Lobotero’s Info Ink

This will be a short three part series to explain the Dem candidates to the readers.  Originally posted on the website of the Progressive Review, very informative and very interesting.  All Dem votersshould read this and decide if they are behund the right person.

BARACK OBAMA

• GOOD
• Promises not to sign a trade bill without environmental and labor protections.
• Voted against immunity for telecoms’ illegal spying on Americans
• Has inspired a lot of young and minority voters to get involved in politics
• Helped fight for restoration of habeas corpus at Gitmo
• Would end the corrupt, destructive Bush-Clinton dynasty
• Favored cluster bomb ban in civilian areas
• Opposes most individual mandates in healthcare
• Has released personal financial information
• BAD
• Deserted previous support for two-state solution to Mid East situation
• Misled on extent on lobbyist support
• Opposed filibuster efforts against nominated Supreme Couirt Justice Alioto
• Called the late Paul Wellstone “something of a gadfly”
• Voted for a business-friendly “tort reform” bill
• Wrote that conservatives and Bill Clinton were right about welfare
• Is willing to put rightwingers in his cabinet
• Says “everything is on the table” with Social Security
• Opposed efffort to censure Bush administration for illegal wiretapping
• Voted to make John Negroponte the National Intelligence Director.
• Voted for a nuclear energy bill that included money for bunker buster bombs and full funding for Yucca Mountain.
• Won’t rule out first strike nuclear attack on Iran
• Received $708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006
• Went to Connecticut to support Joe Lieberman in the primary against Ned Lamont
• Supports federally funded ethanol
• Refuses to take a position on the anti-constitutional Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
• Called Pakistan “the right battlefield … in the war on terrorism” Threatened to invade Pakistan
• Opposed putting heating fuel assistance for low income in stimulas bill
• Sounds sort of like Tony Robbins
• Uses various evangelical cons to win supporters
• His policies in most areas have yet to be revealed
• Voted against a 30% interest rate cap on credit cards
• Has a developer buddy who just got indicted
• Opposed the war as a state senator, less certain as a federal one

If one spends much time on line, especially if you are interested in politics, one would see that Conservs and liberals seldom agree on much.  As a matter of fact, being a liberal is akin to being mentally ill.  But the problem is that not many really understand the term liberal.

For years I have been analyzing, reporting and debunking the American political system.  Most Americans think that they are either conservative or liberal, a bit simplistic, at best but that is the way they think.  For instance, if youare not a Republican then you are on the Left(?).  I have yet to find one person that thinks that way that can explain it satisfactorily.  To think that a Democrat is somehow a Leftist, is beyond humor and flies straight into ignorance.

First, if a person is to be labelled a Liberal–what type of liberal are they?  Classical or Modern?  Ask that question and then observe the face of the person being questioned–”a deer caught in the headlights” comes to mind.  Confusion is a good description, but really not that accurate.

Let us take a look at the types of Liberals there are:

Classic Liberal–the so called father of liberalism–John Locke pretty much defines it as thus:

Individual is more important than the state and becomes a citizen of the state only through consent.

The individual is rational and capable of making his/her own decisions.

Progress is posible in political affairs, so change should not be feared.

State power should be limited.

Economic inequality is not necessarily a bad thing.

Economic freedom is more important than economic equality.

Next is what we shall call a Modern Liberal–

Government intervention into individual and social life is sometimes necessary to prevent individuals from denying freedom to others.

Liberty should be understood in broad, expansive, positive terms:  as the liberty to seek out ways to develope the human potential and contgribute in a meaningful way to society.

Economic inequalities is to be regarded with suspicion, as a condition likely to undermine the welfare of those who have lower incomes and thus erode their chances of being free.

These are a bit simplistic as I have said and could be expanded on which in turn would make the whole thing so confusing that no amount of trying could bring about an understanding.

