I recently heard on television news that the “official” season for the start of the primaries occured the first part of September. What has been going on for the past seven months? Most of us are already worn out. What will we be like come January 2008?
Looking at the political landscape and how the voters stack up in all this, I have a few thoughts and observations of my own.
First, I happen to buy into the notion that our Founding Fathers had far more wisdom than has been attributed to them during the course of the last two plus centuries. They were careful and judicious in creating a balance of power between the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches of government, plus guaranteeing oversight of their actions by a free and open press. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that they clearly intended that each be balanced and mutually exclusive. Clearly, it was their intent that powers granted to the individual states was to limit domination by a centralized government. I regard the 17th Amendment to the Constitution as the single most crippling blow to that balance of power, which effectively reduced the power of the states to a secondary position relative to that of the federal monolith in Washington, D.C. We are no longer “a government of the people, by the people and for the people.” We now have an insulated bubble of power and influence inside the Beltway that has given way to their own vested self-interests at the expense of the people they were supposed to serve. There exists within that sphere a perception of power rather akin to that of the divine right of kings.
We Americans take great pride in thinking of ourselves as a democracy. After all, we are the ones who elect those we send to Washington on our behalf. Let’s be realistic about what actually exists. Congressional representatives, the President and Senators go back to their so-called constituencies every two, four and six years, respectively, and pander to us for our votes. We are seduced into believing they are actually real and have a sincere desire to look out for our welfare. Instead, as soon as they are elected they return to the “bubble within the Beltway” to serve the interests of their “real” constituents; the lobbyists, big business, international corporations, and the rich and famous.” The rest of us can suck the hindmost until they next need our votes in order to continue indulging their voracious appetites at the public buffet set before them with our tax dollars. Yet, we have an almost ingrained need to convince ourselves that we really do hold sway over what they do. In reality, what exists is little more than an illusion.
The second most grievous assault on the individual citizens of the United States was granting the same rights to corporations as those belonging to the people. They seized that opening and have steadfastly held to the notion that what was created on a piece of paper was indeed equal in all respects to what was created by God as the temple of our immortal souls. Since then, corporations have acted out of their own self-interests and insatiable greed at the expense of those of us who depend on them to protect and maintain an economy for the health and welfare of the citizens of this country. Instead of trying to look at what they have done for us, it is ever so much easier to look at what they have done to us! It is time corporations were stripped of that perverted notion of equality with human beings. That action could and should be done with all due haste. They exist to serve us, not the other way around. Only people should be treated like and have the same rights as human beings.
The third most perilous change was that of what was supposed to be a free and unfettered press evolving into corporate ownership of the news media, making it the mouthpiece of big business and a servant of government’s quest for greater power and secrecy. That was not the intent of the First Amendment. The press is there to serve as the watchdog over government in order to protect the rights of citizens. The only way to ensure the integrity of that intent is to pass legislation prohibiting anything other than complete independence in the ownership of the news media.
When Carl Rove & Co. set out on their quest to make the coward of the Texas Air National Guard into a national hero, they brought with them the template for a propaganda machine that is eerily similar to that of the Nazi Party’s German Minister of Information and Propaganda, Josepf Gobbels. That should never have happened and safeguards should be put in place to ensure it never happens again. Were it not for a few courageous and dedicated professional journalists, God only knows what would have happened to this country. The independence of a free press must be re-established for the sake of preserving our free and democratic way of life.
This all brings me to the current race for the White House. Keep in mind that the public persona of the candidates is the product of professional image-makers and the best minds on Madison Avenue. Almost everything they say and do is highly scripted for our consumption. The mere fact that the single most important indicator of success from the eyes of the political pundits is how much campaign money the candidate is capable of raising speaks volumes. Who said that our elected officials are not up for sale to the highest bidder? Of course, they buy the office for which they are running. As the old saying goes, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” Those campaign contributions from the heavy hitters will have to ultimately be paid back from the bounty in the trough of “public service” at the expense of the common man.
Personally, I think the distinctions between the two major political parties are blurred. More often than not it is hard to discern one from the other on major issues and the real constituencies they serve. So, Because of time and space, I will limit my comments in this epistle to those running for president on the Democratic Ticket.
