My girlfriend, Denise teaches at Newton High School in New Jersey. Her students are by no means poor on the level inner city teachers might be used to but they are not well off either. Their parents are, for the most part, blue collar workers. They do not go on many vacations, they do not drive new fancy cars. They are, in short, living a life which is typically American.
But, the America her students’ parents inherited and the one they will inherit are two very different things. America is no longer the promised land or, perhaps more appropriately, America is no longer the land of milk and honey. It is, in fact, milk that brought up a conversation Denise and I just had about how dire a situation her students are going to find themselves in.
“If you have kids, they are drinking milk with every meal. And, people can no longer afford to buy milk”. This is what Denise said to me, and she is right. According to a story in the New York Daily News, milk prices have gone up 36% since last winter. The average price of a gallon of milk is $4.31. The wages of a working class family have not increased 36% since last winter and yet these families are supposed to be able to pay for gasoline, mortgages, car insurance, health insurance, and milk!
So, what happens to the kids who Denise teaches? Kids who should have the choice to go to college, or to go to trade school, or to join their Dad in his field. They enlist. The answer to all McCain’s prayers. Several weeks ago I posted a blog which asked where the soldiers to continue the war in Iraq and go to Afghanistan and Iran were going to come from. Now I have my answer. Prices have gotten so high and politicians so far removed that many American families find their children, who are just now coming of age, caught between battlefields and the streets.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
THE PARTY IS OVER
The theme of the latest Obama rally was party unity. What he said was that he is sure that in the end Hillary Clinton will support whatever the Democrats decide.
Well…Barack Obama is far more diplomatic then I am. When Florida and Michigan opted to hold their primaries before the Iowa Caucus they, and more importantly the Democratic Candidates for President, were well aware of the fact that their delegates would not be counted in deciding the final outcome of the primary election. And so, in the interest of supporting the parties’ decision Obama had his name taken off the ballots in these states. Again, there was no reason not to do this. In fact, it would have made sense if all of the candidates had done this.
So, Hillary beats Obama in Florida and Michigan. Again, his name wasn’t on the ballot so her beating him means about as much as the fact that she beat you and I in those states. (That is assuming your name, like mine and Senator Obama’s, was not on the ballot.)
And so the race goes on. But then Hillary starts to fall behind in the overall delegate count. So, all of sudden it is imperative that the delegates from Florida and Michigan be counted. And as of this past weekend she has gotten her wish. The problem is Obama is getting many of those delegates. He is, in the words of Hillary’s campaign manager, “stealing them”.
And so as the Associated Press reported last Friday, Hillary has reserved the right to appeal the decision about the number of delegates assigned to each candidate at the convention.
Now, let’s talk about party unity! After tomorrow’s primaries Obama may well have the delegates needed to carry the nomination and yet it will still come down to the convention.
But wait, you say, isn’t it only fair that since Hillary has won the popular vote (which she claims to have done) that she get a chance at the nomination? The answer is a resounding NO! The first problem is that she may not have won the popular vote. We don’t know the exact number of people who voted for her versus who voted for Senator Obama in some of the caucuses. And, even if she did carry more of the popular vote nationally that is because she was running in two states in which (for fear of sounding repetitive) his name was not on the ballot. But these are secondary points. The real problem with her claim is that she knew going into the primary that the winner is the person who carries the most delegates and that, assuming he is not totally blown out of the water tomorrow, is Barack Obama.
She has already fought against the parties’ decision not to count two states now she is fighting against the way the winner is decided. She seems to feel she should be elected based on divine right not based on party rules which were established long before this election cycle.
She is so intent on winning the nomination at any cost that she is completely oblivious to the fact that she is tearing apart the party. Indeed, John McCain, despite an economic policy which threatens to bury the country and a war policy which guarantees the unnecessary death of thousands more, can just sit back and watch the Democrats destroy themselves.
Well…Barack Obama is far more diplomatic then I am. When Florida and Michigan opted to hold their primaries before the Iowa Caucus they, and more importantly the Democratic Candidates for President, were well aware of the fact that their delegates would not be counted in deciding the final outcome of the primary election. And so, in the interest of supporting the parties’ decision Obama had his name taken off the ballots in these states. Again, there was no reason not to do this. In fact, it would have made sense if all of the candidates had done this.
