McCain or McLeft?

John McCain is at serious risk of alienating the conservative base of the Republican Party if he has not already done so.

Both John McCain and Barrack Obama pitched comprehensive immigration reform to the "League of United Latin American Citizens"

Might I inquire as to which Latin American country they are campaigning for President of?

According to the Associated Press: It's a poignant message for the audience, an organization that advocates social and economic policies benefiting Hispanics.

What ever happened to social and economic policies benefiting Americans?

Both candidates are also slated to address the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) later this month.

NCLR unabashedly defends its contributions to a chapter of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (MEChA) stating that while they 'disavow' their separatist rhetoric, they will continue to support programs that help Hispanics enter and finish college. Check out both websites:

http://www.nclr.org/section/separatist/
http://www.nationalmecha.org/about.html

Do tell me, precisely what does "MEChA was founded on the principles of self-determination for the liberation of our people" mean in the context of Hispanics in America?

How about: "the affirmation that we are Indigenous people to this land by placing our movement in Aztlan, the homeland of all peoples from Anahuak."

Google "Aztlan" if you really want a shock!!!

NCLR's statement is the equivalent of a German-American organization vowing to continue to support a chapter of the Nazi party, despite their political philosophy, because they help German-Americans enter and finish college.

I'm having trouble figuring out which candidate is the far-left liberal candidate! If Barack Obama continues to move towards the center and John McCain towards the left, we might eventually have to swap candidates between the parties.

JOHN McCAIN WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

I urge all readers, Democrat or Republican, to voice your opinions on this issue to their respective candidate. I for one, as an American, in vehement disagreement with the philosophy of NCLR and MEChA, am appalled at this shameless pandering for votes.

I am beginning to wonder if (hope?) a viable independent candidate will emerge.

Alan Keyes is even beginning to look viable. http://www.alankeyes.com

http://www.selfgovernment.us/aip/

Questioning the wisdom of a two-party system.

~Finntann~

The Pendulum Swings Left & Right

Does Labour's worst local election results in forty years indicate a swing to the right? Dropping to only a projected 24% share of the national vote now places Labour in third, behind the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Labor suffered a loss of 331 seats in local elections in England and Wales.

The question then becomes, is this any indication of where the general American election will go?

An interesting idea to contemplate is whether or not the general population is voting based on principle, or whether simply in a reactionary fashion. Labour, in power in the UK, suffers a significant loss... is this due to the abandonment of Labour's principles by the population at large, or simply due to the current state of dissatisfaction with the economy, taxes, bank-bailouts, and immigration problems. Could it be that these same issues will prompt a shift to the right in the UK while simultaneously causing a shift to the left in the US? Are we voting for principles? Or against the incumbents?

We define ourselves as Democrat or Republican, Libertarian or Authoritarian... but how much difference is there between parties as opposed to candidates? An interesting take on this can be found at http://www.politicalcompass.org/. Take the test if you care to see how they rate you, but more specifically, check out their ratings of the US Primaries... in which 16 of 19 recognized candidates are firmly in the Authoritarian Right block. (Not sure what to think of their methodology, as they placed me, close to the cross-hairs (Centrist?) in the Libertarian Right quadrant).

Is this clustering to the Authoritarian Right indicative of anything other than our common American and/or Western values? World-wide the majority of political figures wind up in this same quadrant. An interesting point to note, is that in playing around with the compass test I had to go to (what I consider) extremes to push my score to the outside edges, which is either indicative of a centrist bias on the test, or a personal centrist bias... I'm not sure which (lol).

I would be curious to know if the candidates positions on the chart are a result of participation, or an analysis by others... and if by analysis, how much reliability can we place in the assessment.

~Finntann~

Good Money Bad Politics

The 110th Congress of the United States has been seated since Jan 3rd, 2007, our esteemed congress members are paid $169,300 a year for their efforts and labors. Now we all understand that there is a presidential race going on, but here are some interesting statistics.