Hillary Clinton is reputed to be the undisputed front-runner for the Democratic Party and is generally regarded as having an almost divine right to the nomination because of (a) being the first woman to run for president, and (b) being the most “experienced” for the job. I have no problem with a woman serving as the President of the United States. That simply should not be an issue. However, for Hillary to boast that she has the most experience begs the question. What is so remarkable about her background as to set her above and apart from 99 other capable and qualified senators? I don’t see that her service and experience in the Senate has been so remarkable as to make her unusually well qualified to be president. Admittedly, her role as First Lady may well have made her privy to presidential decisions, but not in an official capacity. I have no doubts that she and Bill strategized over most major issues facing the presidency. After all, it was in many respects, a strategic alliance masquerading as a marriage. Given her reputation for using rather salty language, plus demeaning the White House Staff and the Secret Service, to apply the term “lady” to Hillary may be stretching it a bit.
I vividly recall an incident in 1996 when Bill was running for re-election. The Clintons and the Gores made a bus run through western Washington and happened to stop in a small farming community. The park where the rally was held consisted of little more than a patch of grass and a few Alder trees. I happened to be there with my daughter and I can still recall the mounting excitement of the crowd as they anticipated the arrival of the presidential campaign bus. When they finally pulled into the park, Bill and Al did their dog and pony show in splendid style. During the entire stop, Hillary sat by the windows in full view, with her back to the crowd and never turned around once. That incident spoke volumes about who and what she really is. Despite that air of superiority, Hillary wouldn’t have made a pimple on the ass of any one of those humble folks trying to get a glimpse of her.
I think Hillary and Bill have had a long-standing agreement to support the ambitions of each other and they will do almost anything to realize those aspirations. That, I believe, is the foundation for their relationship. There is an old saying to the effect that we are known by the company we keep. An examination of that parable as it applies to the Clintons clearly shows there has been a lot of sleaze in their life together. It is peppered with those who have operated on the fringe or outside the law. No small number of campaign contributors have had a checkered past, the most recent being Mr. Hsu.
It was Bill Clinton who signed the NAFTA Treaty and gave CAFTA his whole-hearted support. By his actions, he unleashed the scourge of globalization and the unfettered greed that was sure to follow. He did nothing for the middle class or working men and women in this country, other than to put them on a downhill trajectory leading to a two-class society and consigning them to a life of living on the edge or outright poverty. He and Hillary are heavily invested in companies in India that are major beneficiaries of the largesse created by outsourcing jobs from the United States. They have both pandered to corporations and lobbyists for financial support in their eternal quest for political immortality. They continue to do so.
Hillary Clinton is nothing more than a hard, tough, ruthless, self-serving politician who covets the highest office in the land for her own personal aggrandizement; a place in history as the first woman president. Frankly, I think we can afford to wait for a more genuine and deserving role model to grace the pages of history on that score, and one of whom we can be justly proud. We should be able to do better than Hillary Clinton.
Barack Obama. Now there is a man just oozing charisma from every pore. He is handsome, intelligent and articulate. I want to believe the best about him. However, the more public exposure I see causes me pause. There are times I sense a faint manifestation of arrogance. Perhaps that is the legacy of Harvard. What lies beneath that veneer? Does he have that touch of greatness we so desperately need or is he just another politician with his own personal agenda? He bears watching but I wouldn’t commit at this point. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on this one.
John Edwards has done a superlative job of staking his claim as the advocate for the working men and women of this country. When he recounts the struggles of his father and the humble home in which he grew up, that is touching stuff. He talks a good story but I find it more than a bit hypocritical against the backdrop of a 28,000 square foot mansion and a 400-dollar haircut. Who is he beholden to and what are his real motives for seeking the highest office in the land? Too many unanswered questions to garner any serious consideration from me.
Dennis Kucinich is probably the most on message in terms of where this country is and what we need to do in order to begin a serious effort to fix it. He is intelligent, articulate and knowledgeable, and appears to be an honest man. Unfortunately, in a country where appearance is more important than substance, he just does not have the charisma to be taken seriously by the majority he needs. No matter how good he may be, he doesn’t stand a ghost of a chance of getting the nomination.
Joe Biden has demonstrated his mettle throughout his career in the Senate. He seems to be well informed, intelligent, articulate and a straight shooter. He has immersed himself in the quest to better understand the cross currents in Iraq and to define a rational course of action in order to cut our losses. His net worth, alone, suggests he is the most honest among the bunch. If I were to vote for a Democrat, he would get my vote hands down.
As for the rest, they impress me as being little more than politicians, each with a slightly different bent. I don’t think any of them will command serious consideration in the forthcoming primaries.
The time has come to give serious consideration to a viable third political party for those of like mind and who feel disenfranchised from their current party affiliation. If Chuck Hagel were running for the Presidency, he would command an impressive following. He is made of the stuff this nation needs. His decision not to seek re-election or to run for the presidency is a real loss to all of us. We can only wish him well in his future endeavors.