So, Hillary beats Obama in Florida and Michigan. Again, his name wasn’t on the ballot so her beating him means about as much as the fact that she beat you and I in those states. (That is assuming your name, like mine and Senator Obama’s, was not on the ballot.)
And so the race goes on. But then Hillary starts to fall behind in the overall delegate count. So, all of sudden it is imperative that the delegates from Florida and Michigan be counted. And as of this past weekend she has gotten her wish. The problem is Obama is getting many of those delegates. He is, in the words of Hillary’s campaign manager, “stealing them”.
And so as the Associated Press reported last Friday, Hillary has reserved the right to appeal the decision about the number of delegates assigned to each candidate at the convention.
Now, let’s talk about party unity! After tomorrow’s primaries Obama may well have the delegates needed to carry the nomination and yet it will still come down to the convention.
But wait, you say, isn’t it only fair that since Hillary has won the popular vote (which she claims to have done) that she get a chance at the nomination? The answer is a resounding NO! The first problem is that she may not have won the popular vote. We don’t know the exact number of people who voted for her versus who voted for Senator Obama in some of the caucuses. And, even if she did carry more of the popular vote nationally that is because she was running in two states in which (for fear of sounding repetitive) his name was not on the ballot. But these are secondary points. The real problem with her claim is that she knew going into the primary that the winner is the person who carries the most delegates and that, assuming he is not totally blown out of the water tomorrow, is Barack Obama.
She has already fought against the parties’ decision not to count two states now she is fighting against the way the winner is decided. She seems to feel she should be elected based on divine right not based on party rules which were established long before this election cycle.
She is so intent on winning the nomination at any cost that she is completely oblivious to the fact that she is tearing apart the party. Indeed, John McCain, despite an economic policy which threatens to bury the country and a war policy which guarantees the unnecessary death of thousands more, can just sit back and watch the Democrats destroy themselves.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Hillary Must Go!
Over the last 8 years there has been no end to the lists of stupid things President George W. Bush has said. They range from comments on Iraq to comments on campaigning to comments on his personal life. Suffice it to say it makes Dan Quayle’s inability to spell the name of everybody’s favorite tuber look like small potatoes.
And yet, not even the best of the Bushisms can rival Hillary Clinton’s response to being asked by the Sioux Argus Leader editorial board why she is not listening to the calls for her to drop out of the race, "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it."
That’s right, she isn’t dropping out because there’s always that possibility that Obama will be assassinated and then, won’t we be glad she stayed in?
Of course, she has apologized. Her exact words were, "I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever."
So, the only question I am left with is, what exactly was her intention? How is it that one can non-offensively use the assassination of a past Presidential Candidate to point out that a current Presidential Candidate may suffer a similar fate?
The fact of the matter is that if Hillary Clinton was simply trying to reference past primaries that have come down to the last couple of months then she could have talked about Carter or Roosevelt. To have had the thoughtlessness and bad taste to talk about Bobby Kennedy’s assassination as anything other then a horrible moment in American history is so despicable and offensive as to be the final point in proving that Hillary Clinton is neither mature enough nor enough in touch with the American people to make her at all a viable candidate for President.
And yet, not even the best of the Bushisms can rival Hillary Clinton’s response to being asked by the Sioux Argus Leader editorial board why she is not listening to the calls for her to drop out of the race, "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it."
That’s right, she isn’t dropping out because there’s always that possibility that Obama will be assassinated and then, won’t we be glad she stayed in?
Of course, she has apologized. Her exact words were, "I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever."
So, the only question I am left with is, what exactly was her intention? How is it that one can non-offensively use the assassination of a past Presidential Candidate to point out that a current Presidential Candidate may suffer a similar fate?
The fact of the matter is that if Hillary Clinton was simply trying to reference past primaries that have come down to the last couple of months then she could have talked about Carter or Roosevelt. To have had the thoughtlessness and bad taste to talk about Bobby Kennedy’s assassination as anything other then a horrible moment in American history is so despicable and offensive as to be the final point in proving that Hillary Clinton is neither mature enough nor enough in touch with the American people to make her at all a viable candidate for President.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
THE FALLOUT FROM WEST VIRGINIA
This past Tuesday Hillary Clinton won a resounding victory in West Virginia where she beat Obama by a margin of 2 to 1. The race was billed by the Clinton camp as proof that Obama could not carry working-class whites and as a result could not hope to beat Senator McCain in a General Election.
