Being Ron Paul

While it is not surprising that Ron Paul according to the Washington Post was "deeply involved with his company that produced" those despicable racist newsletters and even wrote them as others have suggested, what is the worst scenario--continued corporatist control, war, and Wall Street looting? After all, many of our founding fathers owned slaves. Does that make the Constitution and Bill of Rights of no effect? I don't think I can vote for Ron Paul, although I respect some of his positions. But if the government goes broke and our constitutional rights are constantly being thwarted via legal means including congressional laws and Supreme Court decisions by believed non-racists or concealed ones (Clinton is excused for his racist comments during the primaries), we all go down. Blacks and other minorities will be first. Again I ask, which is worst?

Being Barack Obama

In his State of the Union address Obama reveled in his accomplishment that Osama bin Laden and other top Al Qaeda leaders are no longer a threat to Americans. It was a strong opening. But the problem with such assassinations is that any opposition to others can be considered assassination-worthy for the security of a country and its people. As Israel has long engaged in targeted killings, it is significant that Andrew Adler, the owner of the Atlanta Jewish Times, wrote that the assassination of Obama should be an option for the Israeli government for the security of Israel and her people. Besides the legality of such acts of war among governing bodies nationally or internationally, is there not a better way?

Being Barack Obama

President Obama signed the indefinite detention bill into law after initially having "serious reservations" about it. This seems to be Obama's MO: to claim either to be against something or in support of something and then do the exact opposite--think the extension of the Bush tax cuts, single payer health care, and now this indefinite detention bill.

This new bill is an extension of the Patriot Act which erodes American liberties and is endorsed by Obama. Liberals were frothing at the mouth Sunday about Ron Paul's comments on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and lying low about Obama's signing of this outrageous bill over the holiday in Hawaii on Saturday. What tools liberals and libertarians are!! Sadly, obviously presidents, including this one, are tools too.

Funny, I searched high and low for articles by the mainstream media about this indefinite detention bill on the internet and found none. From the looks of things, along with Congress and the Supreme Court, the mainstream media seems complicit in destroying the freedoms of the Constitution and Bill of Rights through laws passed or the sanctioning of such. Consider this indefinite detention bill, the Patriot Act, and Citizens United.

If presidents, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the mainstream media will not speak for the American people, who will? President Barack Obama most certainly did not.

Being Ron Paul

Let me begin by saying I am not a fan of the mainstream news media and have not watched television in almost a year. But I do keep up with national and international news via the Internet through mostly alternative news sources.

Ron Paul recently stormed out of the CNN studio after being asked about the racist newsletter circulating for many years that bore his name and his affiliation with racist organizations who support him. His response was not presidential. As a presidential candidate or the president himself, it would not matter how many times a question has been answered, it should be answered yet again. Perhaps there are those among the over 300 million Americans who have not heard the answer. Why not just answer the question?

Paul's response begs the question of not only poor temperament, but how he will handle issues as president that are unfavorable to him or that he deems insignificant. By his ill-tempered behavior, he seems to think that the presidency is about him. While he positions himself as the outsider, his response reveals him as the typical insider.

Being a Police State

Let it be known that Senator Lindsey Graham and other Republicans, along with 16 Democrats and 1 Independent, believe that if captured by your government under the mere suspicion of terror--whose suspicion, by the way?--that you have no rights.

The Senate passed a bill on Tuesday which would allow the military detain Americans indefinitely.

"The enemy is all over the world. Here at home. And when people take up arms against the United States and [are] captured within the United States, why should we not be able to use our military and intelligence community to question that person as to what they know about enemy activity?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said.

"They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer," Graham said. "They should be held humanely in military custody and interrogated about why they joined al Qaeda and what they were going to do to all of us."

Do we need more proof that we will soon live in a Police State? This bill is an outrage.

Being Partisan

While we fight the not so good fight of partisan politics, those who are defending on the same side. How do we know these? We know them by the millions they receive as former congresspersons now consultants and lobbyists, and the apparent quid pro quo of present congresspersons exonerated by the body that governs itself. Newt Gingrich (R) served as a consultant for Freddie Mac receiving $1.6 million from this quasi-government agency marred in the subprime scandal. Kent Conrad (D), along with former senator Chris Dodd (D), were handling the negotiations for Country Wide while apparently receiving personal favors from this embattled institution. The Senate Ethics Committee saw no wrong doing. There is nothing new about any of this, but what is old is our ongoing fight of who's better when both parties have repeatedly failed us.

