on an unregulated and "laissez fair" level that even most Americans who vote conservative today would be offended by I think. And, on top of that, you can imagine that captains of industry and the wealthy (and the politicians who they supported) were vehemently against giving workers any concessions whatsoever.

As you might imagine, this situation touched conflicts between labor and business. And when I say "conflicts" I mean pitched battles in the streets. People were hospitalized and killed as business-hired thugs and occasionally the US Army were deployed to stop strikes, marches or protests as workers did the one thing they could do - withhold their labor - as they sought some elements of a decent living.

One such clash that brought several decades of conflict to a head was the Pullman Strike in Illinois in 1894 in which 3,000-some railroad workers staged a walkout strike after railroad company management slashed their wages. The strike virtually stopping all railroad traffic in the United States west of Chicago. Between railroad company thuggery and labor union aggression in retaliation there were casualties on top of everything else as the conflict worsened. On the pretext that the strike hindered the delivery of the U.S. Mail, President Cleveland sent in the Army to settle things - and they did with more causalities following. Naturally, the railroad company got off scott free while the labor union leadership were taken to court.

In the aftermath President Cleveland sought to avoid further strife with labor and pushed through a bill establishing the first weekend in September as a national Labor Day holiday. The first one of which was in 1894.

3) Establishing Labor Day didn't really change much. OK, so great. Labor had one day a year to feel good about itself and be collectively recognized. Did this change the conditions under which working people had to persevere? No. All the same issues remained, as did business and government resolve to not give an inch. And that's why vicious conflicts between labor and management continued well into the 20th century.

Only the sad realities of the Great Depression, created in major part due to unregulated business and zero safety net for everyday Americans, could convince society and government to do the right thing and start legislating things like Social Security, workplace safety regulations, hourly limits and more. This is an agenda championed by President Franklin Roosevelt called The New Deal. Ten years later, President Truman attempted to reform the healthcare system to make in more equitable, and in the 1960s President Johnson established Medicare and Medicaid to help the poor and elderly. All of these things helped everyday working people far more than a single day off in early September. Many conservatives at the time called these things "communism" and predicted it would lead to the downfall of the country...and their conservative brethren have been trying to repeal these programs ever since.

So thereyou go...three things about Labor Day you may not have known. Born as an attempt by the government to appease a group of people it had just supprssed with the Army, the day is ideally a chance to reflect on how our economy relies on everyday working people...and, yes, an extra weekend day to say goodbye to summer.

CPAC Features Republican Would-Bes

The annual convention of CPAC - a gathering of the nation's leading conservative politicians, activist and though leaders - is happening this week.

Often, who attends and who speaks is a preview of who will be running for President in the next election cycle. For 2012, many conservatives may think that Obama and the Ds are ripe for picking off...and they might be right. But, they'll only be correct if they run the right candidate. And that's where it gets difficult for the Rs. They really don't have anyone compelling enough, with new ideas and without significant personal baggage to beat out Obama - at least in my opinion.

For example, here are some leading conservatives thought to be pondering a run at the White House who are speaking at CPAC this week and why I think they couldn't beat Obama:

• Newt Gingrich - way too abrasive, not very good looking, draft dodger and TONS of personal baggage such as leaving his first wife while she had cancer for another woman (and that's just to get things started).
• Mitt Romney - rich, generally considered good looking, but wow...no new ideas, flip-flopper galore and to top it off he is a very boring speaker - not inspiring at all. Oh, and he's Mormon. A lot of Americans won't vote for him based on that alone.
• Ron Paul - perhaps his message more than any other will ring through in these "tea partying" days, but at some point people will realize that when he says "limit the Federal government," he's literally talking about doing away with services millions of Americans rely on daily...and I don't think that'll fly.
• Michelle Bachmann - she's a pandering, megalomaniacal right wing nut job who would be EASILY exposed as a dangerous fraud.
• Haley Barbour - fat, boring and ran the Republican party during the Clinton years...when they were beaten twice. I don't see it happening. Seriously, a fat white southern good-old-boy vs. Obama. Barbour might win that race if it were for Mississippi governor, but not the President of the U.S.A.
• John Bolton - a scary authoritarian who you may remember as the white-moustached, strange haircut guy Bush appointed as the U.S. ambassador to the UN. You think Cheney was not militant enough? You think Bush didn't spend enough on defense? You think Wall Street and big companies deserve bigger profits and less regulation? This is your man. And you will lose to Obama.
• Rick Santorum - nut job from Pennsylvania. Not electable.

