McCain’s newest flip flop: Afghanistan

McCain’s military experience and stint in a prison war camp has been 'subtley mentioned' at every Republican fund raising event to date. And while I cannot stand the manner in which the campaign pushes scare tactics as a reason to elect another Republican, I do commend McCain for serving his country and being in the military. I don’t support the war in Iraq, but do support the troops. However, what I don’t support is McCain’s repeat flip flopping, most recently on the war on terrorism in Afghanistan.

I’ll start by saying that going to war with Afghanistan was the correct decision after September 11th; as the Taliban left the United States with little other choice. Unfortunately the current commander in chief used Afghanistan as a gateway to invade Iraq under false pretenses of weapons of mass destruction and thus lost focus on the war that had still not been won against the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Since this catastrophic executive decision, the U.S. has spent trillions of dollars in a country that was not the core of the problem in the first place. Fast forward to present day- the threat of terrorism is as prevalent as in 2001, the Taliban continues to gain strength and Osama Bin Laden remains MIA.

In case you missed the news story, McCain, the so called foreign policy expert has attended ZERO of the Senate Armed Service Committee hearings on Afghanistan during the last two years. Shameful for the top republican serving on this committee. Online news media and bloggers have recently highlighted McCain's lack of knowledge on the Taliban overrun country, most notably his erroneous comments stating the U.S. is 'winning the war on terror in Afghanistan'. This is simply false. In the last six months there have been more U.S. causalities than in previous years and statements of concern from military stationed in the country regarding lack of resources is rampant. If this is the kind of commitment McCain will show towards the war on terror, than its clear he is the wrong candidate for the job.

Yet (and this is really rich), his campaign claims McCain is ‘so experienced that this excuses his lack of attendance at the hearings’. The only thing this could possibly excuse is his dubious support of the failed Bush policies in Iraq due to lack of knowledge of what is really going on. This illustrates that multiple trips to the middle east does not necessarily make a candidate a better expert on Middle Eastern policies, as McCain’s knowledge of Afghanistan, the breeding place of terrorism, is minimal.

Following the public release of McCain’s embarrassing attendance, the McCain campaign shifted it’s stance on Afghanistan- ironically mimicking the Obama campaign platform: to increase the number of troops stationed in Afghanistan and to increase NATO involvement. All of the sudden the so called ‘inexperienced’ Obama is looking more appealing in matters of diplomacy and foreign policy.

Get the facts on both candidate’s foreign policies:
www.factcheck.org (great site and politically neutral)
www.barackobama.com (you may find his 'change' not so out of reach)
www.johnmccain.com (don’t agree with his politics, but at least know the facts)

The new and improved 'Green" McCain?

Last week the presidential campaigns focused on the economy. This week it’s energy, oil and the environment. In particular, John McCain has been campaigning to persuade voters that his energy plan will reduce our dependency on foreign oil, use alternative energy sources and combat global warming. But once again, a closer look find faults in McCain's statements.

Oil
McCain endorsed Bush’s bid to lift the ban on offshore drilling. However, lifting the ban is neither a short or long term fix, and instead an unsustainable proposal.

Why it’s not the short term fix. According to a report done by the U.S. Government, lifting the ban would have “little effect on oil or gas prices until 2030.” (Energy Information Administration. "Crude Oil Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production," last updated 27 May 2008). Twenty two years would do absolutely nothing to fix the rising cost of barrel oil and gas here in the U.S.

Why it’s not a long term solution. The same government report estimated that the U.S. would only find about 21 billion barrels of oil. The U.S. currently uses 7 billion barrels a year. So in reality the drilling would only produce 3 years worth of oil, and therefore lacks any level of sustainability. Instead of trying to find more oil, the focus should be in reducing the demand, not increasing the production.

Alternative Energy Sources
McCain’s campaign ran TV ads that featured windmills and solar power. In reality McCain opposes requiring more wind and solar power and is instead a big supporter of nuclear power (ironically there were no nuclear power plants pictured in the ads).

Next came McCain’s gimmick proposal of a $300 million dollar reward to the inventor of a more energy efficient battery. One thing not mentioned at the press conference - car manufacturers and scientists have been working on this for years without any incentive from the government. With declining automobile sales, high gas prices, and oh yes the whole ozone issue, everyone is on board to finding more energy efficient means of transportation. Ironically back in 1995 McCain opposed a $15 million provision for research into an electric car because it was "egregious”. Perhaps if we had focused more on finding alternative tranportation sources a decade ago, the gas crisis we now face wouldn’t be so “egregious”.