Being Republicans

Republicans care most about money. Issues of morality and ideology are by far less significant. These are means to the end: money. Republicans are content to give in to Democrats so as long as hundreds of billions of dollars are given in tax cuts to the likes of the Waltons, and hundreds of billions more are given to the likes of Halliburton in war contracts. DADT? No problem. Money matters most to these.

Being in the Obama Triangulation: The Right, the Left, and Slick Willy

White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer told the New York Times, "As I understand it, triangulation is the idea that you demonstrate to some set of swing voters that you are politically palatable by poking the extremes of both parties in they eyes." After President Obama's press conference I wrote to a veteran pundit friend. The press conference reminded me of President Clinton's Sister Souljah moment. The statement by Pfeiffer affirms my suspicion.

In triangulation all points are stable and necessary. In this context the left and right are needed to position Obama. They are used "to demonstrate to some set of swing voters that you are politically palatable." The "you" here is Obama. This is the gut reaction analogy I made to my veteran pundit friend. As Clinton needed to prove to swing voters that he could offend the black community really badly and they remain on his side, Obama needs to prove the same but he does so on the left and right with half the skill. He has been called “divisive.” Perhaps triangulation is the genesis of that critique.

It was obvious to the black community what Clinton was doing, but what happened? He was dubbed “the first black president" until the real first black president emerged. He disrespected black people who were so loyal to him by openly making veiled racist statements when Obama ran against Hillary Clinton in the primary. President Clinton responded in shock by the response. What? The triangulation isn’t working now? The offense is not taken? Blacks aren't rallying to me in spite of the offense? Behold! A native son had arrived and one with great potential.

In this context of triangulation Obama makes both the left and right extremely offended by poking them directly in the eyes in order to secure swing voters. Where else would the left go? And the right is never counted upon for votes. This is how Obama seems to have governed. But there is a problem. He does not seem to be as smooth as "Slick Willy" and perhaps not as dishonest either. There had often been contradictions on his face. But they seem to be fading with each year as president.

The last press conference seemed to reveal Obama's contradictions in the uncharacteristic anger he showed toward the left. Had he not given them what they wanted? Had he not played his triangulation role well enough? It was a moment of self-indulgence. The anger seemed to fit perfectly into his sense of failure of not being like "Slick Willy." So, what happens? The real "Slick Willy" appears once again in the White House press room.

The Obama triangulation may not work because of the lack of deftness in delivery. But perhaps all that is needed is time.

Being Foolish

In the Senate race in Nevada between Harry Reid and Sharron Angle, it is utterly foolish to keep talking about personality when there is so much to lose politically. Get a grip people!

Being a Tea Party Leader

Sarah Palin has broken with the Tea Party and endorsed Carly Fiorina (R) for the U.S. Senate in California. Considering the welcomed endorsement, I don't know which of these women should be more embarrassed. Well, we all know about the disastrous career of Palin--but Fiorina? Here is what a friend in the business wrote to me recently about Fiorina.

I know a bit about Fiorina having seen her in action at Lucent (my customer where she left a structurally unsound situation much like Todd Whitman did at the state level in NJ) and watched her from afar at HP as a competitor. She in no way can be regarded as a having a credible tenure at HP. You can't give someone a good grade for making a few good decisions when overall her stewardship was a grade C at best. Was she the worst CEO ever? No,..but she wasn't anywhere near the top either. I think the best one could say about her is she kept the lights on which in some respects is an accomplishment. Mark Hurd who succeeded her is head and shoulders above her by nearly every metric. The only thing good I could say about her running for a government position is at least in the Senate you are not managing a ton a resources like one would in an executive position otherwise I would predict disaster.

The fact that Fiorina would welcome an endorsement from Palin says a lot about her. She seems to be squarely in the do-anything-to-win McCain camp by playing to the wingnuts. I wonder how much Palin was paid for the Fiorina endorsement. I suppose she will be hitting the loser campaign trail with Fiorina as she did with McCain. By the way, wasn't Fiorina a McCain adviser? Yeah, we know how that went.

