"I have a dream..." Thank you Dr. King!

Aug. 28, 1963

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only". We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

"Experience" vs. "Change"

I had someone tell me that they were supporting Hillary Clinton for President, the other day. On the surface, this is the right answer. Senator Clinton is smart and stands for the right things. But she has three things working against her.

First, she has ZERO charisma. Does anyone get vaklempt when she speaks? She doesn't inspire, she doesn't evoke passion (unless you're a 65 year old woman).

Second, she represents the past. She and President Clinton want to recapture the spirit of 1992 and the eight years that followed. Those were good years. But they cannot bring them back. Nor should we want them to. The world is just too different now. I agree that she had a role in the things that the Clinton administration accomplished, but I believe it is disingenuous for her to claim those successes as the defining portion of her resume for President. She was the President’s wife. How is that acting like the feminist icon everyone claims she is?

Her resume for being President is comprised entirely of being married to a former President!?! YIKES! I'd like young girls to grow up knowing that their individual accomplishments are more important than who they marries in defining them.

When you break it down, Hillary Clinton's accomplishments consist of surviving a emotionally frigid family environment, graduating law school, coping with President Clinton's extramarital nonsense, being on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart (did you know that?), shady land deals in Arkansas (is there any other kind there?), and getting elected to the Senate in New York as a carpetbagger.

The third, and ultimately fatal, flaw is that she is divisive. Republicans feel about the Clintons, the way Democrats feel about President Dubya. Do we really need another 4-8 years of that? Isn't 16 years enough of half of America hating the other half and vice versa?

All this said, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee of my Party (I'm a Democrat, in case that wasn't totally obvious coming from a guy from Amherst, Massachusetts), then she will have my vote and my support. But until that time I am supporting Barack Obama. He is also very intelligent; he has more experience as an elected official (8 years in the Illinois State Senate prior to going on 4 years in the U.S. Senate). Yes, he is young (but older than Theodor Roosevelt and John Kennedy when they were elected). I believe that the difference between Obama and Clinton's platforms (and Edwards' for that matter) are nominal and thus it becomes about style and personality. Clinton want to be a do-it-all President like her husband and Jimmy Carter before her, but these two men, while incredibly intelligent and capable have lists of accomplishments, while in office, that are limited. They needed to delegate, lead and inspire, instead of always act like the smartest person in the room (which they invariably were). We need someone more hands on than the current President, but more important we need someone with the wisdom and judgment to listen to advisors and then make the informed choice. I believe that Barack Obama is in the vein of Teddy Roosevelt and JFK in that regard. He has my vote.

Endorsements, but not by me...

A man that I truly admire endorsed Barack Obama yesterday. John Kerry may not bring tears to people’s eyes with his oratory, but he has a gifted mind and a vision of America, past and present, that must be respected.

That is the second high caliber endorsement following Bill Bradley’s nod last week.

Where are you Mr. Gore???

United we stand, divided we fall...

Here is an interesting perspective on feminist support for Hillary Clinton. My reaction is that it is interesting that Barack Obama is not expected, by the African-American community, to run as a "black man" but rather just as a man (interestingly Obama has been reviled for not being black enough, an interesting response to the son of a Kenyan foreign exchange student). I wonder why we place emphasis on the difference between race and gender. Obama has refused to play the race card and therefore isn't castigated for not talking about "black issues". Whereas the Clinton campaign is all about the feminist/gender issues and uses it quite effectively. In that respect I agree with this assessment of Clinton and her run for President.

We do have sexism issues to grapple with, but "traditional feminism" is confrontational, whereas traditional civil rights advocated are hopeful. Gloria Steinum is about what she never got and should have but was denied because of her gender. Martin Luther King Jr. was about what was possible, what we could overcome if we could come together and make it happen as one. One approach brings together and one divides. As I have said in baby-boomers view change and conflict in terms of “us against them.” This is probably born from watch Martin Luther King die for wanting to bring us together. That type of scar doesn’t heal easily. Though to hear Hillary Clinton give LBJ credit for that change is LAUGHABLE! LBJ was the man in the chair when everything came to a head. To his credit, he had the courage to sign the Civil Rights Act even though he knew it would doom his Party in the south for a generation. Well, guess what. The generation is just about up and Barack Obama’s voice is about bringing people together.

Hillary Clinton gives good lip service to bringing people together, but if the last Clinton administration (which she professes to have been a large part of) is any indication, her record indicates that she is a divider. The Clintons are divisive. In 2000 Americans voted for a “’uniter’ not a ‘divider’.” I think we did that because the previous 8 years had torn us apart. Partisanship of ideas is a good thing; it is what our founders envisioned. Debating ideas is as American as apple pie! Partisanship of ideology is fanaticism and it runs against the grain of what we stand for in this country.

The seven years since the end of the Bill Clinton era have proven that we have to be much more skeptical of people who tell us that they want to bring us together because the Bush administration has been more divisive than Clinton’s (and I didn’t think that was possible). False hope is what the Clintons tell us to fear. I for one am tired of fear and those who exploit it to get power. I am tired of people who divide us into groups (liberal and conservative, rich and poor, black and white, man and woman, minority and majority, Christian and not), who exploit differences to gain power from some at the expense of others. Differences exist, but I refuse to see the world in myopic “this or that” terms. The world is far more complex. Diversity of ideas is a good thing. We need Gloria Steinum as much as we needed Martin Luther King. We need neo-conservatives as much as we need pacifists. We need Christians as much as we need atheists. But inside all of that we need respect for difference of opinion, and there is far too little of that on either side right now. Respect for differences; isn’t that what feminism and civil rights is all about?

A second opinion on last night's take...

Thank you Maureen Dowd!

Uncanny...

An unpopular perspective.

I posted this reply to a blog posting by Adam Lebor on Jewcy.

I wanted to write this in light of the fact that President Bush is making his first visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Adam,

Thanks for your original post and this thoughtful response. One would like to believe that peace in the Middle East is possible, but responses like these serve to make me skeptical.

I am half Jewish, though I do not practice the religion. I won't pretend to be a great defender of Jews. I believe that there must be room in this world and that region for a Jewish homeland, safe and secure. But I reject the notion that Israel's interests are automatically America's interests. Absolutely not. If that were the case, we should just make Israel the 51st state and be done with it. They are an independent nation and where we agree we should support one another. Where we differ, we must be allowed to express that without fear of being labeled anti-Semitic. But that doesn’t happen in America. If you purport that there is a potential “different way” the chorus of condemnation rains down upon you (apparently even if you are Jewish).