Combating Global Warming
McCain remarked in a speech that he favors mandatory caps on emissions from companies receiving tax incentives. In actuality he favors cap and trade, NOT mandatory caps. The difference, cap and trade allows companies to purchase emission credits from other companies not using all of their allotted ‘credits’. It basically allows the companies to exceed their cap (the amount they allotted to emit)- and still get the tax breaks. With mandatory caps if a company goes over the cap, they are no longer eligible for the tax incentives. I like to think of it as a corrupt ‘green’ stock market. The only way caps can be successful in lowering the United States’ carbon imprint is if the government sets a mandatory ceiling for all companies.

Overall McCain’s energy solutions are nothing more than empty campaign promises, which in reality would do little to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, use alternative energy sources and combat global warming. And one more FYI… when discussing the environment emphasizing global warming without acknowledging or addressing the issue of climate change is so 1995. Get with the times McCain!

McCanenomics?

McCain and Obama are in full swing presenting their economic plans. After Obama released a plan to cut taxes for the majority of U.S. tax payers, the McCain camp fired back falsely claiming the ‘largest tax increase since World Word II. I think it’s important to address the complete inaccuracy in most of McCain's statements this week.

First, McCain wants to eliminate the alternative minimum tax, claiming it will save working class families more than $2000 a year. But McCain’s ‘working middle class' includes people making up to $200k a year. Working class now includes those making $200k a year? In reality the McCain savings for those making less than $66k a year is less than .08%. The real winners in his typical republican plan are those making above $100k. And there was one ‘tiny’ little detail he fails to address, his cuts will cost the government $1.6 TRILLION over the next 10 years.

Then McCain states that Obama’s plan will be the largest tax increase since the second world war— 100% inaccurate. Historically it would be the fifth largest tax increase on the wealthy, an effect of the current Bush Administration tax cuts expiring at the end of 2010. Obama’s plan would only increase taxes of those making above $600k a year (1.1% of the nation). Everyone else would see a decrease in their taxes of up to 5%.

And the matter of attacking Obama for wanting to raise the capital gains tax rate. McCain states it will increase government receipts. In reality it would be a short term temporary spike, but nothing long term. And he continues talking about how the capital gains tax increase will affect family's 401ks— again untrue. I’m pretty sure any working adult knows that retirement funds are taxed as income when they are drawn down after age 59— not as capital gains, so they would not be affected at all.

And then this absurd ‘tax’ holiday McCain keeps bringing up. Give me a break—completely useless and a political stunt. No economist out there thinks this will save consumers money. Price cuts would basically create a greater demand for gas, increase big oil companies revenue, and in the long term raise the price of gas. I think most of us learned these principles in Econ 101. And what about the $8.5 billion that the Highway Trust Fund would lose during this cut, where are we going to compensate for the lost revenue?

Overall I think McCain has cut off his nose to spite himself. Most major newspapers ran articles comparing the two plans and it makes McCain look ridiculous. Below you can find a chart the Washington Post ran. It was compiled by the Tax Policy Center—which shows pretty clearly who the real winner and losers are under both plans. Take note on how Obama's so called tax increases do not affect most of America and McCain so called tax relief, relieves very little of middle America.

For more information and the full tax policy report visit: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693

Underdog to the rescue

Why I’m a political junkie….

A year ago McCain was labeled finished, Obama was labeled the underdog, and the Clinton powerhouse seemed unbeatable. And unless your head has been stuck under a rock, conventional political wisdom flew the coup right around Super Tuesday. Fast forward to present time, McCain has the nomination, Clinton is finished, and Obama won the Democrats. Not exactly the outcome the 'experts' perdicted so.

Clinton basically did everything a potential candidate should do. During two terms as Senator, she kept campaign promises, avoided scandal, and made a point to maintain her ‘moderate’ label. However, touting experience and a long resume didn’t appeal to young or middle aged voters looking for change. And while her campaign has not publicly admitted it, her biggest mistake was not campaigning in smaller caucuses, because she felt the delegate count seemed insignificant enough to affect her national win. This miscalculation equated into big numbers for Obama and also propelled his grassroots campaign. And while Clinton’s last ditch effort in West Virginia is admirable (The American Way—Never give up), the measly 28 delegates she picked up won’t make up for the others she mistakenly passed up.

And McCain can thank Huckabee for his win. Just a little less than a year ago, it was assumed McCain was doomed and Romney would be the Republican nominee. What came unexpected was a former governor from Arkansas named Huckabee. Huckabee’s ultra conservatism made him the Republican version of a Nader/Perot type stealing Romney votes. The split voting of Romney and Huckabee may have assisted McCain’s win, but McCain only won 30% of the total popular vote while combined Romney and Huckabee posted over 60%. There is little doubt that Romney would have easily beaten McCain had Huckabee not entered the race. Even after Romney dropped out, Huckabee still posted high numbers in the bible belt region, voters sending a message to McCain that he was not their number one pick, regardless if he had the delegate count.

