mathpol (Gregory F. Bachelis)
west bloomfield, MI
gbacheli
This page contains my recent blog posts that have not been published on AC.
A Preview of Things to Come?
In April, I published an article on Associated Content, “On Barack Obama’s Blackness”, which I also posted on my blog. It was rather measured and not intemperate. On November 6th, “Anonymous” posted the following two comments on my article:
“Wow, this article is pretty racist. Oh well, people like that will get over it either before they die or after. Obama is President now anyway.....Whoo Hoo!!!”
and
“Or maybe I took it wrong. I re-read it. Sorry if I took it the wrong way at first.”
Here is the comment I posted in reply:
I think it is unfortunate when people "jump to conclusions" and start name-calling. I felt free to offer criticisms of Obama during the campaign, with posts and videos. One post had some people at Open Salon calling me names, including ad hominem attacks. As the election neared, I removed such posts and videos, since I felt the time for criticism was over, so I left only my positive or humorous(?) stuff out there.
I lose my temper, like everyone else, especially when a ditto-head responds with some idiotic argument. As for President-Elect Obama, I'm still not sure how he will govern. But it is such a relief to have the election over, with the likes of Elizabeth Dole defeated. I would post more stuff here, but I am constrained by their restrictions. Also, I still can't find out the results of their Political Haiku contest!
(end of my comment)
My reference to “Things to Come” in the title refers to the possibility that those of us who savor nuance, strive to be even-handed, like to expose hypocrisy wherever we see it and to puncture vanity when necessary - that we now are going to be stampeded back under the rocks from which we came by the “politically correct “ posse.
Obama’s election will have many positive effects, but I’m afraid it will not be able to cure the Internet’s bi-polar virus.
Did George W. Bush Suspend the “Laws of Arithmetic”?
“It’s a Time to Listen, and to Obey the Laws of Arithmetic” is the title of an article in today’s New York Times by Harvard Professor Gregory Mankiw, who was chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005. The article is incredibly patronizing and condescending. Here is the letter I sent to the Times.
I think it was very thoughtful of Gregory Mankiw, Harvard Professor and former Bush economic adviser, to give his patronizing little lecture to President-Elect Obama about how he should listen to his economic advisors, stating that "[t]hey will often give advice quite different from what will be coming from the Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. To make sure the views of economic advisers are heard, they should have offices close to the Oval Office. The chief of staff should invite them to all the relevant meetings."
Professor Mankiw's column leads me to ask: Where was he while George W. Bush was busy bankrupting the country? Did he give Bush any lectures about obeying the "laws of arithmetic", or were these laws suspended after 9/11, along with parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
(end of letter)
Talk about being an elitist! Some say Obama is one, but Mankiw certainly wasn’t talking to him “elitist to elitist” I especially liked the part about the proximity of the economic advisers’ offices to the Oval Office. Vice President Cheney’s office isn’t even in the White House, and the adviser Bush says he listens to the most is located somewhere in Heaven.
Greg Bachelis (recent photo)
I'm a longtime political junkie. My interest in politics started even before I campaigned for Henry Wallace for President in 1948 at the age of seven. I retired in 2005 from Wayne State University after being a math professor there for 34 years. Until then I had taught mathematics, as well as some statistics and theoretical computer science, and published papers, since getting my Ph.D. at the University of Oregon in 1966.
I am now a (mostly political) blogger.
My You Tube moniker is politicalmusic.
My Cabinet Predictions
“The Uncabinet. A guide to key appointments Obama should resist”, was the title of a column by Timothy Noah in today’s Slate. I sent him the following email.
Subject: My predictions for the Cabinet, off the top of my head
State: Richard Holbrooke
Defense: Wesley Clark
AG: Hillary Clinton
Treasury: Hank Paulson (for a short term)
Energy: Al Gore
Education: Henry Gates, Jr.
HHS; Donna Shalala
Transportation: Harold Ford, Jr.
UN Ambassador: Bill Clinton
HUD Jesse Jackson, Jr.
EPA: David Axelrod
Commerce: John McCain
National Security Adviser: Colin Powell
Homeland Security: Joe Lieberman
(end of e-mail)
I didn’t have an Hispanic or an Asian. How about Bill Richardson for International Trade Rep and Tammy Duckworth for Veterans Affairs.