Obama’s loss begs two questions: Does it make sense for him to be at the top of a Democratic ticket? And, if he is at the top, would it make sense for Hillary to be the second name on the ticket as she clearly can carry the blue collar vote?
The first question is easy to answer. And the answer is, yes, it absolutely makes sense. Yes, Obama lost West Virginia by 41 points. However, West Virginia is the only state or common wealth to vote where that has been the case. Clinton’s victory in Pennsylvania was, by most counts, less then 10 points and, more recently, her win in Indiana was by less then 6 points. Obama has carried Massachusettes, Georgia, and North Carolina (to name a few) by at least 15 points a piece, and he carried Illinois by more then 50 points.*
As far as whether or not he is as capable of carrying the blue collar vote as she is, I think, again, that is a yes. Before the race was down to Obama and Clinton, John Edwards was carrying a large percentage of the working class and, Edwards has just endorsed Obama.
Suffice it to say Hillary’s victory in West Virginia is by no means reason to think Obama is not the stronger of the two candidates.
Then, there is the question of whether an Obama-Clinton ticket makes sense?
The day after Obama’s victory in North Carolina he went on Anderson Cooper’s show and he said that he thinks that Clinton would be a very capable Vice-President and it would be a mistake for any Democratic Candidate to not have her on their short list of possible V.Ps. However, with the primary not being over it does not make sense for him to answer that question.
Having said that (and it is an important point) I go back to the fact that Edwards has endorsed Obama. But there is more, an average of the Susquehanna, Rasmussen, and Quinipiac polls show that Obama would beat McCain by 5 points in Pennsylvania, one of the states that Hillary claimed victory in because of her ability to carry the working class.
5 points, this long before the General by no means gaurantees Obama the state. However, it does give him some room in choosing a VP. Hillary could very well bring in a percentage of the blue collar voters who otherwise might stay home. But Edwards might bring in that same population. And then, there are people like Biden who bring a great deal of experience on foreign relations issues to the ticket.
I think it is to early to say that a Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton would be either a plus or a minus. However, if it is going to be an issue which continues to be discussed, and it will undoubtedly be then it is important that we look at more then the issue of who can bring in the working class.
Obama’s loss begs two questions: Does it make sense for him to be at the top of a Democratic ticket? And, if he is at the top, would it make sense for Hillary to be the second name on the ticket as she clearly can carry the blue collar vote?
The first question is easy to answer. And the answer is, yes, it absolutely makes sense. Yes, Obama lost West Virginia by 41 points. However, West Virginia is the only state or common wealth to vote where that has been the case. Clinton’s victory in Pennsylvania was, by most counts, less then 10 points and, more recently, her win in Indiana was by less then 6 points. Obama has carried Massachusettes, Georgia, and North Carolina (to name a few) by at least 15 points a piece, and he carried Illinois by more then 50 points.*
As far as whether or not he is as capable of carrying the blue collar vote as she is, I think, again, that is a yes. Before the race was down to Obama and Clinton, John Edwards was carrying a large percentage of the working class and, Edwards has just endorsed Obama.
Suffice it to say Hillary’s victory in West Virginia is by no means reason to think Obama is not the stronger of the two candidates.
Then, there is the question of whether an Obama-Clinton ticket makes sense?
The day after Obama’s victory in North Carolina he went on Anderson Cooper’s show and he said that he thinks that Clinton would be a very capable Vice-President and it would be a mistake for any Democratic Candidate to not have her on their short list of possible V.Ps. However, with the primary not being over it does not make sense for him to answer that question.
Having said that (and it is an important point) I go back to the fact that Edwards has endorsed Obama. But there is more, an average of the Susquehanna, Rasmussen, and Quinipiac polls show that Obama would beat McCain by 5 points in Pennsylvania, one of the states that Hillary claimed victory in because of her ability to carry the working class.
5 points, this long before the General by no means gaurantees Obama the state. However, it does give him some room in choosing a VP. Hillary could very well bring in a percentage of the blue collar voters who otherwise might stay home. But Edwards might bring in that same population. And then, there are people like Biden who bring a great deal of experience on foreign relations issues to the ticket.
I think it is to early to say that a Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton would be either a plus or a minus. However, if it is going to be an issue which continues to be discussed, and it will undoubtedly be then it is important that we look at more then the issue of who can bring in the working class.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Pledged Delegates, Super Delegates, and Time Magazine
On Tuesday we saw Hillary Clinton get trounced by Obama in North Carolina and then win by an incredibly narrow margin in Indiana.