I sincerely hope that this has assisted the reader in some way, to help identify the differences in liberals and has help in the identification of what a liberal really believes.  They are not all Leftists, as smoe would have you believe.

Federalist Papers

The authors of THE FEDERALIST had varying and sometimes clashing ideas about government, but they agreed strongly on certain fundamental ideas: republicanism, federalism, separation of powers, and free government.

–Republicanism. A republican government is one “in which the scheme of representation takes place” (No. 10). It is based on the consent of the governed because power is delegated to a small number of citizens who are elected by the rest.

–Federalism. In a federal republic, power is divided vertically between a general (federal) government and several state governments. Two levels of government, each supreme in its own sphere, can exercise powers separately and directly on the people. State governments can neither ignore nor contradict federal statutes that conform to the supreme law, the Constitution. This conception of federalism departed from traditional forms, known today as confederations, in which states retained full sovereignty over their internal affairs.

–Separation of Powers. “Publius” proclaims (No. 47): “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” So the Constitution separates powers of government among three branches according to function. But this horizontal separation of powers is not complete. Each branch has various constitutional means to participate in the affairs of the others to check and balance powers in government and prevent one branch of the government from dominating the others.

–Free Government. Republicanism, federalism, and separation of powers are characteristics of free government. According to THE FEDERALIST, free government is popular government limited by law to protect the security, liberty, and property of individuals. A free government is powerful enough to provide protection against external and internal threats and limited enough to prevent tyranny in any form. In particular, free government is designed to guard against the most insidious danger of government by the people–the tyranny of the many over the few. Of course, it was mainly the “propertied few” that “Publius” had in mind, but this principle applies equally to constitutional protection of religious, ethnic, racial or other minorities against oppression by the majority.

There were those that did not agree totally on the Federalist system, they were called the Anti-federalist, but they were quickly marginalized by the biggies within the movement.

Why do I mention this?  Just read the post and tell me if there is anything wrong with the concept as it is practiced today.

OK, I know that this will sound like a piece from a conspiracy theorist, but I have been thinking about the John McCain story of last week.  You know the one, where he may have had an impure relationship with a female lobbyist.  First, I do not care about his personal life.  I do not care about his kids.  I do not care that he may keep his socks on during sex.  I just do not care, period.  If there was something about the relationship that he help them win a bill or more profits, then that is the story, not some fling that may or may not have happened.

When thinking of this story I asked myself, did the NY Times endorse McCain?  Then why would they want to destroy him?  Good questions, but first a a little background.  McCain is lagging in the polls, funds were trickling in, little support among true conservatives and there was some in-fighting on the radio.  McCain was NOT looking like a serious candidate against the Democrats in November.

Here is my what if.  What if the NY Times deliberately released a story that they could not verify?  Which is what happened.  Now look at what the story without legs has done for McCain.  Money is flying into his campaign, Repubs are closing ranks around him, he looks like a victim of smear tactics, he gains sympathy which sometimes can be translated into votes.

The story has done more to energize McCain’s campaign than anything the candidate has said up to this point.  So was there a plan here?  Only the NY Times knows for sure, but to me it smells like do-do.  The paper has had its pee-pee spanked by its ombudsman for running a story with no legs.  So now the paper has been chastised and McCain is flying pretty high.  You decide if this was a ploy to help McCain in the upcoming election.

This has been accused of the MSM by the Clinton camp, that Obama is getting a free ride and that they are hard on Clinton. It is not fair, according to Wolfson. I feel everybody tearing up! Please people do not by this bovine fecal matter!

The accusation must have done something. Ever since the statement was made, Obama has been hammered in the media. The MSM is getting tougher on Obama. I guess it does do some good to bitch and whine.

Recently, the MSM has been running lots of stories on Obama’s substance, most are negative stories or those to help sway voters away from him and his positions. For instance, after he swept the Potomac primaries by double digits, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews when interviewing a Obama support, did not talk about the election but rather wanted to know what successes Obama has had in the Congress. He did not want to talk about the wins in the elections, he wanted to attack and embarrass the guest. Have never seen this tactic used on Clinton.