The wall is bad. Settlements are bad. Pursuing policies that punish all Palestinians for the crimes of extremists is bad. The Israeli people want peace, many are willing to give a little to get a little. But it won’t happen as long as the United States pursues a policy of “Israel first, second and last.”

The United States should continue to work aggressively to ensure that the state of Israel continues to exist. We should strive to help our friends in Israel acquire security and peace. But as others point out here, we must also combat the abject poverty that allows extremist ideologies to flourish in the neighboring countries. This malevolence that exists in the Islamic world towards the U.S. and Israel has as much to do with envy as anything. They see that we "have" and they "have not" and they resent us for it. They should resent their leaders, but they are repressed by their leaders and swallow the propaganda whole.

I don’t apologize for the extremists. The poverty and oppression they suffered does not excuse their hateful ideology. But I also do not believe that analyzing the situation and trying to understand the roots of that hatred is tantamount to condoning or excusing. I believe that it is the first step in developing an effective strategy for combating that ideology.

Does anyone truly believe that an ideology was defeated using violent force? Ideologies are defeated by attacking their root cause. Israel is not the cause of this hatred. Poverty and oppression are. The solution won’t be easy and it won’t happen overnight, but methodically working to undo those root causes will be good for the United States, good for the people in the Islamic world and ultimately good for Israel.

Lastly, let’s put to rest this bogus notion that Barack Hussein Obama is in some way a Muslim. He was born of a Kenyan father and white American mother raised by white family in Hawaii (the least extremist place on Earth). He only saw his father once after he left the family. A name does not a Muslim make.

So, let the attacking begin…

"A place called Hope"

As I have said before, it will take an extraterrestrial situation for this blog to endorse a candidate. This is not the place for endorsements. To paraphrase Chris Dodd in Iowa before departing the campaign; it would be incredibly arrogant of me to assume that people would listen to me and my opinion on who they should vote for.

That being said, I am prepared this evening to rant. I am disappointed by tonight’s results. I am a person that believes that change is necessary if we are going to successfully tackle the giant challenges that face us as a nation and as a world. Nothing gets accomplished in the polarized world of right vs. wrong, left vs. right, Democrat vs. Republican, African American vs. Woman, good vs. evil… the list goes on and on. I reject the old paradigm of bi-lateral politics.

No, I am not going to vote for a third party candidate. I take my civic duties way too seriously to flush them down the toilet on the Natural Law Party.

I hold the Baby-boomer generation responsible for obstructing change today. I am tired of the children of “the greatest generation”. This is a group of people who are still fighting the war between the hippies and the squares, those who went to Woodstock and those that didn’t. They are still debating the Vietnam War, and they are still licking their battles. They are a generation scarred with the wounds from the brutal assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Bobby Kennedy, the impeachment of Nixon, and the loss of innocence in Vietnam. I have a message for you soon to be retiring boomers! Enough already, we know you failed to change the world for the better, but that should not diminish our optimism. It is the unspoken creed of this nation that you shall leave this country improved for the next generation. And the baby-boomers are the first to violate that sacred pact. Where is your Declaration of Independence, your manifest destiny, your suffrage movement, your New Deal, your Brown vs. Board of Education, your Great Society? You failed us. And your bitterness about it is palpable. You have left us a government that is broken and a politics that is divisive to ensure that it is difficult to fix. You are not wholesale useless, but more often than not your generations leaders are all hype and spin.

Hillary Clinton’s speech tonight was canned ham. It was tired, cliché driven drivel. Someone needs to explain that you can’t represent change for 35 years. You get 4 years MAX. I am tired of the war room mentality of this posse. Don’t get me wrong, Bill Clinton was a good President and a great politician. But I want a great President and a good politician. His combative nature of “us against them” divided this country. He doesn’t bare sole responsibility for it. The Republicans were indignant that Bubba was better at playing the game than them and they made him pay for it. They felt that he stole the White House from them and they went after him from day one. But instead of fighting for the hearts and minds of the American people, instead of engaging in a war of ideas; he engaged in a war of ideologies. And we, the people, lost!

Bill Clinton did some great things as President, but he could have done so much more if he could have just kept his eye on the ball. He cared, he represented change in 1992. But anyone who thinks that the ideas of 1992 still represent change are either insane or 632 million years old. I love Bill Clinton and in 2000 I would have voted for him again. I respect the work that he is doing around the world and the efforts he is undertaking to be activist in his post-Presidency. He is, in spite of all his failings, a good hearted and honorable man. But he is also a dirty politician. He hates losing and he isn’t below a cheap shot to win. I understand that they believe in their cause, but to what end. Do they really think they can end the gridlock? Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly are chomping at the bit. It will be the 1990s all over again.

We are gambling that she is as good as him. We already know she isn’t half the politician that he is. She lacks all of the natural talents that made him great. She is dull, unoriginal, uninspired, wonkish, overrated, and utterly bland. She has a tin ear and a lead tongue.

Some might ask if I have a problem with a female President. I do not. I would have no problem with a female President, just not this one. I also feel very strongly that voting on gender is pathetically myopic. I believe you vote for issues and when you realize that the platforms of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are basically identical you then move on to personality. In that regard, Clinton is miles behind her competitors (not to mention John McCain and Mike Huckabee). As I have said in the past; what is the point of electing a female President if she has to strip away her femininity to win? That isn’t feminism. In fact it is incredibly sexist.

Anyone who thought it was going to change this country (including myself) was being utterly naïve. Change is hard, very hard. The status quo is easy and it appeals to the lowest common denominator.

The reason change is difficult is because the young voters of this country are lazy and apathetic (not hard to understand considering their parents). What is it going to take? What’s going to get you up off the sofa? Put down the bong. Pause the Nintendo Wii! Real issues are being decided and you are leaving them up to your parents and grandparents. The bluehairs are the past. My friend believes it will take reinstating the draft (I have never been totally against that idea). The young vote carried Obama and Edwards in Iowa, but then they thought the job was done. They don’t understand the process and that is probably because they never had to take a civics class in High School.

The reason that the only thing that gets reformed is Medicare and senior services is because that is what the boomers care about. In their own viral way, they don’t really care about what resources are left when they are gone. It is up to young voters to stand and be counted and say enough is enough to this obsolete focus on the old at the expense of the young.