At the end of the day the delegate count was: Obama 1866 (1591 Pledged Delegates and 275 Super Delegates) and Clinton 1697 (1426 Pledged Delegates and 271 Super Delegates.)
We, and more importantly the candidates and their campaigns, can take several lessons from this. The first, and perhaps the most important, is that Rev. Wright’s constant appearances in the media did not hurt Obama. To the contrary, Obama reacting in an honest manner seemed to have helped him. Therefore if the Wright connection was something that either Clinton or McCain planned on making any further use of they will need to find some other negative point. Or, God forbid, run on their own merits.
Also, the primary showed how the voters, or at least a large percentage of them, react to Clinton’s purposed Gas Tax Holiday. Indeed it does not take a Rocket Scientist or, for that matter, a High School Teacher to recognize the real risk in her plan. Leading up to the “Holiday” gas companies would raise the prices of gas. So, there is a strong possibility that the Holiday would end up costing the average consumer, not helping them.
And so Obama’s campaign marches on in much the same style as it has for the past 15 months. Hillary, however, is looking at some changes to her camp. She needs to stop running negative ads, again, they don’t work. She needs to concentrate twice as hard on getting her constituents to the polls, she needs to keep those Super Delegates who support her advocating in Congress for her. She has a long road ahead.
Yes, it is a long road but it is not an impossible one to traverse (need I remind you that many thought she should drop out before New Hampshire and she certainly proved them wrong there). What makes this road even more passable is a media that has already given the Primary to Obama.
Time Magazine is the biggest offender having published a cover story announcing, And The Winner Is…with a big picture of Obama. Obama is winning, he is not the winner. He recognizes this fact but if his supporters do not then Hillary may yet pull out the nomination. If Obama’s supporters put so much faith in Time Magazine that they don’t show up at the polls for these last few contests then the tides could change.
Perhaps, I am preaching to the choir but still, it is worth mentioning, the media can be overly presumptuous and they can end up doing far more harm then good in there false assurance that this primary is over.
See you at the polls.
At the end of the day the delegate count was: Obama 1866 (1591 Pledged Delegates and 275 Super Delegates) and Clinton 1697 (1426 Pledged Delegates and 271 Super Delegates.)
We, and more importantly the candidates and their campaigns, can take several lessons from this. The first, and perhaps the most important, is that Rev. Wright’s constant appearances in the media did not hurt Obama. To the contrary, Obama reacting in an honest manner seemed to have helped him. Therefore if the Wright connection was something that either Clinton or McCain planned on making any further use of they will need to find some other negative point. Or, God forbid, run on their own merits.
Also, the primary showed how the voters, or at least a large percentage of them, react to Clinton’s purposed Gas Tax Holiday. Indeed it does not take a Rocket Scientist or, for that matter, a High School Teacher to recognize the real risk in her plan. Leading up to the “Holiday” gas companies would raise the prices of gas. So, there is a strong possibility that the Holiday would end up costing the average consumer, not helping them.
And so Obama’s campaign marches on in much the same style as it has for the past 15 months. Hillary, however, is looking at some changes to her camp. She needs to stop running negative ads, again, they don’t work. She needs to concentrate twice as hard on getting her constituents to the polls, she needs to keep those Super Delegates who support her advocating in Congress for her. She has a long road ahead.
Yes, it is a long road but it is not an impossible one to traverse (need I remind you that many thought she should drop out before New Hampshire and she certainly proved them wrong there). What makes this road even more passable is a media that has already given the Primary to Obama.
Time Magazine is the biggest offender having published a cover story announcing, And The Winner Is…with a big picture of Obama. Obama is winning, he is not the winner. He recognizes this fact but if his supporters do not then Hillary may yet pull out the nomination. If Obama’s supporters put so much faith in Time Magazine that they don’t show up at the polls for these last few contests then the tides could change.
Perhaps, I am preaching to the choir but still, it is worth mentioning, the media can be overly presumptuous and they can end up doing far more harm then good in there false assurance that this primary is over.
See you at the polls.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Voting Your Conscience
Today at around 9PM, about 12 hours from when the polls will open for the Pennsylvania Primary, a friend told me that she was up in the air about which candidate to vote for. She said that the single most important thing to her is that whichever Democrat is chosen can beat John McCain. The problem she said was that she has been told that Obama stands a much better chance, but it is Hillary whose stands she agrees with.
