Sorry, AAA, but did you even get the point of my earleir post, or are you just being intentionally obtuse? 1. Bush said that the Social Security Trust Fund is just a bunch of IOUs. He does not express this observation in a positive way, based on his verbatim comment I noted earlier. 2. He then turns around and then says that a person can safely buy those very "IOUs" in privatized Social Security. They're "Treasury Bonds" in the private Social Security speech where they are good enough, and "just paper IOUs" in the Social Security Trust Fund speech where they are not good enough. Are you not getting the double speak here? I Canadian. He's treating you like an idiot. 3. I refer you once again to the fourth section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which GWB violated with his earlier comment.
OBAMA: WRONG ON IRAN By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN "President Bush is absolutely right to criticize sharply direct negotiations with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Barack Obamaâs embrace of the idea of direct negotiations is both naïve and dangerous and should be a big issue in the campaign. The reason not to negotiate with Ahmadinejad is not simply to stand on ceremony or some kind of policy of non-recognition. It is based on the fundamental need to topple his regime by increasing the sense the Iranian people have â that he has isolated Iran from the rest of the world, to its severe and ongoing detriment. The Iranian regime is almost entirely dependent on oil and gas revenues to pay for the vast program of social subsidies with which the government buys domestic support. Gasoline costs 35 cents a gallon in Teheran. Bread and all other staples are subsidized from public funds. But 85 percent of all government revenues come from oil and gas exports. There lies the regimeâs vulnerability. Iran is sitting atop the second largest oil reserves in the world. Only Saudi Arabia has more. But it canât get at them. It lacks the foreign investment and technology necessary to increase, or even to sustain, its petroleum output. Under the Shah, Iran pumped upwards of six million barrels of oil a day. Now, Iran generates fewer than four million daily barrels. With domestic consumption of energy increasing at 10 percent a year â due in part to the massive subsidies which hold the price down â Iran is expected to see its oil exports cut in half by 2011 and entirely eliminated by 2014. If Iran cannot export oil, it cannot pay for social peace and the regime could be in dire trouble. Without subsidies, the Iranian people, half of whom are under 30 and only 40 percent of whom are ethnically Farsi, will become restive and resentful. Already, many complain that Ahmadinejadâs policies have led to global isolation of Iran and stymied economic growth and social upward mobility. While opinion surveys in Iran indicate that the people support the nuclear aspirations of the regime, they are not willing to pay a price of international isolation. If a President Obama were to meet with President Ahmadinejad, it would send a signal to the Iranian people that they are not isolated but that the rest of the world has come to respect them and to have to deal with them. The leading argument for toppling the current regime will have been fatally undermined. But if the West sustains a policy of economic sanctions, curbs on foreign investment, and diplomatic isolation, the Iranian regimeâs days are numbered. Official United Nations sanctions are having some effect on Iran but the real power lies in cutting off investment by foreign companies, particularly in the banking and energy sectors. American companies are already prohibited from doing business there, although General Electric may be seeking ways around this prohibition through foreign subsidiaries. Frank Gaffney, formerly of Reaganâs Pentagon, has pioneered the use of private economic disinvestment in companies that do business with Iran, Syria, North Korea, or Sudan. On his Web site, he has identified almost 500 companies that do business with these terror sponsoring nations. They include such international powerhouses as Siemanâs, Shell, Repsol, BNP Paribus, and Hyundai. He has crafted a terror free mutual fund which can earn good returns while avoiding investment in any of these companies. Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman â now running for governor â pioneered disinvesting pension funds in these companies. Now California, Florida, and Louisiana have followed suit. We need to let these policies work and global isolation of Iran is the way to do it. Negotiating with Ahmadinejad would simply boost his domestic stature and enhance his political stability, the exact opposite of what we should â and must â be doing. "