The Clintons want you to believe that you can’t change the world just by hoping for it. But remember when they “still believed in a place called hope.” They say we can’t change this broken system without being from the system.

I won’t endorse anyone but I will say: “Yes We Can!”

Five Words to describe the Democrats

Five words to describe Hillary Rodham Clinton:
1. Bellicose
2. Unoriginal
3. Forced
4. Uninspired
5. History

Five words to describe John Edwards:
1. Combative
2. Compassionate
3. Crusader
4. Dogmatic
5. Long-shot

Five words to describe Barack Obama:
1. Hopeful
2. Inspiring
3. Idealistic
4. Progressive
5. Naïve

Five words to describe Dennis Kucinich:
1. Whimsical
2. Overwhelmed
3. Helpless
4. Simplistic
5. Obstructionist

Barack Obama's Victory Speech from Iowa...

Don't just read the speech, watch it. It was really quite impressive. It was particularly impressive in light of the bad speeches given by Clinton and Romney and totally average speeches given by Huckabee and Edwards.

Link to the speech

“They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided; too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose.

But on this January night – at this defining moment in history – you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do; what the state of New Hampshire can do in five days; what America can do in this New Year. In schools and churches; small towns and big cities; you came together as Democrats, Republicans and Independents to stand up and say that we are one nation; we are one people; and our time for change has come.

You said the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that’s consumed Washington; to end the political strategy that’s been all about division and make it about addition – to build a coalition for change that stretches through Red States and Blue States. Because that’s how we’ll win in November, and that’s how we’ll finally meet the challenges we face.

The time has come to tell the lobbyists who think their money and their influence speak louder than our voices that they don’t own this government, we do; and we’re here to take it back.

The time has come for a President who’ll be honest about the choices and the challenges we face; who’ll listen to you even when we disagree; who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know. And New Hampshire, if you give me the same chance that Iowa did tonight, I will be that President for America.”

The speech, as prepared for deliver, appears in full after the jump.

They said this day would never come.

They said our sights were set too high.

They said this country was too divided; too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose.

But on this January night – at this defining moment in history – you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do; what the state of New Hampshire can do in five days; what America can do in this New Year. In schools and churches; small towns and big cities; you came together as Democrats, Republicans and Independents to stand up and say that we are one nation; we are one people; and our time for change has come.

You said the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that’s consumed Washington; to end the political strategy that’s been all about division and make it about addition – to build a coalition for change that stretches through Red States and Blue States. Because that’s how we’ll win in November, and that’s how we’ll finally meet the challenges we face.

The time has come to tell the lobbyists who think their money and their influence speak louder than our voices that they don’t own this government, we do; and we’re here to take it back.

The time has come for a President who’ll be honest about the choices and the challenges we face; who’ll listen to you even when we disagree; who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know. And New Hampshire, if you give me the same chance that Iowa did tonight, I will be that President for America.

I’ll be a President who finally makes health care affordable and available to every single American the same way I expanded health care in Illinois – by bringing Democrats and Republicans together to get the job done

I’ll be a President who ends the tax breaks for corporations who ship our jobs overseas and puts a middle-class tax cut into the pockets of the working Americans who deserve it.

I’ll be a President who harnesses the ingenuity of farmers and scientists and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil once and for all.

And I’ll be a President who brings our troops home from Iraq; restores our moral standing; and understands that 9/11 is not a way to scare up votes, but a challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the twenty-first century: terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease.

Tonight, we are one step closer to that vision of America because of what you did here in Iowa. And I’d like to take a minute to thank the organizers and precinct captains; the volunteers and staff who made this all possible.

I know you didn’t do this just for me. You did this because you believed deeply in the most American of ideas – that in the face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it.

I know this because while I may be standing here tonight, I’ll never forget that my journey began on the streets of Chicago doing what so many of you have done for this campaign and all the campaigns here in Iowa – organizing, and working, and fighting to make people’s lives just a little bit better.

I know how hard it is. It comes with little sleep, little pay, and a lot of sacrifice. There are days of disappointment, but sometimes, just sometimes, there are nights like this – a night that, years from now, when we’ve made the changes we believe in; when more families can afford to see a doctor; when our children inherit a planet that’s a little cleaner and safer; when the world sees America differently, and America sees itself as a nation less divided and more united; you’ll be able look back with pride and say that this was the moment when it all began.

This was the moment when the improbable beat what Washington always said was inevitable.

This was the moment when we tore down barriers that have divided us for far too long – when we rallied people of all parties and ages to a common cause; when we finally gave Americans who’d never participated in politics a reason to stand up and do so.

This was the moment when we finally beat back the politics of fear, and doubt, and cynicism; the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up.

Years from now, you’ll look back and say that this was the moment – this was the place – where America remembered what it means to hope.

For many months, we’ve been teased and even derided for talking about hope.

But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It’s not ignoring the enormity of the task ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path. It’s not sitting on the sidelines or shrinking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, and work for it, and fight for it.

Hope is what I saw in the eyes of the young woman in Cedar rapids who works the night shift after a full day of college and still can’t afford health care for a sister who’s ill; a young woman who still believes that this country will give her the chance to live out her dreams.

Hope is what I heard in the voice of the New Hampshire woman who told me that she hasn’t been able to breathe since her nephew left for Iraq; who still goes to bed each night praying for a safe return.

Hope is what led a band of colonists to rise up against an Empire; what led the greatest of generations to free a continent and heal a nation; what led young men and women to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through Selma and Montgomery for freedom’s cause.

Hope is what led me here today – with a father from Kenya; a mother from Kansas; and a story that could only happen in the United States of America. It is the bedrock of this nation; the belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us; by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is; who have the courage to remake the world as it should be.

That is what we started here in Iowa, and that is the message we now carry to New Hampshire and beyond; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down; the one that can change this country brick by brick, block by block, calloused hand by calloused hand – that together, ordinary people can do extraordinary things; because we are not a collection of Red States and Blue States, we are the United States of America; and at this moment, in this election, we are ready to believe again.

Let’s keep our eye on the ball people...

Iowa Caucuses tonight, here is my take:

When I say that they are done, I don't mean that they will drop out, but I that I think their chance of winning the nomination is done and over with.

GOP:

· Romney, needs to win Iowa to hold on in NH, if he doesn't, he's done...