The fear she is expressing is not one, which I have not heard expressed before either about this election or about any other in the past.
However, the more I think about it the more it seems to me that, in this case, to vote with your beliefs is in no way a mistake, nor does it in any way mean that McCain will be the next President.
According to the most recent polls (USA Today, Rasmussen, Gallup) if the General Election were tomorrow then Obama would beat McCain by an estimated 1% and Clinton would loose to McCain by an estimated 0.1%. If we are being very conservative then the margin of error on these polls is about 2% so in fact, we know nothing.
What I think it is safe to say is that if enough people decide that voting against their beliefs makes the most sense and they end up with a candidate they are less then happy with then all they have done is filled a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This is not the same as, say voting for Nader in the last election, and then kicking yourself because you ended up having to put up with another 4 years of W. So please, VOTE ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU BELIEVE!
Again, the polls now tell us nothing about a General Election and, it is possible, that the close in the gap in Pennsylvania between Obama and Clinton is less about people liking Obama and more about the mob mentality that nobody likes Clinton.
*Do not take this blog to mean that I am voting for or against Hillary. Voting is a private thing and should remain so.
The fear she is expressing is not one, which I have not heard expressed before either about this election or about any other in the past.
However, the more I think about it the more it seems to me that, in this case, to vote with your beliefs is in no way a mistake, nor does it in any way mean that McCain will be the next President.
According to the most recent polls (USA Today, Rasmussen, Gallup) if the General Election were tomorrow then Obama would beat McCain by an estimated 1% and Clinton would loose to McCain by an estimated 0.1%. If we are being very conservative then the margin of error on these polls is about 2% so in fact, we know nothing.
What I think it is safe to say is that if enough people decide that voting against their beliefs makes the most sense and they end up with a candidate they are less then happy with then all they have done is filled a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This is not the same as, say voting for Nader in the last election, and then kicking yourself because you ended up having to put up with another 4 years of W. So please, VOTE ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU BELIEVE!
Again, the polls now tell us nothing about a General Election and, it is possible, that the close in the gap in Pennsylvania between Obama and Clinton is less about people liking Obama and more about the mob mentality that nobody likes Clinton.
*Do not take this blog to mean that I am voting for or against Hillary. Voting is a private thing and should remain so.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
McCain's War
On his webpage, www.johnmccain.com, McCain gives a Government Spending Plan which promises to “Lower Taxes and lead to Economic Prosperity”. In his plan McCain says he will, “work to ensure that money spent by Congress, and contributed by hardworking American taxpayers, is used wisely and prudently on legitimate national priorities, not squandered on wasteful pet projects and special interest earmarks.”
Indeed, he advocates that members of congress who are funding their “pet projects” have to report and explain these projects in full to the American Taxpayers. Only through this can we: lower the deficit, lower government spending which will lead to lower taxes, and of course, continue to finance the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
These are all fine things to advocate, but is it reasonable to expect that meeting these promises is in any way realistic?
Four years ago, when America was just beginning its war on Iraq Larry Lindey, Bush’s Chief Economic Advisor, said that in the end the war could end up costing $200 million dollars. In an attempt to avoid a public outcry the administration rushed to assure people that this was a “gross overestimate” of the potential costs.
Well, perhaps on account of the fact that the administration lacked the information they now have, it turns out $200million dollars may not have been as much of an overestimate as originally thought. Still, according to the Government Study released in 2006 we had only spent something on the order of $370 million.
But how accurate was the study?
Last year, Linda Blimes (Professor at the John Kennedy School of Law at Harvard University) and Joseph E. Stiglitz (Professor at Columbia University and 2001 Nobel Prize Recipient) co-authored a paper entitled “The Economic Costs of the Iraq War: An Appraisal Three Years After the Beginning of the Conflict”. The paper factors in not only the costs of what we are spending on the ground in Iraq but also, “long-term costs, such as veterans' disability and healthcare payments.” It also includes the war’s/occupation’s impact on the economy. Adding in these factors raises the government’s estimates by almost 600% bringing the total costs to over $1 trillion dollars.
$1 trillion dollars! A number which is 600% higher then what the government is saying. And, equally as important a number which is more then 600% higher then what John McCain is basing his economic platform on.