Interestingly enough, Sara Palin declined to attend this year and a top speaking spot that would have been hers if she appeared. It was something about her not wanting to "sanction" CPAC participation of a gay Republican group by appearing and speaking. Nice. But any way you slice it, I just don't see Palin winning against Obama. To the contrary, I suspect the Obama people are openly cheering for Palin to run and get the nomination for the Republican Party.

Sure, there are some others who may run (Hukabee and Pawlenty for example)...and sure who knows what will unfold between now and election day 2012. But hey, from the clowns they have lined up so far, I just don't see it happening - no matter what you think of Obama at this point.

"Repeal the President?" Really? So Says One Representative

Remember a while back when I predicted that the new Republican majority in the House would attempt to repeal the healthcare reform law AND attempt to impeach Obama? Also remember how I suggested that Republicans might work these two maneuvers hand-in-hand?

If you don't remember, my original post is HERE.

We now know that part one of my prediction is well under way given events in the House this week. The Republican majority indeed did vote to repeal the healthcare law. For a quick review of the big time B.S. arguments the Rs are using against the healthcare law, see this article from the Washington Post HERE. Meanwhile, the Democratically controlled Senate has said it will never bring repeal up, so it's likely to die right there as a symbolic vote by House Republicans. Or is it?

I ask because I find the following comments from Representative Bachmann (R-MN) this week from the floor of the House very interesting and a bit scary:

"This is not symbolic, this is why we were sent here and we will not stop until we repeal a president and put a president in the position of the White House who will repeal this bill, until we repeal the current Senate, put in a Senate that will listen to the American people and repeal this bill."

Article HERE.

"Repeal the president?" Put a president "in the position of the White House" who will repeal this bill? Really? What's she talking about? Is she talking about an extended campaign to elect Republican majorities into the Senate and the White House? Or, is she talking about something more aggressive?

Sure, Bachmann is a blow hard nut job. But, remember, the House is the body that can initiate and prosecute articles of impeachment against the president. They did it last time a Democrat was president (and he was in his second term...not even a threat to win re-election like Obama is now) and I don't think we should underestimate what they're capable of this time around.

All I'm saying is, hey, they DID vote to repeal the healthcare law and they DID impeach a Democratic president last time they had the opportunity. We may be seeing the beginnings of the later scenario playing out again. Something to think about.

A Little Ammo for Those Pre-Election Conversations

With the election coming up in just under two weeks, many people will be making up their minds how they are going to vote. While most probably are not influencable, there may be some people who are even as late as election day itself.

Look, my feeling is that turning the Federal government back over to the very same people who ran our nation into the ground over the past 10 years - and that's what we're talking about when we ponder a change in leadership in Congress - is exactly the wrong thing to do.

From what I can tell, most Americans have the political attention span of a gnat on speed, so many may not remember that virtually every single one of our economic problems were designed, created, manifested and grew to disaster proportions under leadership of the last administration and under conservative rule of Congress.

If you feel the same way, below are a few tips for conversations you may have between now and election day with people who may be leaning towards voting us back to the stone age, but perhaps haven't put too much thought into it yet.

• Note - if the person you are talking to is firmly convinced, then nothing you say will change his or her mind or make them think any differently than they already do. Ain't gonna happen. You might want to jab a little for fun, but don't expect to change that person's mind.
• Note - if you are a conservative and reading this, I understand if you disagree. You may want to skim this quick (or just ignore it) and then tune into Fox News for your fix.

OK, here are some tips for potential topics that may come up in your political discussions over the next few days...

THEY SAY:
I'm voting for CANDIDATE X from the Tea Party because we just need to clean house in Congress. Throw the bums out. Send a message.

YOU SAY:
Yeah, things are pretty messed up in DC. That's for sure. But you know, just voting for someone to kick others out may not always be the best thing. I mean, you gotta consider who you are voting for as well. Seems like a lot of the Tea Party candidates have some pretty "out there" ideas like getting rid of Social Security and Medicare. And I'm not even going to get into some of the wackier things some of these Tea Party candidates indulge in (dressing up like a Nazi, being homophobic but collecting rent on a gay nightclub). Just saying, but I'd check out the candidates you're voting for more if I were you.