I forgot Labor and Social Security. How about John Sweeney and Robert Reich, respectively.
This is mostly wishful thinking on my part, but you’ve got to admit, it would be a diverse and colorful Cabinet!
I Told You So, Al. Or at least I tried to
Despite Barack Obama's historic victory, and by a decisive margin at that, Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman appears to have won his race against Al Franken by a razor thin margin and retained his Senate seat.
Not to gloat, but here is a portion of my post last July, "My Message to Al Franken"
Quoting from a post by Jake Tapper, "Jesse Ventura To Run for Senate?" to the ABC News blog, "Political Punch":
“[Former Governor Jesse] Ventura called Franken an opportunist and a carpetbagger. ‘“He hasn't lived here in 30 years, and he's only coming back to Minnesota for the convenience of his own political agenda. Why didn't he run in the states he was living in?
Clearly, for being a Harvard graduate, he's not too smart on taxes, is he? Everybody laughs, saying I came from wrestling. But at least I knew when I wrestled in 40 states, I had to pay taxes in those 40 states. You just have to do the paperwork. I find it unbelievable that someone who could go to Harvard didn't know that or let it slip. Blaming his accountant is worse, because now he's turning into a politician. He's not accepting responsibility for his actions.’”
Ventura's reference to taxes concerned the fact that Franken didn't file taxes in the states where he earned money from his appearances, as he should have. I am a longtime fan of Franken and I have supported his Senate campaign, as in sending money. I have been getting mostly upbeat emails and phone calls. Here is my reply to the latest email.
"What have you guys been smoking? What about Jesse Ventura? What about the tax
mess? What about your losing in the polls? I have tried to get through to Al Franken for years, but I have never succeeded. My opinion is that he is just too conceited to get elected. He only listens to those who feed his over-sized ego. I wish things were otherwise. If Al Franken really cared about the mess this country is in, he would drop out in favor of someone with less baggage.”
Comedians tend to be vain and mean, and Al Franken is no exception. I enjoyed his Air America radio show, although I could never get through. Only hate e-mails got quoted. His producer there, Andy Barr, is now his campaign manager. Franken has his heart in the right place. The problem is with his mouth. A generic Democratic opponent would defeat Coleman. Unfortunately, Franken is a brand name."
(end of excerpt)
In the end, Ventura did not get into the race, but Dean Barkley of his Independence Party did. I don't know whether this cost Franken or Coleman more votes. I did what I could for Al, contributing over $200. For a retired mathematician like me, who is now a blogger with two followers, this is a lot of money. (Someone on his staff once asked me if I wanted a yard sign. I replied that I didn't think it would have much impact here in Michigan.)
Since Coleman's winning margin over Franken was about .03% (roughly 750 votes out of 2.5 million), we can pray that a recount will reverse the outcome. Sad to say, this story is no joke; one to which not even Al Franken can supply a suitable punch line.
I Come Out as a “Red-Diaper Baby” Ben Sen made a favorable comment on Open Salon about my previous post, “Former (London) Times Editor Smears U.S. Media…” At the end he wrote: “Thank you for this piece. The only thing I can't figure is the reference to Wallace in your bio. Your writing doesn't portray a right wing ideologue, which is what makes it peculiar. You'd think it would be something a man today would hide--or explain as a youthful indiscretion. What statement are you making?” I responded with the following comment: “Thank you for your comments. In answer to your "Wallace" question, that was HENRY Wallace, candidate of the Progressive Party in 1948, which was to the left of the Democratic party and supported by Communists, among others. Henry Wallace had been FDR's VP in his third term, and he was something of a yo-yo. I was a "red-diaper baby"; both my parents were members of the Communist Party at one time, though not openly so. Although only seven years old in 1948, I was politically precocious and could spout the "party line." I guess the age of seven is too young, even for a "youthful indiscretion".” The reference he had in mind was that I “Campaigned for Henry Wallace for President at the age of seven.” He must have thought “George Wallace.” This being the 40th anniversary (plus two days) of that historic election, I think it only fitting that I come out and admit that I was indeed a ”red-diaper baby”. (“red” as in “Communist”) My father was a member of the Communist Party until the day he died in 1954. My mother was a member of the Party until she quit in 1950. And my first stepfather, D.M.B, was also a member. I don’t know when he quit, as eventually almost everyone did. None of the three was an open member. So there you have it!