OBAMA HAS THE UPPER HAND, BUT MCCAIN CAN STILL TAKE HIM By DICK MORRIS "John McCain is America's favorite kind of candidate. With his record of extraordinary patriotism and his distinctive Senate tenure, McCain is a nominee whom voters from both parties -- and independents, too -- could easily support. But he has been dealt a terrible hand: a tanking economy, an unpopular war, a Republican incumbent whose approval ratings are at their all-time low and a gloomy national mood, with 82 percent of Americans saying in a Washington Post-ABC News poll last week that the country is on the wrong track. Political scientists add all that up and predict that the Democrats are destined to win the White House. But I don't do political science; I do politics, and I'm convinced that McCain can still win -- if he's willing to follow the road map below. McCain needs to not run as a traditional Republican, which is easy, since he's not one. After all, how did an anti-torture, anti-tobacco, pro-campaign finance reform, anti-pork, pro-alternative-energy Republican ever emerge from the primaries alive? Simple: The GOP electorate, along with the rest of the country, has moved somewhat to the left. (In Florida, for example, exit polls showed that only 27 percent of Republican primary voters described themselves as "very conservative," while 28 percent said they were "moderate" and 2 percent said they were "very liberal.") Meanwhile, McCain's likely rival, Barack Obama, has raised such doubts among voters that their concerns momentarily energized even Hillary Rodham Clinton's sagging campaign. With the help of the incendiary comments of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Obama's negatives have been rising even as he nears the finish line. Still, voters are tending heavily toward the Democratic Party. Normally, party preferences are about even, but recent national polls give Democrats a decided edge. In last week's Post-ABC poll, 53 percent of Americans identified themselves as Democrats or leaned toward the party, compared with 39 percent who were Republicans or tilted to the GOP. To sum it up: A candidate who cannot get elected is being nominated by a party that cannot be defeated, while a candidate who is eminently electable is running as the nominee of a party doomed to defeat. In this environment, McCain can win by running to the center. His base will be there for him; indeed, it will turn out in massive numbers. Wright has become the honorary chairman of McCain's get-out-the-vote efforts. It would be nice to think that race isn't a factor in American politics anymore, but it is. The growing fear of Obama, who remains something of an unknown, will drag every last white Republican male off the golf course to vote for McCain, and he will need no further laying-on of hands from either evangelical Christians or fiscal conservatives. So McCain doesn't have to spend a lot of time wooing his base. What he does need to do is reduce the size of the synapse over which independents and fearful Democrats need to pass in order to back his candidacy. If the synapse is wide, they will stay with Obama. But if they perceive McCain as an acceptable alternative, there is every chance that they will cross over to back him in November. If the GOP nominee were Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, independents and Democrats might not vote Republican even if they became convinced that Obama is some kind of sleeper agent sent to charm and conquer our democracy. Even Rudy Giuliani, with his penchant for confrontation, might have elicited sufficient doubts among Democrats to hold them in line for Obama. But McCain doesn't threaten anyone. Everyone can appreciate the ordeal that tested his courage in Vietnam, and independents and Democrats can celebrate much of his legislative record. Voting for McCain is an easy sell. Except, of course, for Iraq. This is his biggest problem -- the one issue that impales the Arizona senator and hampers his ability to induce liberals to cross the line. Earlier in the race, Iraq might have been a deal-breaker. But a kinder, gentler war has emerged. U.S. combat deaths are way down, and the de facto U.S. alliance with Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province against al-Qaeda in Iraq seems to have dramatically improved the security situation. Still, most Americans don't like the war, and McCain must deal with their opposition if he wants to win. The solution is to draw Obama out -- to ask the untested senator what he would do if al-Qaeda in Iraq took over the country . . . or if Iran did . . . or if the Iraqis who backed the U.S. mission were being slaughtered by the thousands . . . or if Islamist terrorists seized control of the country's oil wealth. Obama, not wanting to appear weak, would no doubt rise to the bait and agree that he might need to send troops back in under certain conditions. He would assure us that sufficient forces would be available at nearby bases to get the job done. To avoid coming across as indecisive and timid, he would put on a sufficiently hawkish face to reassure the voters. And in doing so, he would blur the war issue vis-a-vis McCain. It will make little difference to most Americans whether our troops are in Iraq (as McCain wants) or in Kuwait (as Obama can be pushed to suggest), so long as U.S. casualties are dropping. And with the economy in tough shape, Iraq will fade as the election's be-all and end-all issue. Which brings us to George W. Bush, the least popular president of modern times. Unlikely as it sounds, the soon-to-be former president needs to get out of the White House, reenter the political arena (much as it will pain him) and go around the country telling us two things: First, we are winning in Iraq; second, the economy is not as bad as most people think. With the Dow at around 12,800 and unemployment at 5 percent, Bush can make a good case that things aren't really headed for the rocks. And he'll have to. Republicans cannot win with an incumbent president with rock-bottom ratings. Bush can help McCain, but that doesn't mean that McCain should support Bush. As Bush makes