THEY SAY:
Government is too big. We need to reduce it's size and get it off the backs of Americans. That's how I'm voting.

YOU SAY:
If that's how you feel, I can't see how you'd want to vote Republican. The U.S. federal government grew to its largest size ever in terms of spending and number of people employed during the six years when Republicans ran the entire show - President and Congress Do you really want to hand over control of the government back to the people who made it so big?

THEY SAY:
I'm voting for fiscal responsibility. Our budget deficit is going to kill our economy and our childrens' future.

YOU SAY:

Yes, I agree 100 percent. I also agree that getting the budget balanced and back into the black is the right thing to do. I assume then, that you'll be voting Democrat, right? I mean...hey, lets face facts. The record budget deficits we now have are a direct result of Republican leadership over the past decade and longer. Reduced taxes for the wealthy and big business, massive deregulation of markets, free trade policies, along with increased government spending and financing two wars are all key moves made by Republican Congresses and the Bush White House. We're still trying to dig out from that. You want to give them control again? I say no. And hey, guess who led us out of the last debt crisis and into the back - Bill Clinton.

THEY SAY:
I'm voting for the Tea Party because our freedom and liberty are under attack. We need to get those back.
YOU SAY:
I am not sure I understand? The U.S. economy and culture are the freest in the entire world. Just so I know where you're coming from better, what are you now no longer able to do freely that you want back?

THEY SAY:
I'm voting conservative (or Republican or Tea Party) because of (insert moral, religious or "family values" issue here).

YOU SAY:
I can tell you're passionate about this. But, when was the last time a conservative or Republican controlled government actually delivered on your issue - or any moral values issue? Abortion is still legal. We still have firm separation of church and state. Gay marriage is still legal in a number of states and if anything the tide is going towards more of it. Same with assisted suicide. Seems like the Republicans or conservatives use issues like yours to get your vote and then never deliver. You know...they're using you.

NOTE: you are not going to change a person's mind on their moral issue, but you may someone to think twice about voting for the same type of candidates over and over.

THEY SAY:
I am just not seeing the change that I voted for in 2008, so I am not going to vote. It clearly makes no difference.

YOU SAY:
Healthcare reform has been passed, a stimulus to the economy has helped stabilize it and stave off worse unemployment, the auto industry has been saved and we're starting to dial back our presence in Iraq. Sure, there is more to do and no it's not as fast as I'd like either. But, not voting will basically hand the government back over to the very people who wrecked us before. Not a good move in my book.

THEY SAY:
Unemployment is still really high and Obama and Congress have done nothing to fix it.

YOU SAY:
Yeah, I'm disappointed too. But I think it's wrong to blame Obama. I mean, he came into office with high unemployment and an economy just about to go down the tubes. He's done a pretty good job of stabilizing the economy and unemployment rates in under two years.

More important than any of that is the fact that jobs are created by businesses - not the government. To me, it seems like businesses are not innovating to grow - and with it hire people - but rather just finding new ways to lower costs by outsourcing or reducing staff. And, using the recession as an excuse to keep their now lighter employee base small. Maybe it would be good to have a government that encourages domestic innovation and employment.

Tragedy for Poland

Thoughts with the people of Poland and the families of those killed at least 96 people in an airplane crash today. Passengers included the nation's president and a number of their elected officials and military command.

I noted that the airplane they were traveling in was a 26 year old Russian airliner. I've always had a phobia of flying on Russian built airliners as they seem to crash so often...and sadly this just drives the point home once again.

Goodbye to the Worst U.S. President Ever

So here we are...the last full day of George W. Bush as president of the U.S. of A. 

Who knows what the next few years hold. Hope resides primarily in the vision and abilities of one Barack Obama. 