Being Republicans

John McCain has become a disgrace. Here he is blaming the federal government for the unjust law that Arizona has passed as if he himself has not been a part of the legislating body of the federal government for eons. On the senate floor yesterday he essentially said that because illegal immigrants violate the rights of Arizonians that the State of Arizona has the right to violate the civil rights of all Americans with brown skin.

Will the real McCain please stand up? He and Senator Kyl's performance on the senate floor seemed strictly to give him free ad time. His seat is being hotly contested by a Tea Party candidate. The staged question and answer session between he and Senator Kyl was obviously for the purpose of giving him a platform. He was clearly grandstanding. The once self-professed maverick denier has no shame. Perhaps this is the real McCain.



Jeb Bush, former Florida Governor, spoke out against the Arizona law today: "I think it creates unintended consequences," he said in a interview with Politico Tuesday by phone. "It's difficult for me to imagine how you're going to enforce this law. It places a significant burden on local law enforcement and you have civil liberties issues that are significant as well." Jeb Bush is the first among Republicans to do speak out against this bill. Perhaps the fact that he is married to a Latina whose children look markedly like Latinos have something to do with this. I don't know, but it shouldn't. We should all be outraged at such a bill.

Backed by the Republican legislature, wasn't Arizona the state that didn't want to honor Martin Luther King, Jr. with a national holiday? Not until the NFL removed them from the running for a Superbowl game and the city of Phoenix alone lost some $300 million dollars did they change their minds. We need to boycott Arizona. Personally, I had enough when Arizona State University refused to give President Obama an honorary degree after his commencement speech, having given the same honor to by far less deserving people in my opinion.

What's up with the longstanding governing Republican body in Arizona--really?

Being Republicans

There has been a lot of talk about the deficit lately by Republicans who are opposed to the health care bill. As I listened to Representative Boehner yesterday trash the bill because it will cost $940 billion to insure some 30 million more Americans, I could not help but to think about the lies and hypocrisy that usually accompany such talking points. Republicans are supposed to be conservative and Democrats are supposed to be liberal. The line has long been that Republicans cut and Democrats spend. Here is a graph of the reality of deficit spending under Republican and Democrat administrations:



The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, reports that the health care bill will cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion over ten years as the government does the moral thing to offer health care to those without it. Representative Boehner entered the House of Representative in 1990, serving under both Presidents George H. Bush and George W. Bush. He didn't have any problems with increasing the deficit to record levels under these Republican administrations. His repeated Republican talking point about deficit reduction, while being in a position then and not offering a real solution now, renders his words merely mute.

Being Pathetic

Here is Sarah Palin at the teabaggers' convention reading cheat notes written on her hand like an elementary school student. How pathetic! It's extraordinary that she would be paid six figures to read anything to anybody written anywhere, let alone on the palm of her hand.



Who would elect this pathetic politician to the presidency?
















Other pathetic people? I don't think Americans are largely pathetic.

Being on Message II

In his State of the Union address President Obama made news to me. His administration has not raised taxes "on one single person."

Let me repeat: we cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95% of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas, and food, and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.

Republicans did not even clap for what they supposedly believe in more than anything else: tax cuts.

Being a Nude Senator-Elect

Just imagine what would have happened if it came out that Martha Coakley posed nude as Scott Brown had. Republican strategists like Karl Rove would have undoubtedly pounced all over this, labeling her in no uncertain terms a whore and splattered the nude images across the entire State of Massachusetts. She would have likely been labeled unfit to serve in the Senate. But Brown is on his way to the Senate. Some issues Democratic strategists seem less concerned about.


When asked about his Playboy spread Brown gave a glib response, saying something like, "I had a great body back then." What about Coakley? First, she would have been eviscerated and not have gotten to first base. Second, if her nude photos had been overlooked if she made such a glib statement she would have lost by double digits. Third, she certainly would not have been able to run on her attorney general record because she would not have had one.

What are your thoughts? Is there a double standard here?

Being Ignorant

McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt claimed that "She (Sarah Palin) knew nothing." Palin had to be taken through World War I, World War II, the Cold War, and she was not aware there was a difference between North and South Korea. She thought they were the same country. My fifteen year-old nephew knows this.