Ben Sen made a favorable comment on Open Salon about my previous post, “Former (London) Times Editor Smears U.S. Media…” At the end he wrote:
“Thank you for this piece. The only thing I can't figure is the reference to Wallace in your bio. Your writing doesn't portray a right wing ideologue, which is what makes it peculiar. You'd think it would be something a man today would hide--or explain as a youthful indiscretion. What statement are you making?”
I responded with the following comment:
“Thank you for your comments. In answer to your "Wallace" question, that was HENRY Wallace, candidate of the Progressive Party in 1948, which was to the left of the Democratic party and supported by Communists, among others. Henry Wallace had been FDR's VP in his third term, and he was something of a yo-yo. I was a "red-diaper baby"; both my parents were members of the Communist Party at one time, though not openly so. Although only seven years old in 1948, I was politically precocious and could spout the "party line." I guess the age of seven is too young, even for a "youthful indiscretion".”
The reference he had in mind was that I “Campaigned for Henry Wallace for President at the age of seven.” He must have thought “George Wallace.” This being the 40th anniversary (plus two days) of that historic election, I think it only fitting that I come out and admit that I was indeed a ”red-diaper baby”. (“red” as in “Communist”) My father was a member of the Communist Party until the day he died in 1954. My mother was a member of the Party until she quit in 1950. And my first stepfather, D.M.B, was also a member. I don’t know when he quit, as eventually almost everyone did. None of the three was an open member.
So there you have it!
I have reproduced it below in its entirety, along with my annotations {…} . Phrases that I comment upon are in boldface.
They long ago elected the star graduate of Chicago's Democratic machine, Barack Obama. {Obama is a hardly a “graduate“ of the machine. What about Harvard Law, Columbia, etc.?}
What's troubling to anyone old-fashioned enough to care about standards in journalism is the news coverage in mainstream media. Forget the old notions of objectivity, fairness, thoroughness, and so on. The nastiest rumours on both sides haven't been published, but the coverage has been slavishly on the side of "the one". {“Slavish”? Evans’s description.}
convention, McCain, once the darling of the media, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. Meanwhile, Obama got twice as many positive stories as McCain. The website Politico has also acknowledged that it had loaded the dice against McCain:100 stories were more favourable
to Obama than McCain; 69 were the opposite. {“loaded the dice” Was this how Politico phrased it?}
the radar that the Clintons were race-baiters. Instead of exposing that absurd defamation for what it was - a nasty smear - the media sedulously propagated it. {What about Bill’s downplaying of Obama’s victory in South Carolina by comparing it with Jesse Jackson’s 20 years ago? Or Clinton surrogate and B.E.T. founder, Robert Johnson’s smear about what Obama did “in the hood”?}
Obamania has not been deflated one bit by the non-stop talkers on rightwing radio. They offer vituperation in place of enlightenment; paranoia in place of policies, and as such have little influence with the crucial independents. {How wrong you are! Rush Limbaugh’s effect is toxic, to say the least.
Many think of him as primarily an entertainer, but he rants, he oversimplifies, and he is misleading. A true demagogue with a large following who hang on his every word. The other day I heard him refer to Obama as a “little squirrel.”}
The young and affluent liberals have been captivated by Obama's charisma, the unstated notion that electing a black man will be absolution for the years of discrimination and prejudice, {Says who?} and the expectation that Obama's undoubted appeal to the outside world will repair America's image. All understandable, but these emotions have been allowed to swamp the commonplace imperatives of journalism: curiosity and scepticism.
All the mainstream national outlets were extraordinarily slow to check Obama's background. And until it became inescapable because of a video rant, they wouldn't investigate the Reverend Jeremiah Wright connection for fear of being accused of racism. {False. New York Times. April, 2007} They wouldn't explore Obama's dealing with the corrupt, now convicted, Chicago businessman Tony Rezko. {False: Obama has given several interviews to the Chicago Sun-Times on the subject.} They haven't investigated Obama's pledge to get rid of the secret ballot in trade union affairs. After years of inveighing against "money in politics", they've tolerated {says who?} his breach of the pledge to restrict himself to public financing as McCain has done (to his cost).