· Thompson, not only done, never got off the ground

· Huckabee, could win Iowa, but won't even rate in NH, May play in South Carolina, but has little money to carry on for long without winning in Iowa... done

· Giuliani, idiotic strategy... done

· McCain, can't win, but certainly the most qualified of the bunch. He'll win NH if Huckabee wins Iowa and he gets over 10% in Iowa

· Ron Paul, hilariously done

Dems:

· Edwards, needs to win Iowa, or he's done

· Obama, probably needs to win Iowa, or he'll do his best Howard Dean fizzle. Obama is banking on a notoriously myopic and flakey group to carry him and they let Howard Dean down four years ago in Iowa. He could win and it would not surprise me, but I am skeptical of the young vote until they actually deliver. They have not delivered since McGovern in 1972.

· Hillary, will win NH if Edwards wins Iowa and she doesn't flop in Iowa. If Obama wins Iowa, she might be done. She might win Iowa, but I wouldn't bet on it. She will stay in for a while, but I don't see her winning anything if she loses both Iowa and NH. Dems tend to be all over the map, but they like to back a winner and like Kerry in 2004, if Obama wins both Iowa and NH, that's the ball game. If Edwards wins Iowa it will be harder for him to grab NH. NH would then be a toss up between Obama and Clinton, it depends on who comes in second. They both have the money to fight for a while, but Clinton has deeper pockets.

· Biden, good man, smart man, running for Secretary of State, done

· Dodd, good man, smart man, done

· Richardson, good man, smart man, possible VP candidate, done

MICHAEL MOORE ON THE FENCE: 'I am not endorsing anyone at this point'

Wed Jan 02 2008 07:32:44 ET

Friends,

A new year has begun. And before we've had a chance to break our New Year's resolutions, we find ourselves with a little more than 24 hours before the good people of Iowa tell us whom they would like to replace the man who now occupies three countries and a white house.

Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man, and twice we have failed. Eight years of our lives as Americans will have been lost, the world left in upheaval against us... and yet now, today, we hope against hope that our moment has finally arrived, that the amazingly powerful force of the Republican Party will somehow be halted. But we know that the Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and if there's a way to blow this election, they will find it and do it with gusto.

Do you feel the same as me? That the Democratic front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of candidates, and that none of them are the "slam dunk" we wish they were? Of course, there are wonderful things about each of them. Any one of them would be infinitely better than what we have now. Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked ME up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let's not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their "second choice."

So, it's Hillary, Obama, Edwards -- now what do we do?

Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me to do a cover story where I would ask the hard questions that no one was asking in one-on-one interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. "The Top Democrats Face Off with Michael Moore." The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed.

Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton, not sit down to talk with me? What was she afraid of?

Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as "one hot s***kicking feminist babe." I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.

And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March – four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence."

Let's assume that's true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn't "misled," and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled" either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" -- or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't Sen. Clinton?

I have a theory: Hillary knows the sexist country we still live in and that one of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as "tough" as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would truly make her a scary first-term president. If the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in her first years, she knows that in order to get re-elected she'd better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the world makes it in one piece to her second term?

I have not even touched on her other numerous -- and horrendous -- votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush's first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money -- I mean campaign contributions -- from the health care industry). I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and there is a very good chance that will happen. There will be plenty of time to vote for her in the general election if all the pollsters are correct. But in the primaries and caucuses, isn't this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give this serious consideration.

Now, on to the two candidates who did agree to do the interview with me...

Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There's no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it.

But this may be a bit harsh. Sen. Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We'd like to believe they would. We'd like to believe America has changed, wouldn't we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves -- and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he's changed, too. But are we dreaming?

And then there's John Edwards.

It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But once you do – and recently I have chosen to try -- you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That's why it's resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention Obama and Hillary get -- and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who's been running things for far too long.

And he voted for the war. But unlike Sen. Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he'd have all the troops home in less than a year.

Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.

I am not endorsing anyone at this point. This is simply how I feel in the first week of the process to replace George W. Bush. For months I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn't going to save the world. All it's going to do is make us more agitated and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we haven't really left the office.

On second thought, would you even be willing to utter the words, "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?" 'Cause the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil – including the root of global warming – is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace.

Yours,

Michael Moore (not an Iowa voter, but appreciative of any state that has a town named after a sofa)

Zinger of the day and more on today's debate...

In today's Des Moines Register debate the moderator asked Senator Obama: "With all of the Clinton advisers on your campaign, how are you going to offer a clean break from the past?"

Hillary Clinton laughs loudly and then says: "I'd like to hear the answer to this..."

Obama pauses momentarily then lands the knock out blow by saying: "Well, Hillary, i look forward to you advising me as well."

Hillary Clinton wasn't laughing anymore after that.

I enjoyed the debate quite a bit today. I particularly enjoy hearing from Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Bill Richardson. None of these three men will win the Democratic nomination, but at each debate they have hammered home the fact that their collective experience on the issues, their fundamental understanding of the challenges we face. They may not end up as President, but it is nice to know that they are out there working hard for us.

Clearly, that last paragraph was loaded. I was purposefully pointing out that the three front runners in the Democratic primary as well as all the Republican candidates are simply not as well qualified. If public policy knowledge truly dictated who the next President would be then we wouldn't have to endure this putrid poor excuse for a beauty pageant.

I am not looking forward to seeing John McCain in the swimsuit portion!

A revolution of thought…

Do Americans need more money in their pockets (i.e. a tax cut) or do we just need to stop buying so much crap. This country faces serious challenges in the next decade. We face declining revenue due in part to reckless tax cuts as well as increased interest payments on all our outstanding debt to foreign creditors. As a nation, we have failed to offset this decline in revenue. This is primarily because our political leaders lack the courage to stand up to the various interest groups who fight tooth and nail for their piece of the pie (AARP, NEA, and Chamber of Commerce, I am looking at you). This is all occurring at a time when we face an increasing demand for our social safety net programs. Programs like Medicare, which will be placed under incredible financial strain with the impending baby boomer mass retirement. Other programs like Medicaid and SCHIP will also feel the squeeze due to the swelling ranks of Americans who lack health insurance. All of this reckless finance is occurring while the United States is pouring grotesque sums of money into the black hole that is the United States military. All so that we can prop up a dysfunctional regime in Baghdad under the guise of security.

This incredibly myopic view completely ignores that for the [false] perception of physical security (from those crazy Jihadists) we have triple mortgaged and then refinanced our economic security. The United States used to be the largest creditor in the world, but we are now the largest debtor. We borrow $800 million annually from Japan, South Korea, and even more disturbingly, China.