But, before the revision, the spin and the B.S. starts in full about Bush - because for sure it will come - I wanted on the last day of the Bush presidency to touch on a few things to consider in judging the job "W" did in running this country. Any ONE of the following would be grounds for considering Bush the worst president in U.S. history in my book, and there are PLENTY more examples one could add. But, below are five to ponder. I've listed these catastrophic examples of Bush's poor leadership in particular because I think they have had a direct effect on people in this nation, and certainly others:

1) U.S. attacked. The worst single attack on the American homeland by foreign powers in our nation's history occurred on Bush's watch. Think about this. The worst attack ever. Sure, Republicans say Bush "protected" America for seven years straight, but they always fail to remember that the 9-11 attacks  and all the deaths they caused happened on his watch despite clear warnings the president and his team received in advance. Literally historically poor leadership. By the way, the revisionism is already started. The other day in downtown Seattle, I saw a big billboard that said, "President Bush. Thank you for keeping us safe." 

2) Economic disaster. As an inevitable result of the "trickle down," rig the system for the rich, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the spectacular de-regulation of financial, energy and industrial sectors...not to mention an anti-union, outsource-friendly and "free trade" policy...this president and his party aided and abetted THE single worst economic crisis in this country's history other than The Great Depression  - so far as we know yet. High unemployment rates, skyrocketing costs for education, massive home foreclosures, increasing homelessness, more people without healthcare, record deficits (aren't Republicans supposed to be fiscally conservative?), a historically weak dollar and no hope for improvement. Thanks a-hole.

3) Needless war. Yes, most Americans would agree - and I do too - that we needed to go into Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden and the people who orchestrated the 9-11 attacks. But, that had zero to do with Iraq. Bush and Cheney "worked' the American public, the intelligence agencies and the U.N. to get a war started against Saddam predicated on a combination of "daddy issues" for Bush, trumped up evidence and "money making opportunities" for Cheney and the crowd he runs with. The result? Thousands of U.S. dead and wounded, not to mention a much higher toll for Iraqi's. Lets also not forget the war has squandered our Federal budget on Iraq rather than using it to either going after Al Qaida or spending it on domestic priorities. Our reputation around the world has taken a huge hit. There has been  massive grift by U.S. defense contractors. And perhaps the topper...we still haven't killed Bin Laden and shut down his organization, but Bush's decisions have alienated an entire region of the world against us. Want more terrorists? Bush helped create a whole generation of them. 

4) Monumental cronyism. This administration appointed buddies and cronies to high positions and the American public paid the price. This is best exhibited in the whole Hurricane Katrina fiasco in which Bush buddy and horse breeding association guy "Brownie" was in charge of...well, fucking up big time the response to the storm and it's aftermath. This ended up costing some people their lives, and others their livelihoods. And, I suspect there are unknowable millions that have gone to waste, fraud and abuse through Bush's appointments as well. 

5) Environmental incompetence. What a missed opportunity! At the very moment our country could use a transition to a "green" economy and all the historic economic and health benefits this could have brought to the U.S., Bush and company looked backward and short term instead of forward and long term. And what is the result? A tragic, and perhaps nationally fatal, missed opportunity to transition our economy, preserve the global environment and keep our edge on the rest of the world. 

Yes, there are lots of other things beyond these five examples that one could cite as evidence of the total and complete failure of the Bush presidency. Indeed. But I think these handful really tell the story. 

To summarize, at a critical moment in our history when we needed exactly the right leader at the right time, we got (and really, also chose and accepted) the exactly wrong guy and the wrong time in Bush. And for this, our nation is paying a heavy, heavy price that it will take decades to reverse. And for that, George W. Bush will go down as the worst president we've ever had.

I believe history will judge Bush harshly too. We can only hope wiser, more competent and leaders with the interests of all Americans prevail over the next 10-15 years.

Tomorrow, it's, "Welcome President Obama!"

But for at least one more day, it's "F-you George Bush!"

Fraud About Fraud

In the 2000 and the 2004 presidential elections there were - to say the least - major questions about voters being turned away at the polls and purging of voters off the voter roles in key states...all of it conveniently occurring in districts likely to vote Democratic and in key battleground states (Florida and Ohio) run by Republican administrations. Hmmm. Guess who ended up winning those states? Right. Bush.