Let's hope the consequences of electing "the one" will be as wondrous as the press has led the voters to believe.
I am the first to admit that objectivity on the part of some reporters has been strained by Obama’s charismatic appeal. However, Evans fails to distinguish between reporters, and commentators or columnists. The latter group are allowed to voice their own opinions. I believe the MSNBC-ers he
mentions fall into the latter category.
“Push-polling” is the device whereby phone calls are made by people claiming to be conducting a poll, who are in reality spreading smears about one of the candidates.For example, “Would you be ore or less likely to vote for Candidate X if you knew he advocated using convicted sex offenders as school playground monitors?” (This is a bit of an exaggeration, but not much!)
In my own experience, Republican David Law used this device in his race against Democrat Lisa Brown for State Representative in 2006, and this year Republican Joe Knollenberg is employing this in his close race with Democrat Gary Peters in the 9th Congressional District. I recently received a “robo-call” where I was asked if I plan to vote November 4th. After saying “yes”, I was
asked if I plan to vote for Knollenberg or Peters? After saying “Peters”, I was asked that, if I knew
[some mud-slinging comment about Peters], would this make me (more likely, have no effect, less likely) to vote for Peters? I hung up in disgust after the first “question”.
As some may recall, when Joe Knollenberg was first elected in 1992, one of the items on his agenda was to get Congress to increase the amount of water allowed in flush toilets. (He was right about this, in my opinion.) Now I finally realize what one of his motivations was. He wanted to make it easier to be able to flush himself down the toilet if he ever got into a tough campaign. Well Joe, your campaign has now truly descended into the toilet. Maybe “Joe the plumber” can be of some help.
Disclaimer: As usual, this post is of my own volition. In fact, I called the Peters campaign after receiving the robo-call. They said that several people had already called them about it, that they did not intend to respond, wanting to stay positive, and they discouraged any response on my part.
Barack Obama’s Challenges in the Final Days of the Campaign, from A to Z.
This is a radically different version of my earlier video, for which I forgot to put in a disclaimer that I was not buying into the criticisms, but merely listing them. The same goes for this one, although it is more upbeat in tone. Here is the script:
“A” is for [A]CORN, a group which gets out the vote. Right-Wingers have (falsely) portrayed them as a mighty bad Oak .
“B” is for [B]ail-Out, as our economy tanks. Obama’s the best choice to shore up Wall Street and our banks.
“C” for John Mc[C]ain, who loves a good fight. He’ll keep flailing away until election night.
“D” is for “[D]omestic terrorists“, like Bill Ayers and G. Gordon Liddy. They did their dastardly deeds 35 years ago. So what’s that got to do with this campaign? Zero.
“E” is for [E]xperience, Does Barack have enough? He listens to people and is very measured, while McCain seems to act off the cuff.
“F” is for the “[F]inancial Meltdown”, which threatens us all. Obama’s a firm hand who can answer the call.
“G” is for “political [G]affes“, which continue unabated, and may get worse as candidates get jaded.
“H” is for [H]ope, which Obama likes to offer, not the befuddlement from which McCain often suffers.
“I” is for “withdrawing from [I]raq“. Obama and McCain have very different ideas on how to get out. In any case it’s going to take time to bring a successful conclusion about.
“J” is for “[J]oe the Plumber”, or really “Joe the plumber’s mate“. They focus on him ‘cause they’re so desperate.
“K” is for [K]now-How, as in knowing how to get things done. Around the gridlock in Washington, can Obama do an end run?.
“M” is for “McCain and Palin are both [M]avericks”, as they constantly say. We now have one cowboy in the White House. Do we want two more on the way?
“N” is for [N]asty, as right-wing talk-radio hosts have been , as they’ve vilified Obama, with their mistruths and spin.
“O” is for “[O]bsession,“ a film by Jewish extremists, recently sent to 28 million voters in various swing states.