What is the solution? Well, Rudy Giuliani would tell you that everything could be solved with a few well placed corporate tax cuts. I am dubious. Fred Thompson would say that the solution is to simply tell baby boomers that the Medicare benefit that they had banked on will be unavailable because we can’t afford it (everyone burn your bras!). Ron Paul would say that the United States needs to close all bases around the world, adopt an isolationist foreign policy and then with the savings we will be able to shore up domestic programs. As ridiculous as all those solutions are, and they are, it is nothing compared to what is coming from the donkeys. Arguably this election cycle is idiot-proof for the Democrats. There has almost never been a more sure bet then 2008. Anyone who has watched any of the Republican debates knows that this crew of mental midgets doesn’t stand a chance on policy mostly because they willfully and proudly disdain public policy. Public policy, to the Republican presidential candidates, as synonymous with “Washington insiders thinking they know how to use your hard earned money better than you.”

This brings me to the point of this blog posting. Perhaps the Republicans are right! No, I have not fallen down and hit my head. I am quite alright. I am standing on one foot, touching my nose and saying the alphabet backwards. What I mean is, maybe Americans hate the idea of working hard only to turn around and pay a tax for that hard work. The taxation of income was first enacted in the United States in July 1861. Congress passed a 3% tax on all net income above $600 a year (about USD 10,000 today). In 1894 a tax act was found to be unconstitutional and the collection of income taxes was halted. This event led to the ratification of the 16^th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913. But I digress.

It has become the stated practice to place the largest portion of our taxation on production. Perhaps we should shift away from that paradigm. Why do we tax something like hard work that we want to promote? Perhaps in a time when our planet faces serious challenges from over consumption of goods and production it is time to instead place the tax burden on consumers. There are a number of ways to do this and they should all be discussed out in the open without fear of hateful vitriol and assertions of being a “tax and spend pinko.”

One potential shift would be to implement a Value Added Tax (or VAT) like many European countries successfully have. The VAT is levied on the added value that results from each exchange. A traditional sales tax is levied on the total value of the exchange. A VAT is neutral with respect to the number of passages that there are between the producer and the final consumer. This would be very effective in making the supply chain of many products more efficient (eliminating endlessly inefficient layers and middlemen). It is an indirect tax, in that the tax is collected from someone other than the person who actually bears the cost of the tax (namely the seller rather than the consumer).

Another approach is the much hyped carbon tax. A carbon tax is a tax on sources of carbon dioxide emissions. It is an example of a pollution tax. This type of consumption tax has two key aspects that make it an attractive alternative. First it creates an incentive for consumers to purchase products or utilities which are carbon neutral. Second, this tax targets a "bad" rather than a "good" (such as income).

The solution that I envision would probably include both. We could either severely cut the income tax and implement these tax alternatives to offset the revenue loss, or we could eliminate the income tax altogether and make the consumption tax the major method of collecting revenue for government services. It should be said that Mike Huckabee has proposed eliminating the federal income tax with a national sales tax and has been laughed out of the room. The press coverage has portrayed this idea as a sign of insanity.

This isn’t a perfect solution there should be debate about whether this approach is too regressive, but in the end the goal of these taxes is to bring to light the amount of consumption we engage in as a society and the extent to which that consumption is destroying our environment.

Our leaders need to have the courage to speak truthfully and openly about the very serious economic challenges that we face. That will not happen until the American people realize that we are collectively (rich and poor alike) sitting in a boat, drifting towards a huge waterfall and our reticence about even discussing tax policy is akin to throwing the oars overboard. If we don’t, at the very least, have the conversation we are doomed to second tier status. Then this country, which has for over a century stood as an example of entrepreneurial “can-do” spirit will cease to exist and will be replaced by a nation that panders to the lowest common denominator, debates triviality, and preys on fear to achieve power.

I am not optimistic.

The blogger returns... briefly?

This is an e-mail exchange that has been going on with a conservative friend of mine. I will update if it continues to be interesting.

On 10/16/07, B wrote:
Subject: Re: Environment

All,

Next time you are wondering why we can't save the environment....throw on an episode of COPS late on a Saturday night. Everything becomes much clearer.

B

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 - From: Freak Politics

Actually the reason we can't fix the environment is because seemingly intelligent people like you vote for ass clowns like Fred Thompson... to quote rolling stone's latest article...

"You have to see it to believe it, the effect that Fred Thompson has on certain crowds. Reporters who describe his public appearances as "bland" and "uninspiring" and "vague" and "blurry" do so because they're looking for the wrong thing; they're looking for theatrics, for fire and brimstone, for that candidate who can get crowds howling for blood. What Thompson inspires is something much more appropriate for Americans of the TV age: He gets audiences purring in a cozy stupor. Their eyes glaze over and they end up looking like a bunch of flies happily lapping up their own puke."

If you'd like to read the whole article...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16546031/makebelieve_reagan

On 10/17/07, B wrote:

Lets review the alternatives:

Hillary-next....

Obama - Bright, well-spoken, but not enough political experience yet. I am also concerned that he intends on raising taxes to give more money away to lower income households.

1. Give stuff away doesn't work, and doesn't motivate people to work harder
2. Taxing those who make more and giving to those who make less sounds a lot like socialism. I find myself being hard working and upper middle class, but having to watch my spending carefully. Why? Because we tax too much and give it away. Don't believe me? I live in on of the poorest states in the nation....but has the highest taxes. This sense of entitlement in America has to go....

Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2007 - From: Freak Politics
cc: C

I agree on Hillary, though she is better then anything the GOP are putting up. She would destroy Rudy in a debate. "Crank Mad Catholic!!!"

Also, you should re-assess the "give away stuff doesn't work, and doesn't motivate people to work harder." statement. The welfare reform that was bi-partisan (though a big win for Clinton) changed the landscape of welfare in the United States. It was coupled with job training and educational entitlements. In short, it worked. A huge success! Also, this administration and the Rep Congress before 2006 did more "welfare spending" then any Democratic administration has. The difference is it is corporate welfare and contracts handed out under the guise of "public-private partnerships." These PPPs, if you study public policy, only work when heavily regulated by the government. This administration is not a fan of the deadly R word. Don't think we have privatized government services? Halliburton, Blackwater (when did the Marines stop providing embassy security?), there is a conference this week in Austin where there is talk about how to privatize services in our National Parks (how do you feel about that C?). The list goes on and on.