John McCain has missed 57.6% of the votes and is currently the #1 senator not there.

Barack Obama has missed 39.3% of the votes putting him at #3

Hillary Clinton has missed 29% of the votes putting her at #6

Tim Johnson has missed 57.1% of the votes, but then again he has a good excuse, having had a brain hemorrhage, he has since returned to work. One must also wonder why #4 Joe Biden (32.8%) and #5 Chris Dodd (31.2%) who have dropped out of the race are beating out Hillary Clinton on missed votes, when she's still in it. Sam Brownback #7 who also dropped out of the race is close behind her at 25% but we'll look to see his numbers improve. That leaves only Daniel Inouye (10.6%) at number 8 who's not there more than 90% of the time.

One could argue that all the free time off to run is an undocumented campaign contribution funded by the American taxpayer. Since the seating of the 110th congress the salaries paid thus far (through April) should be about $225,000 thus the missed votes (not based on hours worked) work out as being worth what follows:

John McCain $129,600

Barack Obama $88,425

Hillary Clinton $65,250

I understand that the Senators are theoretically working all the time, and that when missing a vote could be working on something at least just as important, but these folks are paid to vote...to guide the country in the direction it should be going, representing not only the interests of their constituents and their states, but all of us. One wonders what took place the 10% of the time Daniel Inouye wasn't there.

Looking at the senators, specifically from the perspective of the current election, got me wondering what else was going on. I found the following statistics on our congress, which got me wondering even more.

Barbara Cubin (R-WY) has missed 50.3% of the votes in congress, and she's not running, not even for reelection.

Duncan Hunter (R-CA) has missed 29% of the votes

Ray La Hood (R-IL) has missed 18.7% of the votes, and he's not running again either.

Don Young (R-AK) has missed 17.5% of the votes.

Eddie Johnson (D-TX) has missed 17.1% of the votes.

Deborah Pryce (R-OH) has missed 16.5% of the votes, and has announced her retirement. (Sounds kinda like she already started it)

In defense of the current candidates, a look at the 109th Congress gives a slightly better picture:

John McCain missed only 9% of the votes

Hillary Clinton missed only 2.5% of the votes

Barack Obama missed only 1.7% of the votes.

But one wonders where Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) at 22.2%, and Daniel Inouye (D-HI) at 11% were. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) missed 37.2% of the vote, but he was running for governor of NJ.

Wouldn't we all like to take 2 or 3 days off a week to look for other employment while remaining on salary at our current job, no questions asked.

Really... we need to establish at least some minimum standard for our representatives to vote... say 5% barring extraordinary circumstances? I am not so naive to think that our elected representatives need to make all the votes, but there does need to be some rational level of participation. Perhaps in the near future we can take a look at what votes were missed and by whom.

Good sources of data for voting records are:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

For information on what votes were missed and how each candidate voted on each issue you can go to:

Hillary Clinton: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

Barack Obama: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

John McCain: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270

So you can find out how they all voted on the HR 2082 The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.

Obama: NV (Not Voting, Excused, Absent, or Present)
Clinton: NV
McCain: N

~Finntann~

WOW....The other candidates

Gloria La Riva, Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)

PSL is a Marxist party and advocates building a revolutionary workers party in the United States, and believes in the validity of Marxism and Leninism.

Rational social & economic planning, rather than "market". Pay reparations, with interest, for slavery. Full rights and equality for all undocumented immigrants. Raise minimum wage to $15 an hour. Exit Iraq immediately, and pay reparations.

http://www.pslweb.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AboutUs

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian Moore, Socialist Party USA and Liberty Union Party

Eliminate corporate welfare, then eliminate corporations. Socialize all financial & insurance institutions. Decriminalize drug use; de-fund war on drugs. Large-scale transfer of technology to developing countries. Give sanctuary to illegal immigrants & full social services. 30-hour work week with 6-weeks annual paid vacation.

http://www.sp-usa.org/ , http://www.libertyunionparty.org/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Gravel, Libertarian Party, seeking nomination.