“P” is for Sarah [P]alin, McCain’s running-mate. She’s been slinging mud at an alarming rate.
“Q” is for al-[Q]aeda, whom Obama says, correctly, are the ones we should pursue, but will they yet add their poison to the campaign stew?
“R” is for [R]acism, which is largely dormant but hasn’t died. It now looks as though most white voters will put race aside.
“S” is for “last minute [S]mears“, which are coming fast and furious. Most people see that they are, in fact, spurious.
“T” is for “Obama’s [T]ax plan“, which is being misrepresented. “Spread the wealth” was one reason the tax code was invented.
“U” is for “Is he really one of [U]s?” About this some blue-collar whites were worrying. But his calmness and seriousness have been reassuring.
“V” is for “Get out the [V]ote November 4th “. He’s deploying lawyers out to the sticks, to counter any Republican “dirty tricks”
“W” is for the Rev. Jeremiah [W]right, Obama’s longtime, often angry, pastor. John McCain had let him be, but now there’s a new attack ad from the RNC.
“X” is for the [X], which by your candidate’s name you place. He should get enough of these X’s in the “Battleground” states?
“Y” is for “Wh[Y] do Joe Biden’s verbal outbursts so often go south?” He’s supposed to be Obama’s running mate, not his running mouth!
“Z” is for [Z]eitgeist, is Obama too worldly-wise? After his speech in Berlin that’s what some people surmised.
Sarah Palin's Song. Doin' what the Lord Tells me. The video.
In an article in the Oct 8th Detroit Free Press, "Knollenberg pushes [Gary] Peters on what-if vote on bailout," Congressman Joe Knollenberg is quoted as saying, about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin:
"[She] obviously is someone who is very much involved in national security because Alaska touches very closely to Russia."
Now I can understand the governor of Texas knowing something about Mexico, given their long common border, but Alaska and Russia? Is there ferry service across the Bering Straits that I don't know about? Are governors in the chain of command of our federal intelligence agencies?
This shows once again how out-of-touch Joe Knollenberg is. It is time to retire him to Oakland County. I'll be the first to concede that he does know a lot about localities near his home in Bloomfield Township.
Obama versus Palin. The Video
The Eyes of Robert Novak
Robert Novak had a column , “How a Tumor Is Changing My Life” in last Saturday’s Washington Post, discussing his recently discovered brain tumor and the resulting surgery at Duke University Medical Center. It (the column) is rather self-serving. A few excerpts:
“Journalist Al Hunt, who has become a close friend despite our disagreeing about almost everything, says it will be very difficult for me to inveigh against Duke in the future. I believe he is correct.” (Novak is a rabid University of Maryland basketball fan.)
“My brain cancer has cost me not only my left peripheral vision but nearly all my left vision, probably permanently. Several people have asked whether the person I hit was crossing in front of me on my left. I answer, ‘I never saw him.’ "
Some of the comments that were posted have to be seen to be believed. Here is mine. (As is well known, Novak is an entrenched right-winger.)
Well Bob, I was rooting for your recovery, even though I am in the "Al Hunt" category when it comes to agreeing with you. I hope I am not being too flippant to note that your RIGHT eye is still OK, and for you that's the one that counts the most!
“Judas” Lieberman? And His Hawkish, Hawkish Ways
“My Old Boss, the Man Dems Love to Loathe. Some of Joe Lieberman's greatest hits from the decade I worked for him.” is the title of an article in today’s Washington Post by Bill Andresen, who was Lieberman’s chief of staff from 1993-2003. Here is the comment I posted.
Well, I still love Joe Lieberman, despite his hawkish stance on Iraq. And let's not forget, he's always been a hawk. When he was first elected to the Senate in 1988, his opponent, Republican incumbent Lowell Weicker, was the dove. His voting record otherwise is that of a liberal Democrat. His caucusing with the Democrats has allowed them to maintain control of the Senate.
I believe that Lieberman's support for and traveling around with John McCain has more to do with his over-sized ego (what politician doesn't have one?) and need for attention than anything else.