You're right; giving stuff away doesn't motivate people to work harder. Look at how lazy, bloated and inefficient corporate America is becoming. There is a reason why our efficiency lags behind even France! The difference between corporate welfare and individual welfare is that you are helping people who because of a number of factors cannot help themselves. If the market (invisible hand and all) truly function, corporations should not need government assistance to succeed. I support eliminating all corporate welfare (include subsidies for agri-business and no-bid contracts for government contractors, etc). I draw the line at services targeted at small businesses. By and large those work quite well. If you are going to have tax incentives for Con-Agra and mega corporate farms, I think family farmers should get them too. You will not find one analysis that says that family farming is less efficient.

Racism, classism, unequal educational opportunities, the devaluation of education in poorer communities, the lack of successful role models, etc, etc, etc. The list a barriers to success for the people who are the recipients of "welfare" goes on and on. You're right, hand outs don't work. But hand ups do. The data is there, though you won't hear any of it watching a GOP debate (or a Democratic debate, really). The GOP claims to champion individual rights. I can dig it; if the playing field is level. You should not hold yourself up as an example of someone who has overcome any form of adversity. You and I come from incredibly fortunate backgrounds. Our parents are very well educated, they were role models in the importance of education, we went to top notch public schools, we were taught that working hard makes the difference. That AIN'T the norm. Social services are necessary, if for no other reason than to deliver the type of America that is discussed at Republican Debates.

Just some thoughts…

On 10/17/07, B wrote:

FP,

Welfare: I would not call this a resounding success. If people are going to receive benefits, they should have to work to some degree.

Giving stuff away: You have conveniently (Democrat move) shifted the subject matter away from the people to corporations. If people aren't motivated, they won't work harder....the same for corporations. I have no problem with corporations paying CEO's millions of dollars, if the company is profitable and returning monies to their investors. I agree Corporate welfare needs to be assessed though.

"Racism, classism, unequal educational opportunities, the devaluation of education in poorer communities, the lack of successful role models, etc, etc, etc. The list a barriers to success for the people who are the recipients of "welfare" goes on and on. " People still have the opportunity to make choices, and the longer and longer excuses are being made, the less water they hold. While I do not discount these situations exist in all too much frequency, in cannot be used as excuse to be a criminal, not work, use drugs, not care for your family, or any of the other activities that continue to plague our social services system. Take a look back fifty years ago, and I guarantee you saw a fraction of this occurring. I am tired of the Democrats trying to make people feel guilty for being successful, and thus obligated to "share the wealth." People should feel their own obligations to help their fellow man, but not have to pay 30% of their income in taxes...to take care of people that make bad decisions, not people just caught in bad situations, but people that continue to make bad decisions and rely on others to help them.

B

Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2007 - From: Freak Politics
cc: C

Part one: You should look at the welfare reform from 1994... it really should be called workfare.

Part two: If people don't have skills they can't get jobs, motivation or not. You are right people should not get handouts. We need to use entitlements to empower people and create an incentive to learn, get trained, get jobs and move up. But in the mean time it is unacceptable for the "richest nation in the world" to let them fall through the cracks. The "sink or swim" mentality exists only in the United States. Even China doesn't have uninsured children! There is a segment of the population that will never be a productive part of society. That is true in every country. But ask yourself, why is that segment so much higher in the United States then other industrialized nations?

Part three: Ask African Americans how peachy things were 50 years ago. How about Hispanics? How about the rural poor? You are assuming a level playing field and level access to opportunity. Democrats don't hate rich people. Most of them are pretty darn rich themselves. I guess it is just a difference of opinion on the role of those who are most fortunate (and yes, you fit in that category) to care for their fellow man. If you feel guilty because of your status in the great order, that is your deal. I don't feel guilty at all, but then again I believe that my 30 percent in income tax is used to, among other things, provide old people and the poor and young poor and lower-middle class kids with health insurance. I feel it is my obligation, as a human being to not only share my wealth and help out those who are less fortunate then I am in this country, but everywhere in the world. That is a difference between you and me and it doesn't make me a better person then you. I hope you don't think I'm judging your beliefs.

There is a lot of validity in the idea that individuals need to help themselves. Trust me, I live in Texas, the most libertarian place I have ever been to. But there are homeless people who are homeless not because they are lazy but because they suffer from mental health and substance abuse issues. These people cannot help themselves until they are helped by others. Some believe that charities can serve that purpose, and I agree that they have a large role to play. But LBJ said it best: "I know that government cannot resolve all problems. It cannot make them happy or bring them spiritual fulfillment. But it can attempt to remedy the public failures which are at the root of so many human ills." You disagree with that and I respect that.

Here is my point. You and I agree that we want to spread prosperity to as wide a portion of the population as possible. We just disagree on the best way to do that. You want individual responsibility and I want to empower people so they can take that responsibility. I think we can both agree that we don't want to pay a penny more in tax then we have to. I think we can also agree that government has at least some role to play, even if we disagree on exactly what role that is. I come from the line of belief that government can be (not is, but can be) the best engine for empowerment. FDR, in his speech when signing the New Deal legislation said: “It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.” I think if conservatives could acknowledge that the government has a role to play and liberals could acknowledge that there is a certain amount of individual responsibility inherent in success then there could be a substantive policy debate that would produce fruitful results. To be honest, all I see is a shift in that the Democratic Party has become the party of fiscal austerity (it was Nancy Pelosi that re-instituted the PayGo system in Congress). Yes, there are still people like John McCain (who, by the way, is the best Rep. on policy) who still talk like fiscal conservatives, but they are becoming increasing rare. Discretionary spending (what your peeps like to call PORK) skyrocketed between 1994 and 2006. It didn't just double, I mean it skyrocketed!

And yes, there are still liberals that have never met a problem that they could throw money at, but Obama, Edwards and Clinton are not them. Really the only Dem running who is, is Dennis Kucinich. And he doesn't even show up on most polls of Dems. That is pretty telling.

Being President isn't about saying no. Ronald Reagan didn't say now and George W Bush didn't say no (as much as I wish they would have). Look at the political spectrum. In many ways Nixon would likely have been a Democrat in the current political climate. He created the EPA, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act and so much more. He believed in a robust, but measured federal government. He expanded LBJ's Great Society.

We'll find solutions to our problems, but until then... Everyone sing!