the case for himself, McCain must put distance between them. A lot of distance. Once, McCain ran against Bush. But since then, he has basked in the glow of Bush's warm welcome back to the mainstream of the party. Now McCain needs to free himself of Bush's spell, go out again into the cold and show the country the difference between his agenda and Bush's. Meanwhile, McCain should highlight his credentials as a reformer and a maverick to attract Democrats and independents who worry about Obama. Forget about the base. It will be there. Obama's liberalism, his pro-tax agenda and his proposed weakening of the USA Patriot Act -- as well as fears that he would appoint to office people such as Rev. Wright and William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground -- will all assure the full mobilization of the right. Immigration reform and McCain's other acts of apostasy will be forgiven for the sake of beating Obama. So McCain needs to go after the swing voters: Lash out at the corporate greed that landed us in the subprime mortgage crisis. Attack the golden-parachute pensions, the ill-gotten commissions and the maddening lending fees. Go after credit card companies' interest rates, late fees and consumer gouging. Demand action on global warming (as McCain began doing last week, including hawking "eco-friendly" campaign T-shirts). Call for a ban on all congressional earmarks, with their inevitable waste and pork, and insist that Congress appoint a permanent ethics special prosecutor to police itself. Attack big tobacco, and blast the movie industry for helping sell its poison. Pledge to make hedge-fund managers pay full earned-income taxes on their incomes, rather than the undeserved capital-gains treatment they currently get. But not all of McCain's moves should be aimed at pleasing the left. He should also: Attack Obama for favoring federally subsidized health insurance for illegal immigrants. Criticize Obama for slavish devotion to the teachers' unions and willingness to compromise educational standards. Go after the Democrats for their proposals to lower sentences for crack cocaine to make them equal to those for powder cocaine. (Instead, McCain should urge raising penalties for regular cocaine.) McCain need not depart from long-held principles to wage any of these battles. He has always embraced these causes as a senator, and he needs to do so ever more forcefully as a candidate for president. The danger for McCain is that he will forget that he has already won the Republican nomination and retreat to safe GOP positions, which will alienate precisely the Democrats and independents whom he is uniquely positioned to attract. Meanwhile, the right wing will carry the attack against Obama. McCain is not a mudslinging politician by nature, but he doesn't need to be. The collected quotes of Rev. Wright will be a bestseller this summer. Obama once had to prove to us that he was not a Muslim; now he must convince us that he never really went to church much. Just as Sen. John F. Kerry was buffeted by veterans who had less than heroic memories of their service with him in Vietnam, so Obama will have to weather the recollections of his fellow parishioners. Count on several to surface and claim that they sat next to him during some particularly incendiary sermon. The American public will not ultimately doubt Obama's patriotism; that is a bridge too far. But we will come to think less of his credibility and strength as he fumbles his way through awkward denials. Obama's ex-pastor may have faded in the primary fight with Clinton, but Wright will loom larger in the general election. McCain is in an excellent position to exploit the openings that Obama will offer -- if, and only if, he moves to the center."
IMAO: Obama To Negotiate With Bush Over "Appeaser" Remark "WASHINGTON (AP) - After President Bush made a thinly-veiled attack on Obama's willingness to negotiatiate with terrorists by referring to him as an "appeaser", the Democratic frontrunner offered to sit down with the President to discuss the issue. "Although I don't agree with the President's remarks about my belief in fighting violence with empty words," said Obama, "I also think there are two sides to every story. No one can ever be completely right or wrong. I've sent President Bush a letter saying that we should sit down, without pre-conditions, and discuss the matter to see if maybe an apology is in order. I currently remain open on my position of who should make the apology, as it would be counter-productive to automatically assume beforehand who the wronged party is." At a press conference, President Bush responded to Obama's letter by spitting on it, wiping it across his buttocks, setting it on fire and hurling it at a reporter in disgust. "Obama is the offspring of pigs and monkeys! I will push him into the sea! I will wipe him off the map!" Obama later conceded that Bush might have a point. "My grandmother was a typical white person, which is similar to being a pig or monkey. I think it would be undiplomatic of me to declare otherwise ahead of our meeting. It's certainly an issue that would bear closer examination during the course of our discussions, especially given my resemblance to Curious George." Fading Democratic contender Hillary Clinton was unsupportive of Obama's remarks, saying that she stood by her position that if she were given the nomination, she would "totally obliterate" the Republicans in November."