Then Joe Scarborough, of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, attacks Michelle Obama for her comment that she was “really proud of her country”. Joe made it a direct point with emphasis, that he was appalled that she had never been proud of the US until now. It was a matter of preception on her comment, but he had to attack. It seems to be a trend in the MSM.

But wait! It is not over yet! Then there was the accusation of plagiarism by Obama of a speech that the MA governor had used. But not much was said that the man is a co-chair of Obama’s campaign and told him to use it in a speech. But yet, little was said in the media about Clinton’s warm fuzzy at the end of the last debate, which was words used by her hubby and Edwards in past speeches.

All this has been in the last 7 to 10 days, so why is the media kowtowing to the Clintons? Are the Clintons controlling what the media reports? Or could it be that they were told that they would no longer have access to the candidate if things did not change? Whatever it was has worked. The media has zeroed in on Obama and the hatchet job is in play.

Personally, I feel that both candidates have gotten a free ride. They are allowed to present political rhetoric as answers to specific questions. Just watch debates, the candidates are NEVER made to answer a specific question but rather allowed to spout campaign fecal matter. The voter does not get a realistic answer to help them decidewho to vote for in the next primary.

The voter deserves proper answers to the questions. A stump speech is not a proper answer. From where I sit, the media is not working in the best interest of the TRUTH. And it appears that they are doing their part to assist the Clintons at every turn.

I have posted about this very thing before he announced his candidacy.   I got lots of response when I poster it on Daily Kos.

NO!  NO!  NO!  He announced on NBC’s Meet the Press, but why?  Yes I covered this in a previous post,  but this whole thing deserves much, much scrutiny.  I called him a media whore and nothing has changed my opinion.  What will be his draw?  Will he pull progressives from the Democratic Party?  Questions, questions, nothing but questions.

Ok first question to ask is:  How many times does this loser want to lose?  He is a proven loser.  He was a loser when he represented the Green Party and a loser when he was an independent.  He says that the major candidates are not addressing the needs and desires of the American people.  He wants to be the protest candidate, in case your candidate does not get the nomination.  Silly man!  But those things that he says he represents are valid, only he spends little time during the lull between elections trying to bring these to the forefront.

Nader says that the major candidates are not really addressing health care or the impeachment thing or taxation on the speculation profits.  Just to mention a few, very few.  Once again, where was he between 2004 and now?  A media whore!  He would not have gotten much press during the lull, so he waits for the chance to become the spotlight.

Next question:  Who is he speaking for?  Who does he think will support his bid?  These are good questions.  If for some reason Obama is not the nominee, then there could possibly be a base for him with these disenfranchised voters.  If these voters feel that the Dems have stolen Obama’s nomination there could be room for revenge on the party.

In reality, I question his sanity. And an Einstein quote comes to mind.  Nader says that neither party is addressing the needs of the people, but until now where has Nader been?  He says that he decided to run because no one is really speaking for the American people.  I guess his thinking is, better late than never.  He did, however, have a completely forgettable quote, “Dissent is the mother of ascent”. 

My assessment of Nader being a media whore stands!

One of the most pressing issues facing the candidates is global warming or climate change, whichever you prefer.  I want to talk about ways to stop or at least slow down the effects of said issue, at least from the Dem perspective.  I have listened to the candidates and their positions on helping the planet.  So far I am not too impressed with many of their views.  To me they are given too much time for the elimination of the harmful emissions.  IMO, the popular cap and trade that is being proposed by most candidates will not do the trick.

The leading candidates have the same plan, only with slightly different end goals.  That is a cap and trade system.  That is efforts to curtail emissions through fuel economy standards, biofuel mandates, or appliance standards may be well-meaning, but in my opinion, this is not the answer.  Clinton wants to cut oil consumption in half by 2025; Obama wants to a two-thirds reduction by 2050 and then there is Edwards who wants an 80% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2050.  All these are cap and trade approaches.