Happy days are here again,
The skies above are clear again,
So let's sing a song of cheer again,
Happy days are here again.
All together, shout it now!
There's no one who can doubt it now.
So let's tell the world about it now,
Happy days are here again.
Your cares and troubles are gone,
There'll be no more from now on!
(repeat first chorus)

A quote for today...

"I know that government cannot resolve all problems. It cannot make them happy or bring them spiritual fulfillment. But it can attempt to remedy the public failures which are at the root of so many human ills."
-LBJ

The seasons of our lives

Rolling, tumbling, turmoil, and confusion
The path down was fast
And the way up is long
Stretching out before me like a winding dirt road
Lined with green trees on a warm spring day
Wildflowers blooming
The insects singing
The road should seem daunting
It is long
But all that matters are the course ahead of me
Step by step
There is no turning back
Behind me is winter
Cold, gray, unforgiving, and harsh
Staggering in the blizzards of yesterday
Still fresh in my mind
They should not be forgotten,
Even as my body warms
From the sun of spring
The planting of new seeds
Tilling the thawed Earth
And preparing to grow into yet another summer
Rejoice!
But never forget
Winters always come again
But if we prepare
The harshness will be diminished
And we can survive until spring comes again!

If you’re American, the President thinks you’re too healthy!

In a recent column, Paul Krugman discussed the “new” Bush administration health care system reform. He referred to it as “gold plated indifference.” The line that stands out to me most in his column is: “Wow. Those are the words of someone with no sense of what it's like to be uninsured.” Truly, this new series of tax cuts is nothing but a not so subtle attempt to land the death blow to our employer provided health care system. There are many people, including myself, who have wanted this to happen for many, many years. But this group is incredibly diverse and brings together people with many different rationales for wishing for the collapse of this system. They include the George Wills of the world who refer to President Bush’s proposal as “revolutionary” as well as proponents of universal coverage who see the current system as being so fundamentally flawed that it needs to be totally destroyed and rebuilt. This latter group includes the likes of E.J. Dionne, Paul Krugman and Hilary Clinton (though good luck getting her to admit it after she took such a severe beating back in the early 90s).

The Bush administration has, simply stated, never identified a problem that couldn’t be repaired with a “well placed” tax cut and the invisible hand of the free market. But let’s take a closer look at what this proposal would do. It would essentially treat the health insurance industry like the home ownership industry and create a health insurance tax rebate of $7,000 per year for an individual and $15,000 for families. The problem with this is that many of the uninsured are not paying that much in taxes.

The President talks about taxing people who have, what he terms, “gold plated coverage”. The flaw in this reasoning is that he won’t just be taxing the rich but just about every blue collar worker who is a union member. Just about every electrical worker or day laborer or any collectively bargained worker has traded at least some pay for high quality health insurance. The President’s approach will punish these workers most of all.

Let there be no illusion, this plan is not designed to fix the problem. If individuals are given the same tax benefits as business, there will no longer be an incentive for employers to provide coverage. This will leave people to buy their own individual plans. If you have ever been covered by an individual plan, you know how bad that is. No coverage for pre-existing conditions, no employer’s HR department to help you navigate all your choices. The flaws with this logic go on and on.

Of course there are problems with the health care system, but this plan doesn’t try to deal with any of them. This is just an exercise in cost shifting. The real challenge is how to control the spiraling costs of coverage. This won’t happen by tossing everyone out on their own to fend for themselves. Everyone agrees that people should be more proactive in ensuring their health. Individual responsibility is a virtue and one that should be included in all facets of life, but we need to equip people with the tools that they need to take responsibility. You can’t just say: Individual responsibility and then throw everyone into the fire.

If we put everyone in one pool and set rates for everyone at the same level then we could, in essence, control costs for individuals. Then we need to look at the health care system and eliminate waste and fraud. There are a lot of middlemen in the health care system now. A national health system modeled on the Veteran’s Administration would cut down a lot of the administrative red tape.

This system does not need subtle change. It needs revolutionary change and we should remember that this President isn’t good at starting revolutions, but civil wars.

All Hail The Conquering Heroes and other news in review...

Dear Freak Politics,

Where the hell are you?

Sincerely,
A Reader

Many have observed that I have not posted to this blog since the 2006 midterm elections. For this, I apologize. The stinging rebuke dealt to the Bush administration took a bit of the bite out of my usual vitriol. I have a feeling that the piss and vinegar displayed in the past in this blog will be lacking. For readers looking for that, I apologize.

For those living on the moon, with their heads in the sand or just not paying attention, lets review what has happened in the time since I last posted. In the 2006 midterm elections the Republican Party, suffering a serious case of voter Bush fatigue were handed a solid thwacking. Two days later Rummy was ceremonially shown the door. And no, the door did not smack him on the ass on the way out.

Out with Good Golly Don and in with the un-confirmable Robert Gates. Last time he was up for confirmation (as CIA Director under Papa Bush) he met the ire of the Democratic Intelligence Committee members who deemed that he was simply unsatisfactory, based on his connection to Iran-Contra. Though he was eventually confirmed, he was forced to endure many difficult questions. This time, all he had to do was say one word (in response to being asked if we were winning in Iraq): No! That coupled with the fact that he is, never was and never will be Don Rumsfeld make him a perfectly acceptable candidate.

The Democratic majority in Congress selected its leadership. Aww Shucks McGee (Harry Reid) and Nancy “If you think I’m ugly now, you should see before my make-up” Pelosi. They have made many promises, and we will see if they can deliver. I am not confident in the Democratic leadership, but everyone deserves their fair shake.

The day after the election all the Midterm 2006 news banners were replaced with “all Obama all the time.” The 2008 election season is upon us. Hillzilla Clinton successfully scared all the other serious moderates out of the race (former Virginia Governor Mark Warner and Senator Evan Bayh) and Barack Obama has energized the Democratic Party in a manner not seen since 1992. He did this while drawing a measured amount of praise from Republicans. His voice is promising but your trusty rusty blogger will take a wait and see approach.

The Iraq Study Group released its report to President Bush. The report included 73 recommendations. You have to ask yourself, did this merry band of old timers forget who our President is? Dubya probably got through the first 25 before going to play fetch with Barney. I’m not saying he’s dumb, but he is a walking learning disorder case study.

The President is reported to be considering a “troop surge” as we move into the new year. Apparently the President wasn’t lying when he said that he never reads the news. I am no military expert, but I don’t see a “surge” in anyone’s future. Where are we going to get the troops from? Are Chelsea Clinton, and the Bush twins going to enlist? That would bring the fear of good into any Al Qaeda heart, no doubt about it.