IMAO: Frank Ideas to Reinvigorate the Republican Party "It's pretty universally well known that the Republicans are in huge trouble as they've lost a number of special elections that I don't know much about but all the smart people say are very important. At least I know I don't care much more Republicans anymore; they lately just seem like a less mincing version of the Democrats. Frankly, things are so bad that for Republicans that if the Democrats don't get the White House and huge gains in the House and Senate, they should really all jump off a bridge for sucking that much. So the Republicans obviously need a new strategy if they want to regain power, and talking about how bad the other side is just ain't it. Everyone knows the Democrats suck, but do they know if the Republicans don't suck? I sure don't. Republicans really need to be for something. For instance, they can't just hope to win saying how bad liberals are; they need to be for something such as for punching liberals since they're so bad. Now, I'm no Karl Rove -- I don't even like the taste of souls -- but here are my ideas for a stronger, reinvigorated Republican Party: * Cut Pork: Republicans have gotten bad with spending, so it will take a lot of work to get credibility on that issue. They can't only oppose future pork; they should take it a step further and oppose pork already passed. That means getting some C4 and totally blowing up useless projects built with pork. Think of how dynamic it would be for a Republican to walk into some building holding a bomb and saying, "Justify this places existence or I will destroy it!" That's free media attention right there. * Punch the Hippies: I know. You're saying, "There goes Frank being a mean Republican again." But if you check the Hippie care handbook (last updated in the seventies), hippies need to be punched on a regular basis or they get shrill to the point of being a extreme public nuisance. Now, others may argue that punching hippies just because they're idiots is a freedom of speech issue, but freedom of speech was only really intended for people with coherent things to say. You cannot make a rational argument that the Founding Fathers would have put up with hippies. You may say they wouldn't punch them, but that's just because they'd shoot them with musket or run them through with a cutlass -- or am I getting the Founding Fathers confused with pirates? Anyway, the point is that hippie punching is necessary public service that would be cheered on by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Blackbeard. Next time hippies have a whiny protest near someplace with Republicans, all the Republicans should charge them screaming, "Rarr! Hippies!" That should just be as natural as breathing. The American public wants a party they know won't put up with stupid, smelly hippies and the Republicans are the only ones who can step up and be that party. * Pile of Justice: What do we do with all the terrorists we kill? I doubt anything too useful; my guess is they're just lying around somewhere. But lying around in the Middle East doesn't help us any; we need them here. Think of it: A big pile of dead terrorists on the National Mall in D.C. with a sign in front of it saying, "Brought to you by the Republican Party." Now people can see exactly what Republican Party policies have accomplished. And what can the Democrats do in rebuttal? Put next to it their big pile of whining about healthcare and crap? I know I've said this idea before, but it's worth repeating: A big pile of dead terrorists equals election victory. * Exploit Democrat Sissiness: A big advantage the Republicans have over Democrats are that Democrats are bunch of sissies scared of their own shadows. This advantage is of no use if Republicans don't exploit it, though. Next time some Democrat is on the House floor saying something stupid, a Republican needs to go up and knock him down without saying a word. What is the Democrat going to do about? Nothing; that's what. Need to block a bill in the Senate but don't have enough people for a filibuster? Grab the bill from the Democrat and play keep away with it. Accomplishes that exact same thing. If Republicans do things right, they can be the minority party, get everything they want, and make the Democrats do all the work. That's smart politicking right there. * Robot Suits: What if we could nominate Iron Man as our presidential candidate? He couldn't be attacked on his personal life because people wouldn't know who he is. What they would know about him is that he can blow up tanks. And if you have Iron Man in a debate with a Democrat, who are people going to vote for: the guy in the cool robot suit with rocket boots or the whiny Democrat? That's why we need to develop cool robot suits (the technical terms for suits that make you look like a robot) and instead of deploying them militarily use them in a political setting. You don't have to worry about Democrats doing the same thing because robot suits have weapons on them and Democrats are scared of those. * Remind People that Being a Republican Is Fun: Everybody loves that game Grand Theft Auto IV, so about a new game called Grand Old Party. It will be the same in that you run around the city doing whatever you want, but in this game you get away with everything because you're rich and a Republican with a gun -- sort of a Republican simulator. In real life, we keep hearing how rich Republican are, so why don't we see that more? They should be driving around in fast cars with hot women, and they shouldn't even campaign because they should be like too cool to care what people think about them. Then everyone will want to be a Republican... but we won't let them. It's exclusive. We'll constantly reject people telling them, "Sorry. You can't be a Republican; you're too lame. You'll have to vote for a Democrat." And then even more people will want to be Republicans because they can't be! * Remind People America Is Great: America is the most awesome country out there. Think of some other country. Well, America is at least ten time more awesome than that country (probably closer to a million times). What's with all the worrying about what other countries think about America? We didn't use to care about that. Not only should Republicans keep reminding people how great America is (which is closely related to the Republican Party and thus why Democrats don't like flag pins), but they should also produce a documentary showing how horrible it is to be a foreigner with their lack of freedoms, stupid attitudes, and funny hats. Then people will remember how awful and stupid foreigners are and not care what they think once again, just like God intended for America. * Ride a Stampede of Elephants into Town: This one is so obvious I don't know why we haven't seen it yet. The Republican symbol is the elephant, so why don't Republicans ride into a town on a stampede of elephants destroying everything in its path? That would awesome, and eventually people would fear Republicans like they did the Huns. So, those are my ideas for the Republican Party. They may seem elaborate, but they all come down to having a clear vision of what you stand for, standing strongly for those principles, and acting like you're a god among men. It's the strategy that worked for the Republicans in the eighties."