US schools fail because we're yoked by military. Recognize Cuba; open up to Chavez in Venezuela. Americans are getting fatter & dumber; must get empowered! Military culture causes more gun violence. Make whole country a sanctuary city.

http://www.lp.org/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cynthia McKinney, Green Party, seeking nomination.

Reparations for former slaves, as promised & never delivered. Police take communities of color as rampaging ground. Leave the oil in the soil. we have not had truth about September 11. Gainful employment at a guaranteed income for every family. Criminal penalties for e-mail spamming.

http://www.gp.org/index.php

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And people wonder why we are basically a two-party system.

I found the Libertarian view of banning smoking and legalizing marijuana worthy of a chuckle.

Marxist/Leninist? Are you kidding me?

Reparations with interest? Not with my tax dollars... my ancestors were quietly minding their own business while being oppressed by the British in Ireland when all that was going on, then came here for 'no Irish need apply'.

Open up to Chavez? Must be the 'kiss ass for oil' program.

Illegal immigrants? keyword there is illegal, deport them when you catch them.

For an interesting read: http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

Whose election is it anyway?

Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that a foreign national just raised $2.5 million for an American presidential candidate?

Elton John played a benefit concert for Hilary Clinton last night at Radio City Music Hall raising $2.5 million: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=6074098

Am I wrong? I'm not a lawyer, so correct me if I'm misguided, but I think the law says:

11CFR110.20 7b Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

(c) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to: (1) A political committee of a political party, including a national party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal account of a State, district, or local party committee, or (2) An organization of a political party whether or not the organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.

I'm sure there is a loophole, as those donating were the concert goers, not Sir Elton John, but...

Could one not argue that his performance was an indirect contribution that would fall into the category of "other thing of value"?

I can't say that a violation of election law occurred, still it strikes me as not complying with the spirit and intent of the law at the least.

Still this bothers me, with all due respect to Sir Elton John, but I thought we settled the issue of those of British title being involved in American politics in 1783.

My honest opinion is that who gets elected president of these United States is none of his damn business! As who gets elected prime minister in his country is none of ours.

Given the 1996 campaign finance controversy one might expect a little more sensitivity to foreign involvement in our political process.

Some quotes attributed to Elton John:

“ I’ve always been a Hillary supporter, there is no one more qualified to lead America."

“I’m amazed by the misogynistic attitudes of some of the people in this country. And I say to hell with them .... I love you Hillary, I’ll be there for you.”

As the saying goes "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". I lived in Swindon, England for a while, frequented their pubs and nightclubs, and in my experience Americans have nothing over the English when it comes to misogyny.

The story doesn't begin with Elton John though:

Elvis Costello netted Hilary more than $1.5 million at a birthday fundraiser last October:

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/elvis-costello-sings-to-clinton/1900702162

How much foreign involvement do we need in our political process?

Personally, legal or not, I find endorsements by foreign nationals extremely distasteful and that they produce the exact opposite of the intended effect. While I grant that Sir Elton John has a musical gift, I fail to see how his musical abilities qualifies him to comment on American politics or recommend to us "the candidate most qualified to lead us" nor do I find someone with a English grammar school education to the age of 15, overly competent to judge.

But I'll save the fame equals intelligence debate for another day.


Finntann

Washington's Farewell

Washington's farewell address was written to the American people and appeared in newspapers in 1796, although it existed in draft form as early as 1792. Americans, not Washington gave it the title "Farewell Address". Paragraphs 20-25 are a warning on the dangers of political parties, the entire text of the letter can be found here: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

The excerpts of the content of Washington's letter will appear in bold, hopefully holding true to the context of the original, my commentary interspersed throughout will appear in yellow.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discrimination. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

One can hardly argue against the fact that our political parties seem to be lining up along geographical lines, although not in the manner foreseen by our founding fathers who were mainly concerned with north/south, east/west divisions. Our current geographical discrimination seems to be one of urban liberal versus rural conservatives, with the suburbs varying allegiance regionally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.