Finally, as the year comes to a close, the world is down one evil-doer. Saddam Hussein was apparently executed; hung high like in some Western movie (Middle East style). Now we will just have to wait and see if Iraq explodes in increased sectarian violence. But honestly, you have to ask yourself; could it get any worse?

Here is to wishing you a Happy New Year and hoping for a 2007 that sees Americans dropping the partisan hate and increasing the peace. In the immortal words of Rodney King and Reginald Denny: “Can’t we all get along?

I'm not holding my breath!

Keith Olbermann hits the nail on the head...

Everyone should watch this before Tuesday. It is a bit long but I ask you to sit through it, because it is absolutely, 100% right on!!! And please forward it to everyone you know!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jslQiO8p3Sk&mode=related&search=

Once that ends, click on this to see the last two minutes!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgMNPXhSteE&mode=related&search=

Everything relies on our ability to turn out the vote! Call everyone you know. Make them vote!

Thomas Friedman's Column from last Friday...

This one needs no explanation!

November 3, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist

Insulting Our Troops, and Our Intelligence
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld think you’re stupid. Yes, they do.
They think they can take a mangled quip about President Bush and Iraq by John Kerry — a man who is not even running for office but who, unlike Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, never ran away from combat service — and get you to vote against all Democrats in this election.
Every time you hear Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney lash out against Mr. Kerry, I hope you will say to yourself, “They must think I’m stupid.” Because they surely do.

They think that they can get you to overlook all of the Bush team’s real and deadly insults to the U.S. military over the past six years by hyping and exaggerating Mr. Kerry’s mangled gibe at the president.

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to the U.S. military than to send it into combat in Iraq without enough men — to launch an invasion of a foreign country not by the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force, but by the Rumsfeld Doctrine of just enough troops to lose? What could be a bigger insult than that?

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in uniform than sending them off to war without the proper equipment, so that some soldiers in the field were left to buy their own body armor and to retrofit their own jeeps with scrap metal so that roadside bombs in Iraq would only maim them for life and not kill them? And what could be more injurious and insulting than Don Rumsfeld’s response to criticism that he sent our troops off in haste and unprepared: Hey, you go to war with the army you’ve got — get over it.

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in uniform than to send them off to war in Iraq without any coherent postwar plan for political reconstruction there, so that the U.S. military has had to assume not only security responsibilities for all of Iraq but the political rebuilding as well? The Bush team has created a veritable library of military histories — from “Cobra II” to “Fiasco” to “State of Denial” — all of which contain the same damning conclusion offered by the very soldiers and officers who fought this war: This administration never had a plan for the morning after, and we’ve been making it up — and paying the price — ever since.

And what could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in Iraq than to send them off to war and then go out and finance the very people they’re fighting against with our gluttonous consumption of oil? Sure, George Bush told us we’re addicted to oil, but he has not done one single significant thing — demanded higher mileage standards from Detroit, imposed a gasoline tax or even used the bully pulpit of the White House to drive conservation — to end that addiction. So we continue to finance the U.S. military with our tax dollars, while we finance Iran, Syria, Wahhabi mosques and Al Qaeda madrassas with our energy purchases.

Everyone says that Karl Rove is a genius. Yeah, right. So are cigarette companies. They get you to buy cigarettes even though we know they cause cancer. That is the kind of genius Karl Rove is. He is not a man who has designed a strategy to reunite our country around an agenda of renewal for the 21st century — to bring out the best in us. His “genius” is taking some irrelevant aside by John Kerry and twisting it to bring out the worst in us, so you will ignore the mess that the Bush team has visited on this country.

And Karl Rove has succeeded at that in the past because he was sure that he could sell just enough Bush cigarettes, even though people knew they caused cancer. Please, please, for our country’s health, prove him wrong this time.

Let Karl know that you’re not stupid. Let him know that you know that the most patriotic thing to do in this election is to vote against an administration that has — through sheer incompetence — brought us to a point in Iraq that was not inevitable but is now unwinnable.

Let Karl know that you think this is a critical election, because you know as a citizen that if the Bush team can behave with the level of deadly incompetence it has exhibited in Iraq — and then get away with it by holding on to the House and the Senate — it means our country has become a banana republic. It means our democracy is in tatters because it is so gerrymandered, so polluted by money, and so divided by professional political hacks that we can no longer hold the ruling party to account.

It means we’re as stupid as Karl thinks we are.

I, for one, don’t think we’re that stupid. Next Tuesday we’ll see.

2006, the Year of the Macaca

One person who ran for President in 2004 was quote this week as saying:

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

The other said:

“If the Democrats win, the terrorists win.”

One of these statements was slander and the other was a guy who attempted funny when he really isn’t.

The big knock against Democrats and liberals in general is that we are smug and superior. We are, and we need to knock it off. John Kerry was right. He was talking about the importance of education. He was saying that it is important to learn and get a good well rounded education, because if you don’t, he asserts, you will be forced into the military.

Was he saying that the men and women that serve in the military are dumb? No, he wasn’t. He was trying to say that the President is dumb, and that has to be the lamest, most overused joke that there is. But the topic offers and opportunity for further insight and learning. There are really only two methods of achieving upward mobility in this country. The best option, in my opinion, is a good education. But the other option is serving in the military where you mature and learn important high tech skills that one can transition into upward mobility. I think that the Republicans that took offense were looking for a reason to say: “see, I told you they hate the military!” and the people in this country who were offended were looking for a reason to say: “see, I told you they are all northeastern elitists!” Neither is right.

Should John Kerry keep better control of his tongue? Yes. He has often proven unable to translate the complex thoughts in his head into clear and concise statements. He is a gifted, intelligent and conscientious man with the best interests of all Americans at heart. He is also a horse’s ass that should keep his mouth shut more often.

On the other hand, the desperation of George W. Bush is becoming readily apparent. I was glad to see that he retired the tired and, well, true “stay the course”. But he as replaced it with the equally un-insightful “Democrats win = terrorists win”. Nothing could be more ridiculous. The President says that he believes that all the members of Congress (Democrat and Republican) are patriotic, but still insists on using statements that tie the Democratic Party with weakness, failure, surrender and implicitly terrorist sympathy.

The good news is that his slanderous bilge is not sinking in.

My question for the mainstream media is this, is the John Kerry quote the “political story of the week” or should it be the George W. Bush quote, which has largely been ignored?