Palin insisted that Iraq was behind 9/11 in spite of data proving otherwise and when her son was sent to Iraq, she couldn't describe who we were fighting. Her explanation for being chosen as the VP candidate was that it was God's will. I guess God must have gotten it wrong when, in fact, her God was Senator Lieberman. He was said to have gone to personally pray with her.



Although it is said that Sarah Palin was a quick study in the video, obvious she wasn't that quick. All of her interviews were disastrous and it was very obvious that she does not even read. It could probably be asserted that she has not read her own book. She certainly didn't write it. She can't even speak in coherent sentences. I guess these campaign officials have to say something good about the ignorant VP candidate John McCain chose. He should retire soon.

It appears that Sarah Palin will now spread her ignorance on Fox News. How could they even be considered a legitimate news broadcast? It is not surprising that Sarah Palin is the the tea party's candidate. I tried to think of a softer word instead of ignorance, but this is the best descriptive for the woman who could have been one step away from the presidency. Did I say that John McCain needs to retire soon?

Being in Black Face X

Senator Harry Reid made a statement in support of the then Senator Obama's presidency referring to him a "light-skinned" African-American who lacked a "Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." (By the way, I have never heard of any white dialects. Have you? Come to think of it people in the deep south say around the hills of Tennessee generally sound alike to me.) There have been Republican senators and leaders calling for Reid to step down.

Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, was one of those calling for Reid to step down, saying that the comment was "racist." This was particularly peculiar coming from the man who has basically become a laughing stock with his gaffes and poses. Below are examples of these. For the good of the Republican Party, it looks like Steele is the one that should step down.



"We need messengers to really capture that region - young, Hispanic, black, a cross section ... We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles. But we want to apply them to urban-suburban hip-hop settings."



Steele called President Obama's stimulus "bling bling." All he needs is a stage comparable to Al Jolson's. He would be positioned properly.

Being Hypocritical VI

President Obama waited two days before addressing the American people in detail after the thwarted Christmas Day bombing.

Here is Rudy Guiliani's hypocrisy on CNN:

GIULIANI: I think the president has to make a major correction in the way he is dealing with terrorism because I think he has mishandled the situation. First of all, it was 10 days too late. This is something you react to immediately, not 10 days later after your vacation.The president of the United States, when there is a potential massive attack on this country, which is what this guy was going to do, should have been on top of this immediately, not 10 days later, 11 days later, 12 days later.

For your information, during the foiled shoe bomber incident President Bush was on vacation and he did not make a statement until six days later.

Here is Karl Rove, Senior Adviser and Deputy Chief of Staff for President George W. Bush, on Fox New. He follows suit:

ROVE: Look, they woke him up immediately to tell him he won the Nobel Prize but couldn’t bother to interrupt his vacation for three hours to tell him a terrorist tried to bring down a plane on Christmas Day. And the President waits 72 hours before we hear from him, and it’s over 72 hours from the time of the incident to the time that the President spoke today, and then the President said some things that are simply not true.

Here is Dana Perino, White House Press Secretary for President George W. Bush, on Fox News, denying that 911 happened on the former president's watch:

PERINO: We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term.

I have sincerely tried to give these people the benefit of the doubt. But it is so difficult to continue to do so. Are they so foul and corrupt that they actually believe what they're saying? Or, do they simply not care about honesty as long as political points are gained?

Being a US Senator or Congressperson

Senator Dodd announced that he is retiring. Praise God! Here's to hoping that many more will follow suit in the Senate and House, both Democrats and Republicans. We also need to pass a law that prohibits them from ever lobbying Congress with hefty corporate fees against the interest of the American people. They need to go fishing or get another career altogether. Many of them seem puckered out anyway. Just looking at them makes me tired and knowing that they will work behind the scene against our interests angers me.

Being Michael Bloomberg II

On Meet the Press this morning Mayor Bloomberg questioned the health care bill by saying "you have to question what kind of government we have." This was precisely my question when he successfully lobbied the courts in NYC to enable him to run a third four-year term. In spite of term limits, the assumption was that he alone could guide NYC through this rough economic crisis. I sincerely doubted this. Mayor Bloomberg won the election by a narrow 5 percent margin, spending over $100 million of his own money. When I read this I also asked "what kind of government we have." I would like for Mayor Bloomberg to answer his own question when it appears that being a billionare can thwart policy and buy elections.