Conservatives do this in key districts because lower turnout favors their candidates, and if they can manage to get the "right" type of voter from their perspective to not have their vote counted (i.e. minorities) they stand an even better chance of winning. Problem is, this is pretty un-American and definitely not "country first" behavior. More KKK-like behavior. And, as a kicker...these incidents were not investigated because, guess again...who do you think runs those districts and states? Right again. Republicans. So, they don't investigate "their own." This was especially true in 2000 as Bush's brother was the governor of Florida.

Anyway, in 2000, 2004 and ever since, conservative groups have tried to "muddy the waters" to help minimize their pretty obvious disruption of elections by asserting that Democrats have systematically have perpetrated voter fraud by trying to get bogus voters registered so more votes can be cast for Democratic candidates. As in, hey, they're doing crazy stuff too!

Mind you, there have been no findings of "voter fraud" in places charged by conservatives. But hey, little things like facts don't stop "true believer" conservatives. And, the few among the American public who actually do pay attention to news and politics are unclear on exactly what's happening and just kinda give up trying to figure out who is to blame...or they feel good enough to blame the other party.

Now, this election year conservatives are doing it again but smarter. Instead of just their own voter suppression activities along with assertions of voter fraud, conservatives are now proactively planting voter fraud cases to set up the possibility of contesting close elections in battleground states later. 

A good overview of what's happening now is here. 

And here.

The idea for them is to raise the question of voter fraud in key districts of key states that are expected to be close on election day. In my opinion, to get all this going I think conservative groups may be actually manufacturing and submitting the false forms that are submitted to liberal voter registration groups. 

At any rate, if certain state races for president do turn out to be close, they can go back and say, "see, it's voter fraud by Democratic-leaning organizations" and make their legal and political case that certain large blocks of votes are not counted...or are at least taken out of the official tally while they are questioned or examined. In a close election, that could very conceivably give them room to declare victory in those districts and states.

And if the election is close but they are denied none the less, conservatives can again use the "muddy the waters" strategy to shuck the blame again.

So, how about this...how about we not make this a close election?

McMain: Bad Judgement on Social Security and Regulation

OK, here's one for you...

You know how the stock market has been in freefall this week?

What if Bush, McCain and other like-minded Republicans had been successful in privatizing Social Security back in 2005 and 2006 - moving assets of the program into the stock market as they wanted to do?

How many people across America would have seen their means of living evaporate in one week with no certainty it will be made back?

Luckily a more realistic coalition of Democrates and level headed Republicans prevented that from happening.

Here's another one for you...

What's the one thing that's turning things around starting today with the big market rally? Yes, governent regulation. And which of the two Presidential candidates is a lifelong proponent of extensive de-regulation of markets (including financial markets) that set the table for this big problem? Yes, John McCain.

Both of these situations are more clear examples of bad judgement by McCain - bad judgement that we can avoid by not voting for him in 2008.

Obama Needs to Act Now - Or Lose

Somebody needs to get to Obama, look him in the eye and tell him...

The election will be won or lost RIGHT NOW - in the next two weeks. Not Nov. 4.

The Republican convention effectively wiped out Obama's voice in this election and re-directed the discourse from a referendum on failed leadership of McCain, Bush and the Republicans and the need for fundamental change to "isn't Sara Palin great and you know...John McCain was a POW."

Seriously, Obama should have a "change policy of the week" for the next six weeks and harp on those sequentially in key states where it's close right now and in the media...culminating in the first debate where he can re-harp on these ideas and challenge McCain for having none. During the next few weeks, he should also have Biden, Clinton (both of them), Howard Dean and other prominent Democrats go aggressively negative on McCain/Palin's record.

That needs to happen now or the race will slip away. We've seen this movie before. Without direct, timely and aggressive action, at best this race will end up being a nail biter on election day. And we all know what happens when there is a nail biter of an election.

Facts Mean Nothing

Unemployment hit 6.1 percent this week. 

It was just announced that the Federal budget deficit doubled over the past year.

Our country has lost 605,000 jobs since January.

These are predictable outcomes of eight years of Republican Presidency and 12 years of Republican control of Congress over the past 14 years.

These things have real impact on everyday, regular, middle class Americans.

But hey, never mind all that! The media and Republicans say, "Look over here. Did we mention that Sara Palin is the VP candidate for McCain...and isn't she interesting."

And about half of America laps it up and is ready to vote for more of the same.

Can you tell I'm not happy with the way this thing is going?