Lobotero’s Info Ink

John McCain has offered his newest idea for giving the consumer a break on the high cost of gasoline.  (Long pause for effect and thought)  His plan is to suspend the federal tax on gas for the 3 months of the summer.  First of all, that money is used for the infrastructure; money which is needed to sure up such things as roads and bridges, which in case no one has noticed, is falling apart.  Secondly, that would be a lose of about $9 billion and would cost about 300,000 people their jobs.

Other news from yesterday, Shell Oil Co reported profits of $7 billion in the first quarter of 2008.  (another pause for effect?  Exxon continues to report large profits quarter after quarter…thinking…..why not go after a windfall profits?

The American people so happy to get a tax cut that they will support any call for one…but what will this one effect?  Maybe another bridge will collapse from lack of attention.  This plan sucks!  It is a band aid for a gun shot wound!

It is time for the American people to face facts…less taxes mean less services to the people….means less money coming to the government coffers…means more profits for companies….and the people pay in the long run anyway.

Finally, Obama has made a speech that everyone has been screaming for…he has condemned in the strongest terms the remarks and actions of his former pastor, Rev.  Wright.  And I swear that this will be the last post on this subject I will make.

I have heard the pundits say the the situation is “very complicated”   I ask why?  It is a private citizen making outlandish comments and voicing his personal opnion.

It is complicated because the media wanted it to be so.  Almost appears, at times, that the media is attempting to assassinate the Obama campaign.  Why do I say this?  For instance, the Wright thingy is a person, not attached to the campaign is making comments, but he media keeps trying to make him a semi-major player in the campaign.  Making everything this man says as somehow important to the Obama plan.  But yet when a lie is told, an out right lie, not much was made of it and it was allowed to silently slip away.

One candidate has LIED–the other not so much–all politicians lie–it is in their genetic make up–but a voice from the fringe speaks louder than a falsehood from the middle.

IMO, Rev. Wright needs to shut the hell up–he is defeating his desire to empower African-Americans.  He is killing the every person that could make that dream come true. I have questioned his motives and still do so.

Obama has now done what all have wanted for a month–but will it be enough for the media to let it go.  Would be really nice if the media would let the candidates speak on specifics they have for the problems we all face.

Clinton is trying her new math saying she is actually leading in the race for the Dem. nomination.  At best it is a stretch of the imagination.  Plan B is to marginalize Obama.  Meaning show that he is outside mainstream America.  This technique is an attempt to show that Obama cannot win states like Pennsylvania.  But wait, Clinton probably would not win it either, too many social conservatives.

So to help with this attempt she send sher surrogates like Wolfson and Bill out to thump their power crazed chests like some horny homo politicus.  Wolfson for instance, watch him talk, he is an arrogant little weasel the same with Bill.  He talks and dismisses the fact that most new voters are energized by Obama and not the same old bunch that Hillary and her boys represent.

Listen to a recent interview with Wolfson and his demeanor was that of talking down to the voters for not supporting Clinton.  He speaks badly of Obama and in the interview I watched, he basically said every derogatory thing he could think of, with the exception of calling Obama “boy” and he would have done that if he thought he would have gotten away with it.

Wolfson, Bill, Hillary, et al still have this air of inevitability about her candidacy; it is her birth right to be the nominee.  May I suggest that they remember something Thomas Paine once wrote:

“When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.“

The media’s rush to help Clinton secure the nomination, got another boost in the last couple of days.  The Rev. Wright has spoken and now the 20 second sound bites are flying around the web.  Obama has been called on to crap on his pastor, he has done everything but threaten legal action against him.  Why is what a man says so important to media?  The candidate did not say it.  As i have said, Wright has said nothing that MLK did not say the only difference was the choice of words, but the ideas were the same.

This is just the media assisting one candidate over another.  For instance the MSNBC show Morning Joe as gone from Huckabee to Romney to Clinton, the only thing I can say is that they were backing losers before Clinton, we can only pray they are backing a loser yet again.

Gee, I know that some will think for a bit off, but think it over…….Most days morning Joe is loaded with Clinton supporters, especially Wolfson and Harold Ford, Jr.  At least Ford talks like he is neutral but he is the chairman of th DLC and that is the agenda that Clinton is pushing in her stump speeches.

No I am not a supporter of Obama, I am a supporter of the whole truth and the media leaves a bad taste in my mouth at every turn.

That is the title that has been hoisted onto the US, but are they?  First, just the act of voting does not make a democracy, can be a start but should be the end game.  The US is always pushing for democracy in some countries across the world.

The first one that comes to mind is the Palestinians.  For decades they were pushed to let the people decide on their leadership.  Finally, the did just that, but now here is the problem, they elected Hamas, a group that the US considers a terrorist organization.

The US did not acknowledge the will of the people.  So with this, what signal does it send to the world?  That they can have democracy as long as the US approves of their choices?  Call me ignorant, but does that not kinda defeat the purpose of democracy?