So where does this leave us for the general election? It continues to be a numbers game, but each candidate has obstacles ahead. McCain must win over ultra conservative voters and hang on to moderate Republican voters. Second, he will need to justify his inconsistant voting record over the years and keep under tuck his infamous temper while doing so. I for one would love to the see the old fella lose control during a debate or sell out to the Bible belt. Obama’s obstacles are no less daunting. He has to reach out to white working class voters as well as seniors and gain their confidence. Additionally he’ll have to fight the lack of experience label and work to pursued moderate Republicans to vote in his favor. And if that wasn’t enough there’s the ‘tiny’ issue of race, not so important to young people like me, but certainly a stigma to others. So instead of an election battle between two conquerors its more the battle of two underdogs—something none of the ‘experts’ predicted

My take on '08

Watching the election coverage this week, I noticed the republican commentators a little on edge. Is it possible the right wing sector of the country is coming to terms with the possibility of a democratic administration come January 10, 2009? And not just any democratic administration, but one headed by an African American or woman. The urge to shout “how bout them apples” is quite overwhelming.

I wonder if Republicans are seconded guessing McCain. Huckabee or Romney had a better chance with the bible belt than McCain, who voted in favor of partial birth abortion and has flip flopped on the war, taxes and public spending so frequently, most are not sure where he stands. In fact he is the only candidate running who voted for the dreaded partial birth abortion bill that is at the heat of the abortion debate. McCain won the primaries solely because of the Republican process, which is different from democrats. The republican party gives the majority winner of each state primary all the electoral votes. And while McCain took the moderate republican vote in urban areas, the smaller districts voted for Huckabee and Romney. Even after McCain was close to the needed 1191 delegates, staunt conservatives continued to vote for Huckabee, overwhelmingly. This could be a problem for republicans in the general election, as the number of democratic voters has dramatically increased, while the republican registration has not. And if the bible belt voters sit this one out, that could spell T-R-O-U-B-L-E.

And so the republicans have taken no time in attacking the democratic candidates and processes. Even Bush has jumped on the bandwagon, despite yet another broken promise to stay out of the elections until the conventions announced the nomination. And so the negative messaging includes Obama’s lack of experience, how change is bad, and false Muslim ties. I can only attest this form of bad politics for fear of Obama’s straight forward, no tricks or games track record. He’s indeed a rather rare Hill specimen, an actual honest politician who isn’t tainted by lobbyists or a political family. Obama has defied conventional wisdom and raised more money than any other candidate in a rather innovative way, receiving small donations from everyday people. A strange and outdated concept yes, but amazing effective. And even though he did not win Pennsylvania, he still holds the electoral lead and is not afraid to explain things honestly and avoids the hierarchy of bad politics.

And then there is the supposed ‘big bad’ Hillary Clinton, who for some reason all republicans falsely assume everyone dislikes. This makes very little sense considering her main supporters are white men and women over 35, who hold a large percentage of registered voters. I suppose republicans have forgotten the popularity of the first Clinton administration and how democrats took note of all economic, foreign and domestic accomplishments, while the bitter republicans simply focused on the hypocritical Newt Gingrich witch-hunt of the 90s. I think its important to remember Newt Gringrich was having an affair with his college age assistant while he lead this hunt. And while people continue to say that Hillary cannot win against McCain, I must disagree, as she has a very good change of swaying moderate republicans if McCain digresses to the extreme right. Furthermore she will undoubting regain the Obama supporters should the nomination go her way.

But I have to say the most ridiculous piece of the pie is the republican party and McCain loudly criticizing the Clinton/Obama race for the convention nomination. Have we become so subdued by boring primary elections and a lack thereof soapbox politics in the last 10 years? Have we forgotten that our political system is more complex than simply placing a candidate on a ballot and expecting people to vote a certain way because the party would prefer it so? I commend Clinton and Obama, because each have returned to grassroots campaiging and remembering small town America. This is America's political system at it's best.

I am not naïve enough to think that McCain has no chance, this past year I’ve seen it all. Billy Graham endorsed the controversial Giuliani, Bush endorsed a man who spoke out against the war vehemently and a young senator from Chicago who was told he didn’t have a chance inspired millions. The last two elections have been extremely close-- the exit polls, conventional wisdom, even popular vote has not determined who wins the oval office. But perhaps this election will highlight the importance of grassroots campaigning and show the campaign ‘experts’ that in the end, the voters, not politicians and media, do decide.

The Not So Fabulous Ms. Coulter

I have to tell you- when it comes to ultra conservative soap box standers- Ann Coulter is right up there on my list of “people to ignore”. People like Ms. Coulter are not helping the popularity of ultra-conservative values- but instead making people want to distance themselves as far as possible.

A self proclaimed "polemicist" who likes to "stir the pot", Ann Coulter has always been controversial, but her shock value comments are offending to me as a moral being, an American Citizen, and finally a woman.