The program that I feel would be better in the control of the situation is an emissions tax.  But it is a TAX!  Yes it is and taxation seems to be an ugly word these days, but if taxation discourages consumption; for example, taxing carbon emissions discourages carbon consumption, why would this be a bad idea?  The less carbon emissions released into the atmosphere the better and more healthy the planet will be. 

There are five reasons why the emissions fee or carbon tax is better than the popular cap and trade.  These are the reasons put foward by carbontax.org

    * Carbon taxes will lend predictability to energy prices, whereas cap-and-trade systems will do little to mitigate the price volatility that historically has discouraged investments in less carbon-intensive electricity generation, carbon-reducing energy efficiency and carbon-replacing renewable energy.

    * Carbon taxes can be implemented much sooner than complex cap-and-trade systems. Because of the urgency of the climate crisis, we do not have the luxury of waiting while the myriad details of a cap-and-trade system are resolved through lengthy negotiations.

    * Carbon taxes are transparent and easily understandable, making them more likely to elicit the necessary public support than an opaque and difficult to understand cap-and-trade system.

    * Carbon taxes can be implemented with far less opportunity for manipulation by special interests, while a cap-and-trade system’s complexity opens it to exploitation by special interests and perverse incentives that can undermine public confidence and undercut its effectiveness.

    * Carbon tax revenues can be rebated to the public through dividends or tax-shifting, while the costs of cap-and-trade systems are likely to become a hidden tax as dollars flow to market participants, lawyers and consultants.

The costs passed on to each consumer might be noticeable, but need not excessive. An emission fee of $15/ton or a permit price of $15/ton would increase gasoline prices about 15 cents per gallon and residential electricity prices about ¾ of a cent per kilowatt-hour, according to Joe Aldy of the Progressive Policy Institute.   

The proposals of the “Big 3″ take too long to achieve the goal of cutting emissions and saving the planet for future generations.  Personally, since we all are contributors to the problem then we all should be part of the solution and the best solution is the emissions fee.

Much has been said, written and debated about “illegal” immigration.  The most opposition seems to from those people who say that the immigrants are a drain on the domestic programs.  They think they get too much in food stamps, welfare, medicaid, etc, etc.  this could be true, but how do you stop the loss of funds and services?

First, the whole thing is just a disguised racist thing.  After that, we will have a hard time as a country in eliminating all illegal immigration.  Oh, I know, everybody from lou Dobbs to the pizza delivery guy has an answer.  Psst!  None will work!

How about stop worrying and put into place a national sales tax.  The “illegals” will always buy food, use services, buy gas, etc.  The funds that they are accused of sucking up can be replaced and funded by a national sales tax.

How to do this?  I am not an economist, so that would be for a higher pay grade than mine.  But this is an idea that should be considered.   The whole thing is these people are abusing the system, so let they pay along with everybody else.

Peace–out!

For my first post I would like to talk about the visit to Afghanistan by Sens. Biden, Hagel and Kerry.  They were in a chopper heading to a meeting in Kabul when they were forced to make an emergency landing because of the weather.  They were picked up by a miliatry convey and escorted into Kabul.

One comment, I would bet that they needed to change their drawers after that.

Next comment, Sen Biden is still in the US Senate, but Kerry and Hagel are not, so who paid for their visit to Afghanistan?  Did the taxpayers pay for  this visit by two civilians?  Biden I can understand, but the other two, why were they there?

Just a thought .

Hi there sports fans, or should I say political junkies?  I will be writing on most political subjects, but especially those occurrences in my home state of Mississippi.  I shall attempt to help people understand more about what goes on behind the scenes and help them grasp their part in the political drama of the country.

The good news is that it shall be a couple of days before the inaugural post.  I also have other writings on other sites, but that is another story.