Inept Lie Of The Day Laura Ingraham: "Barack Obama, on the campaign trail in Washington, claimed: "I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela--these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us....""
Leave it to a Republican to take a comment out of context. Here's the full text in context: "Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. Thatâs what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. Thatâs what Reagan did with Gorbachev. Thatâs what Nixon did with Mao. I mean, think about it: Iran, Cuba, Venezuela â these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They donât pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, âWeâre going to wipe you off the planet.â And ultimately, that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall.â http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15589.html Is it a genetic predisposition that you Republicans can't at least quote your adversaries in proper context and argue on the merits of your position? Must you always use misinformation to advance your position? Is it beyond your capability to play fair so that the voting public can make an informed decision? Or is that unthinkable?
Saturday, May 17, 2008 When you fish in your own private, artificial lake on your 10-acre estate in Sedona, you're not a regular guy, John McCain. by Joe Sudbay (DC) · 5/17/2008 10:50:00 AM ET · Link Discuss this post here: 34 Comments · reddit · FARK · Digg It! Yesterday, McCain made a big deal out of stopping at a gun shop in West Virginia to show that he's just a regular guy -- a man of the people. He even bought some fishing gear. But, his press secretary exposed the reality that McCain is really a very wealthy elitist: After the stop at the gun shop, Mr. McCainâs traveling press secretary, Brooke Buchanan, said that Mr. McCain would use his new fishing rod on the artificial lake at his 10-acre Arizona spread in Sedona. Real people who fish don't have private artificial lakes on their 10-acre estates. Real people don't have lakes built for them on their estates. That's left to the elites and the modern day aristocrats. But guess who else has built their own lake to go fishing? John McCain's bff George Bush: He also provided a thorough tour, with voluminous commentary, of the sprawling but unoccupied new dream house that he and his wife, Laura, have built beside an artificial lake, which was dug, at Mr. Bush's request, so that he could troll for bass just yards from the patio. Now, I know the traveling press corps wouldn't ever equate McCain with being rich or elitist. That might make him mad and no one who spends time around McCain wants to evoke his out-of-control temper. And, we know the press types like getting invited to the private estate in Sedona for barbecues. McCain and Cindy are very, very, very rich people. Very rich. When you own nine homes (or is it ten?), you're among the elite, no matter how you cut it. Really makes you wonder what is Cindy McCain hiding in her tax returns. <img src=http://members.cox.net/rakshashas/smiley-faces-46.gif><img src=http://members.cox.net/rakshashas/smiley-faces-46.gif><img src=http://members.cox.net/rakshashas/smiley-faces-46.gif>
From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16text-debate.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
Well, leave it to a Democrat to misdirect the readers, again: 1. Clearly the quote is corerct, Laura's message is solid, Obama is inept wrt foreign policy. 2. The rest of your quote is taken out of context too - what we did or did not do with the Soviet Union has nothing to do with our dealings with terrorist states like Iran and Syria. Not to mention that it was a Republican President (Reagan) who defeated the Soviets too. Obama's words make no sense in that they minimize the threat that a nuclear Iran etc poses. Also, they confuse his audience and misrepresent what Bush has been saying - that top level meetings with those renegate regimes and no preconditions are to be avoided at all costs. 3. C'mon now, drop that democratic propaganda, pretending to be angry as you take another opportunity to blame the Republicans... after all, I am an Independent. It is Obama who insists on quoting the 100 years comment after so many people on both sides told him that he is misquoting McCain and that he should stop taking him out of context. Unfortunately, it's a slugfest, friend, deal with it. BUT, Laura's quote is correct!