September 14, 2007
Looking at the political landscape and how the voters stack up in all this, I have a few thoughts and observations of my own.
First, I happen to buy into the notion that our Founding Fathers had far more wisdom than has been attributed to them during the course of the last two plus centuries. They were careful and judicious in creating a balance of power between the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches of government, plus guaranteeing oversight of their actions by a free and open press. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that they clearly intended that each be balanced and mutually exclusive. Clearly, it was their intent that powers granted to the individual states was to limit domination by a centralized government. I regard the 17th Amendment to the Constitution as the single most crippling blow to that balance of power, which effectively reduced the power of the states to a secondary position relative to that of the federal monolith in Washington, D.C. We are no longer “a government of the people, by the people and for the people.” We now have an insulated bubble of power and influence inside the Beltway that has given way to their own vested self-interests at the expense of the people they were supposed to serve. There exists within that sphere a perception of power rather akin to that of the divine right of kings.
We Americans take great pride in thinking of ourselves as a democracy. After all, we are the ones who elect those we send to Washington on our behalf. Let’s be realistic about what actually exists. Congressional representatives, the President and Senators go back to their so-called constituencies every two, four and six years, respectively, and pander to us for our votes. We are seduced into believing they are actually real and have a sincere desire to look out for our welfare. Instead, as soon as they are elected they return to the “bubble within the Beltway” to serve the interests of their “real” constituents; the lobbyists, big business, international corporations, and the rich and famous.” The rest of us can suck the hindmost until they next need our votes in order to continue indulging their voracious appetites at the public buffet set before them with our tax dollars. Yet, we have an almost ingrained need to convince ourselves that we really do hold sway over what they do. In reality, what exists is little more than an illusion.
The second most grievous assault on the individual citizens of the United States was granting the same rights to corporations as those belonging to the people. They seized that opening and have steadfastly held to the notion that what was created on a piece of paper was indeed equal in all respects to what was created by God as the temple of our immortal souls. Since then, corporations have acted out of their own self-interests and insatiable greed at the expense of those of us who depend on them to protect and maintain an economy for the health and welfare of the citizens of this country. Instead of trying to look at what they have done for us, it is ever so much easier to look at what they have done to us! It is time corporations were stripped of that perverted notion of equality with human beings. That action could and should be done with all due haste. They exist to serve us, not the other way around. Only people should be treated like and have the same rights as human beings.
The third most perilous change was that of what was supposed to be a free and unfettered press evolving into corporate ownership of the news media, making it the mouthpiece of big business and a servant of government’s quest for greater power and secrecy. That was not the intent of the First Amendment. The press is there to serve as the watchdog over government in order to protect the rights of citizens. The only way to ensure the integrity of that intent is to pass legislation prohibiting anything other than complete independence in the ownership of the news media.
When Carl Rove & Co. set out on their quest to make the coward of the Texas Air National Guard into a national hero, they brought with them the template for a propaganda machine that is eerily similar to that of the Nazi Party’s German Minister of Information and Propaganda, Josepf Gobbels. That should never have happened and safeguards should be put in place to ensure it never happens again. Were it not for a few courageous and dedicated professional journalists, God only knows what would have happened to this country. The independence of a free press must be re-established for the sake of preserving our free and democratic way of life.
This all brings me to the current race for the White House. Keep in mind that the public persona of the candidates is the product of professional image-makers and the best minds on Madison Avenue. Almost everything they say and do is highly scripted for our consumption. The mere fact that the single most important indicator of success from the eyes of the political pundits is how much campaign money the candidate is capable of raising speaks volumes. Who said that our elected officials are not up for sale to the highest bidder? Of course, they buy the office for which they are running. As the old saying goes, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” Those campaign contributions from the heavy hitters will have to ultimately be paid back from the bounty in the trough of “public service” at the expense of the common man.
Personally, I think the distinctions between the two major political parties are blurred. More often than not it is hard to discern one from the other on major issues and the real constituencies they serve. So, Because of time and space, I will limit my comments in this epistle to those running for president on the Democratic Ticket.
Hillary Clinton is reputed to be the undisputed front-runner for the Democratic Party and is generally regarded as having an almost divine right to the nomination because of (a) being the first woman to run for president, and (b) being the most “experienced” for the job. I have no problem with a woman serving as the President of the United States. That simply should not be an issue. However, for Hillary to boast that she has the most experience begs the question. What is so remarkable about her background as to set her above and apart from 99 other capable and qualified senators? I don’t see that her service and experience in the Senate has been so remarkable as to make her unusually well qualified to be president. Admittedly, her role as First Lady may well have made her privy to presidential decisions, but not in an official capacity. I have no doubts that she and Bill strategized over most major issues facing the presidency. After all, it was in many respects, a strategic alliance masquerading as a marriage. Given her reputation for using rather salty language, plus demeaning the White House Staff and the Secret Service, to apply the term “lady” to Hillary may be stretching it a bit.