Again, we ask, is his proposal realistic? Can he lower taxes?
The answer, clearly, is that even if we define “pet projects” as all social programs the government is in anyway involved in we still can not finance McCain’s War, never mind lower taxes.
But, that is not where the problem ends!
In my piece on Clinton (“Bill Speaks”) I made reference to the fact that there is a shortage of troops and so the idea of keeping our soldiers in Iraq and upping the number of soldiers we have in Afghanistan is preposterous.
To McCain’s credit, the first bullet point on the “Strategy for Victory” piece on his website is, “Bolstering Troops”. He clearly recognizes that in order to accomplish our mission in Iraq we must have more enlisted men this is to say nothing of the men we will need to fight/dismantle al Quaeda in Afghanistan.
Indeed his piece on why we need more troops is as good as any of the candidates. However, his recognition of this in no way affects his policy on the war.
I do not know if John McCain’s policies are the result of righteous rage or an attempt to pull in a Conservative Base which has been vocal about not supporting him. What I do know is that when you boil McCain’s policies down to their bottom line, what you’re left with is nothing but contradictions and unrealistic goals. And, if elected the Author of these contradictions will walk into the White House head held too high to see the people whom he was elected to serve. And from their these plans will march our enlisted men and women onto battlefields far bloodier then the ones which have already taken more then 4000 American lives and a trillion American dollars.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11495.html
www.johnmccain.com
Indeed, he advocates that members of congress who are funding their “pet projects” have to report and explain these projects in full to the American Taxpayers. Only through this can we: lower the deficit, lower government spending which will lead to lower taxes, and of course, continue to finance the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
These are all fine things to advocate, but is it reasonable to expect that meeting these promises is in any way realistic?
Four years ago, when America was just beginning its war on Iraq Larry Lindey, Bush’s Chief Economic Advisor, said that in the end the war could end up costing $200 million dollars. In an attempt to avoid a public outcry the administration rushed to assure people that this was a “gross overestimate” of the potential costs.
Well, perhaps on account of the fact that the administration lacked the information they now have, it turns out $200million dollars may not have been as much of an overestimate as originally thought. Still, according to the Government Study released in 2006 we had only spent something on the order of $370 million.
But how accurate was the study?
Last year, Linda Blimes (Professor at the John Kennedy School of Law at Harvard University) and Joseph E. Stiglitz (Professor at Columbia University and 2001 Nobel Prize Recipient) co-authored a paper entitled “The Economic Costs of the Iraq War: An Appraisal Three Years After the Beginning of the Conflict”. The paper factors in not only the costs of what we are spending on the ground in Iraq but also, “long-term costs, such as veterans' disability and healthcare payments.” It also includes the war’s/occupation’s impact on the economy. Adding in these factors raises the government’s estimates by almost 600% bringing the total costs to over $1 trillion dollars.
$1 trillion dollars! A number which is 600% higher then what the government is saying. And, equally as important a number which is more then 600% higher then what John McCain is basing his economic platform on.
Again, we ask, is his proposal realistic? Can he lower taxes?
The answer, clearly, is that even if we define “pet projects” as all social programs the government is in anyway involved in we still can not finance McCain’s War, never mind lower taxes.
But, that is not where the problem ends!
In my piece on Clinton (“Bill Speaks”) I made reference to the fact that there is a shortage of troops and so the idea of keeping our soldiers in Iraq and upping the number of soldiers we have in Afghanistan is preposterous.
To McCain’s credit, the first bullet point on the “Strategy for Victory” piece on his website is, “Bolstering Troops”. He clearly recognizes that in order to accomplish our mission in Iraq we must have more enlisted men this is to say nothing of the men we will need to fight/dismantle al Quaeda in Afghanistan.
Indeed his piece on why we need more troops is as good as any of the candidates. However, his recognition of this in no way affects his policy on the war.
I do not know if John McCain’s policies are the result of righteous rage or an attempt to pull in a Conservative Base which has been vocal about not supporting him. What I do know is that when you boil McCain’s policies down to their bottom line, what you’re left with is nothing but contradictions and unrealistic goals. And, if elected the Author of these contradictions will walk into the White House head held too high to see the people whom he was elected to serve. And from their these plans will march our enlisted men and women onto battlefields far bloodier then the ones which have already taken more then 4000 American lives and a trillion American dollars.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11495.html
www.johnmccain.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