A term that so many fools are throwing around.  Edwards was considered by some as a “left” populist and then there was Huckabee, the “right” populist.  This is from a paper for the Democratic Leadership Council:

Populism has a checkered history, but that hasn’t stopped a new crop of American politicians from embracing it in reaction to the supposed scourges of trade and globalization.

Today’s neo-populism has right and left strands. Republican populism is mainly anti-immigration: Think Patrick Buchanan or Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Ariz). Democratic populism, personified by two newly elected Senators, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, is vehemently anti-trade. The two strands converge in the person of CNN blowhard Lou Dobbs, who blames immigrants and corporations for either taking American jobs or sending them overseas.

U.S. progressives ought to think twice before adopting the “populist” label, and not just because it’s commonly hung on such noxious demagogues as Jean Le Pen, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The homegrown American populism of the 1880s and 1890s–the horny-handed-sons-of-toil faith identified first with the People’s Party in the 1880s and 1890s and, later, three-time Democratic Presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan–also is a dubious model.

The DLC calls thise who support public regulation of corporations, a progressive income tax, labor union rights, and such as “NUTTY”.  And then this group of lying scum, calls themselves progressives because they want to reform society.  Reform is a cowards way of saying all will remain the same with a few minor changes to make you think that they are on your side.  These centrists are nothing more than Repubs with a minor social agenda.  Corporations are still the major players with these people.

Look at what we have now.  You may sit down and thank the DLC and Bill Clinton for what is happening now with jobs and trade.  Do you really want more of these types in control of your life?  If so, Vote for Clinton and the DLC will be in control yet again.

During the PA primary we heard a lot about the group called the “Reagan Democrats”, but who are they?  The media tries to define them as white, social conservatives, anti-abortion, pro-gun, non-college blue collar workers.  Now that is a mouthful, but a pretty good description of the voting bloc.  But there is more to it than that fairly simplistic definition.

You may call them anything you desire, but in reality they are closet racists.  They are socially conservs because they believe the the government favors the black man.  All their problems stem from the programs such as affirmative action.

Clinton won these voters almost overwhelmingly, because she spoke their language of government programs have hurt them and that she was gonna change all that.  That she would somehow roll back NAFTA and all would be right with their small minded little world.

Do not hold your breath.  She won their vote for one reason–she is white and she could pander her butt off to them. But sorry folks, come the Fall and the general election, these little people will vote for McCain.  Why?  Repubs speak their language of all problems are the fault of the government and their unfair programs.

Should there be another Dem debate?  Hillary is calling for at least two more, but Obama has yet to agree.  But should there be any more debates.  Personally, I say—HELL NO!  They have become boring and comical.

If there were to be another, it would be a carbon copy of the last one…..most of it would be the negative crap that that the campaigns are trying to use to torpedo their opponent.  Sad, the voter learns nothing from that type of floor show.

If for some reason Obama agrees to it, and I cannot see him opening himself up to those attacks from the Clinton “cheap shot squad”.  Then the rules should be nothing but issues–at the first sign of a cheap shot the mic should be cut off.

If they want to debate then debate issues not bullsh*t.

I have heard all the speeches, well maybe not all, but most would be a better statement, by both the Dem candidates and the ones that least impress me are the ones about keeping the jobs in the US and preventing anymore lose to overseas.

You people listening and believing the crap they shovel–have you tried to look back at the past losses and when they began?  Probably not, but anyway, the huge losses began with the advent of NAFTA and your boy, Bill Clinton and his DLC lackies.

Now I ask, why would you support people that supported the jobs losses that you now want to save?  The whole I was for it before I was against, just does not wash with me.  People!  People!  It is the profit they want to preserve, not the jobs.  Oh, jobs make an excellent subject while on the stump, but that is about it.

Ask yourself what does the programs that they are proposing actually do to save jobs in the US?  Once you realize that you are being played like a cheap drum, then the whole complexion of the electoral race changes.  That is if you truly want to know what is what, or you are just voting for some “American Idol” type.  Popularity not results.

For many many years Maoist guerrillas fought to control the country of Nepal.  Many deaths and many peace attempts and nothing was accomplished but more and more blood shed.  Recently a peace accord was signed and basically all parties honored it with minor outbreaks of violence here and there.

Then the election process began and the results were not what most of the world was looking for.

Nepal’s Maoists have accomplished at the ballot box what they did not achieve as guerrillas on the battlefield — winning a chance to transform their country.

Officials said Thursday that the former rebels have won the most seats in the Himalayan nation’s new governing assembly.

The Maoists, who are still considered terrorists by the United States, took more than double the number of their nearest rival in an April 10 election meant to seal a peace deal that ended their decade-long insurgency.

While the Maoists will not have an absolute majority in the 601-seat Constituent Assembly, they are expected to form the backbone of Nepal’s new government and usher in sweeping changes to the impoverished country.

Now we will see if they will try and push their Maoist ideology or if it was just they wanted the power to control the country.  Once again, extremist gain more power through the ballot box than with the gun.