I vividly recall an incident in 1996 when Bill was running for re-election. The Clintons and the Gores made a bus run through western Washington and happened to stop in a small farming community. The park where the rally was held consisted of little more than a patch of grass and a few Alder trees. I happened to be there with my daughter and I can still recall the mounting excitement of the crowd as they anticipated the arrival of the presidential campaign bus. When they finally pulled into the park, Bill and Al did their dog and pony show in splendid style. During the entire stop, Hillary sat by the windows in full view, with her back to the crowd and never turned around once. That incident spoke volumes about who and what she really is. Despite that air of superiority, Hillary wouldn’t have made a pimple on the ass of any one of those humble folks trying to get a glimpse of her.
I think Hillary and Bill have had a long-standing agreement to support the ambitions of each other and they will do almost anything to realize those aspirations. That, I believe, is the foundation for their relationship. There is an old saying to the effect that we are known by the company we keep. An examination of that parable as it applies to the Clintons clearly shows there has been a lot of sleaze in their life together. It is peppered with those who have operated on the fringe or outside the law. No small number of campaign contributors have had a checkered past, the most recent being Mr. Hsu.
It was Bill Clinton who signed the NAFTA Treaty and gave CAFTA his whole-hearted support. By his actions, he unleashed the scourge of globalization and the unfettered greed that was sure to follow. He did nothing for the middle class or working men and women in this country, other than to put them on a downhill trajectory leading to a two-class society and consigning them to a life of living on the edge or outright poverty. He and Hillary are heavily invested in companies in India that are major beneficiaries of the largesse created by outsourcing jobs from the United States. They have both pandered to corporations and lobbyists for financial support in their eternal quest for political immortality. They continue to do so.
Hillary Clinton is nothing more than a hard, tough, ruthless, self-serving politician who covets the highest office in the land for her own personal aggrandizement; a place in history as the first woman president. Frankly, I think we can afford to wait for a more genuine and deserving role model to grace the pages of history on that score, and one of whom we can be justly proud. We should be able to do better than Hillary Clinton.
Barack Obama. Now there is a man just oozing charisma from every pore. He is handsome, intelligent and articulate. I want to believe the best about him. However, the more public exposure I see causes me pause. There are times I sense a faint manifestation of arrogance. Perhaps that is the legacy of Harvard. What lies beneath that veneer? Does he have that touch of greatness we so desperately need or is he just another politician with his own personal agenda? He bears watching but I wouldn’t commit at this point. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on this one.
John Edwards has done a superlative job of staking his claim as the advocate for the working men and women of this country. When he recounts the struggles of his father and the humble home in which he grew up, that is touching stuff. He talks a good story but I find it more than a bit hypocritical against the backdrop of a 28,000 square foot mansion and a 400-dollar haircut. Who is he beholden to and what are his real motives for seeking the highest office in the land? Too many unanswered questions to garner any serious consideration from me.
Dennis Kucinich is probably the most on message in terms of where this country is and what we need to do in order to begin a serious effort to fix it. He is intelligent, articulate and knowledgeable, and appears to be an honest man. Unfortunately, in a country where appearance is more important than substance, he just does not have the charisma to be taken seriously by the majority he needs. No matter how good he may be, he doesn’t stand a ghost of a chance of getting the nomination.
Joe Biden has demonstrated his mettle throughout his career in the Senate. He seems to be well informed, intelligent, articulate and a straight shooter. He has immersed himself in the quest to better understand the cross currents in Iraq and to define a rational course of action in order to cut our losses. His net worth, alone, suggests he is the most honest among the bunch. If I were to vote for a Democrat, he would get my vote hands down.
As for the rest, they impress me as being little more than politicians, each with a slightly different bent. I don’t think any of them will command serious consideration in the forthcoming primaries.
The time has come to give serious consideration to a viable third political party for those of like mind and who feel disenfranchised from their current party affiliation. If Chuck Hagel were running for the Presidency, he would command an impressive following. He is made of the stuff this nation needs. His decision not to seek re-election or to run for the presidency is a real loss to all of us. We can only wish him well in his future endeavors.
September 14, 2007