For the record to be a polemicist means one who is in the practice of disputing or controverting religious, philosophical, or political matters. Basically it's disputing or refuting a topic that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach. – Thanks Wikipedia.

Ms. Coulter once stated that one of her pipe dreams was to have women’s rights to vote revoked. Why do you ask- oh because we are more vicious than men. Funny though it hasn’t stopped Ms. Coulter from voting in recent elections or mentioning plans of running for congress. So much for practicing what you preach. Newsflash Ms. Coulter- if you don’t think women should vote than you should surely should stay out of politics and certainly not publicly state plans for public office. That all kind of ties together with voting rights.

She is also a self proclaimed Christian, following the teachings of JC, but I have to say her actions are a little less than Christian like. For instance she has stated that all Muslim countries should be invaded, their leaders killed, and then people converted to Christianity. I think we are in the wrong century- remember the Crusades- and um yeah that worked out fantastic. And just this week Ms. Coulter said that Jews should be perfected by converting to Christianity. Hmmm... I do believe a man by the name of Hitler had the same idea- although if memory serves that didn’t work out so well and really pissed off the world.

Of course Ms. Coulter is not exactly known for being posed, tactful, or even at times historically accurate. She insulted the US Ambassador to France, during the Ambassadors’ memorial service- very nice indeed. She has also defended President Nixon's Watergate acts, and incorrectly made comments about Canada and the Vietnam War.

If that is not enough to make you wonder where her whack job ideas comes from, she wrote that the Democrats “master” plan is to trick American voters into trusting them with National Security. Hmm... Does that sound at all kind of like the current administration who has tried to put the fear of God into the public to win votes? And wasn’t it a famous President who said “they only thing we have to fear, is fear itself?” I guess that was only for liberal nuts like me.

Then again, what does one expect from an admitted "a bigoted conservative”. Frankly I think she is on a downward spiral. Getting advertising sponsors is becoming tricky and she has been losing support from her own followers. Newspapers in conservative’s areas in Georgia, Iowa, and North Caroline dropped her column after outrageous comments on Presidential Candidates. If you can’t get those in your own value range to support you- where to next?

I’m almost afraid to ask.

The leader of the "Evil Empire"

Dubbed the evil empire, The New York Yankees are indeed an empire bar none to any other. And leading the empire, with a reputation of a tyrant is George Steinbrenner himself. Nicknamed, "the boss”, his big spending on the club may have earned respect from the Yankee fans but in return an overwhelming contempt from the non-believers. During his ownership- going on 35 years- Steinbrenner has seen 10 club pennants and 6 World Series titles. And while most clubhouses would be more than content with such winnings - for “the boss” it’s never enough. I like to think of Steinbrenner like the God Father- he is wise and intelligent, has a unique way with words, and yet is a ruthless character- making him appear superhuman to many others.

His wisdom and intelligence may not be appreciated by Yankee haters and admittedly has confused the hell out of the fans once or twice- but there is a method to the madness. He may have changed managers 20 times over his first 23 years of ownership- but that method brought us greats. Greats like Billy Martin, Yogi Berra, Lou Piniella, and most recently Joe Torre. Granted his support for free agency and ability to make other players “an offer they can’t refuse” may infuriate some, but has produced titles and rings, bar none to any major league club.

Even more uniquely, Steinbrenner’s no hold back way with words- given freely to the press- makes him unlike any other owner in baseball. After the 1981 World Series, Steinbrenner publicly apologized to Yankee fans for the teams lose. How often do you see that happen? One of his most famous quotes, “Winning is the most important thing in my life, after breathing. Breathing first, winning next.” beautifully sums up ownership style.

Of course, Steinbrenner’s ruthless manner is the most notorious quality he bears. I remember a game I attended at Camden Yards a few years back. A young pitcher fresh from the minors made an appearance in the bottom of the 8th. Most unfortunate for him, his first pitch resulted in a game winning homerun for Baltimore. The next day the pitcher- whose name is now quite forgettable- was no longer a Yankee. Just this past weekend, the boss made stern public remarks for the one of the most successful and well liked managers in Yankee history- Mr. Joe Torre. Paraphrased best Steinbrenner told the manger whose team was trailing 0-2 in the division playoffs, “win this game or your fired". And trust me- that was George’s putting it nicely.

George Steinbrenner bears qualities quite similar to the “God Father” figure. But he is not the first and certainly not the last owner of the Yanks. The Yankees have a history of his type. And while I’d love to end on a witty line, someone beat me to it way before Steinbrenner was in the running to be owner:

"In a tough age which called for tough men in baseball, the Yankees were the toughest. They were managed by a perfectionist, bossed by a president who hated second place, and owned by a man who could say, even with a seventeen-game lead in 1936, "I can't stand the suspense. When are we going to clinch it? “- David Voigt in American Baseball (1970)