The bitterness and venom in the right/left debate gives proof to this assessment, enter any public chat room regardless of subject to witness the degeneration of American political differences to an ugly schoolyard brawl of vicious name calling and downright irrational and sometimes fanatical screaming. I find it particularly irksome to watch live chat rooms on subjects completely apolitical devolve into vehement diatribes against the current administration and in answer, against former administrations. Although the number of 'Cheney' hunting mishap posts to a log at the Denver Post on the killing of 30 bison was somewhat amusing, it was in a 'what are these people thinking' way. Are we now incapable of rationale dialog?

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

Alas, we seem to have arrived at this destination in the worst manner possible. The axe both parties constantly grind against the 'spinning' wheel of the press advances not our national interests but the agenda of only the parties themselves. While we were once a nation of Americans it seems that we are now only a nation of Democrats and Republicans (No offense to the other parties, but unfortunately, in reality we are a two-party state). Matters of national security are leaked to the press in the furtherance of party agendas and items not necessarily of national security are classified so, only in the furtherance or protection of party agendas.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

How true this rings! Would anyone care to disagree?

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Who can argue that the fire of our political scene is warming not consuming? I assert that we are ablaze and instead of grabbing the water we are reaching for the gasoline every time one of our number posts a "**** Bush or **** Clinton " comment instead of dousing the fire with the water of rational debate. The political discourse of the enlightenment has devolved into the totally irrational Bush=Hitler Clinton=Marx arguments prevalent in the anonymous (and sometimes not so anonymous) political discourse of the web.

Far too many align themselves with the extremes of thought seeing things in the stark contrast of black and white. American involvement in Iraq is either utterly evil or consummately good instead of the grey of a well-intentioned effort with significant problems requiring innovative thought and action to resolve. As long as we are screaming good and evil at one another we shall make no progress, to continue the debate of whether or not we should have gone there in the first place is moot, we are there and that is the subject we must deal with, and hopefully resolve in an intelligent manner avoiding the distinct possibility of factional genocide as the result of our activities.

Iraq, Iran, China, Venezuela... these are the foremost issues on the world stage, as Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying at the signing of the Declaration of Independence in response to John Hancock about hanging together... " "Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately". Have we lost sight of the de facto motto of the United States? Pull a coin out of your pocket and look for E pluribus unum, it is on them all. Out of many, one!

Lately, E PLURIBUS DUO might seem a more apt description.

Don't get me wrong, I am not vehemently opposed to a two-party system, however I urge you all to take Washington's advice to heart: "the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it". Be wise, discourage and restrain partisanship and encourage focused and rationale debate on the issues confronting us.

~Finntann~

Who was Finntann? According to Irish legend Finntann was the only survivor of the biblical flood who was not on the boat with Noah. Finntann had kept afloat during the flood and lived on afterwards seemingly immortal, at Dun Tulcha in southwestern Kerry. He reappears now and then through the course of Irish history at times of great importance to bear witness to events.
As the legend goes Finntann reappeared some thousands of years later in the sixth century during the reign of Diarmuid MacCarroll to settle, by testimony taken from his long memory, a dispute about the limits of the Royal Demesne. Great was the awed wonder at the King's palace, when the old man arrived, preceded by nine companies of his own descendants, and followed by another nine.

I first came across this story in "The Story of the Irish Race" by Seumas MacManus, a longer excerpt for those interested can be found here, under 'Irish Legend of the Flood":

http://www.carnahanclan.com/Default.aspx?tabid=60&g=profile&u=5

A seemingly Irish lesson in Winston Churchill's adage "That those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it", although Sir Winston being English is much more concise.

And as the length of this post attests, like most American-Irish I am endowed with the gift of gab, and yes... the word order is a political statement, American first and foremost!