If he had been picked as McCain's running mate, and had jettisoned his core liberal beliefs in the process, then THAT would have been a betrayal, and we would be entitled to call him "Judas" Lieberman. But that hasn't happened, and he doesn't deserve to have his entire record trashed (or most of it anyway) by the Left because of his hawkish, hawkish ways.
The Democratic convention starts today, and my new running mate Joe Biden and I recorded a message about what we all need to do next. ... I'd like you to watch this special message -- and I have a request. We have our team, and this week the eyes of the entire country will be on our movement. Now is the time to take the next step and own a piece of this campaign. Watch our video message and make a donation of $5 or more today: ...
And what about Obama calling Biden his "new running mate"? If that is the case, then who was the old one? Michelle? Hillary? When a man is on his first wife, he usually introduces her as "my wife," not "my new wife". Sometimes even if she's not his first one. I believe in "change" but not in changing the meaning of phrases.
Come to think of it, the Democratic ticket's first joint appearance in Springfield, Illinois, did bear a resemblance to a wedding:
Something old (Biden)
Something new (Obama)
Something borrowed (the old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, where the rally was held.)
and
Something blue (the State of Illinois).
Well, "new" running mate or not, Biden and Obama are off and running!
C is for "Dealing with Hillary CLINTON", now there's a sticky wicket! Can he assuage her supporters without her on the ticket?
D is for DENVER, where, at the Democratic convention, his campaign officially kicks off. But will all the "Environmental Correctness," and such, make voters scoff? (For example, measuring the carbon footprint. No fried foods on the menu.)
E is for EXPERIENCE, does he have enough? He has a great ability to listen to people, including those who have the "right stuff."
F is for FRIENDS, such as Tony Rezko and Bill Ayres. But hey, he lives in Chicago, the home of the Bears.
G is for bloGgers, and the Internet as a whole. Imagine all the mischief that bloggers can sow.
H is for HOPE, but let's not forget faith and charity. Also, is hope really such a rarity?
I is for the war in IRAQ, which he opposed from the start, but was the disaster that ensued preordained? As things stand now we must look forward, rather than "looking back".
J is for JOHN McCain, didn't he get some things right? Way back, McCain wanted more of our troops put into the fight.
K is for KNOW-HOW, as in knowing how to get things done. Around the gridlock in Washington, can Obama do an end run?
M is for MUSLIM, some voters still think he's one, and some others think that the real ones he's shunned.
N is for NASTY, as right-wing talk-radio hosts can be, as they try to vilify Obama, with gusto and glee.
O is for "The ONES we've been waiting for", but what if others show up at the door?.
P is for PROUD to be an American, which it apparently took his wife Michelle a long time to feel, or did she simply overstate things in a moment of zeal?
Q is for al-QAEDA, whom he says, correctly, are the ones we should pursue, but will they try to add their poison to the campaign stew?
R is for RACISM, which is largely dormant but hasn't died, so how many white voters will, in the end, not put race aside? (I am not implying that voting for McCain makes one a racist.)
S is for the SURGE, a word he won't utter. Many think the Surge is working, but it often seems to stutter.
T is for the Bush TAX cuts, which he wants to let expire, but there are plenty of fat cats who'll try to put his feet to the fire.
U is for "Is he really one of US?" About this some blue-collar whites worry, as they cling to their guns and to their churches they hurry. (without the guns, of course!)
V is for "VICTORY in Iraq" (whatever that means), which many desire, while many others just want us out. In any case it's going to take time to bring a successful conclusion about.
W is for the Rev. Jeremiah WRIGHT, his longtime, oft-ranting pastor. Will his recent antics yet prove a disaster?
X is for the X, which by your candidate's name you place. Will he get enough of these X's in the "Battleground" states?
Y is for WHY aren't his poll numbers moving ahead, with economic distress in this country so widespread?.
Z is for ZEITGEIST, is he too worldly-wise? After his speech in Berlin that is what some people surmise.
Stumping for Sen. John McCain at the Holocaust Memorial Center in Farmington Hills, Sen. Joseph Lieberman touted the Republican candidate's values and strong views on foreign policy as the reason why voters should choose him as the next president.
Touching on the birth of Israel and other world events, Lieberman said McCain would make national security decisions that were based on American and Judeo-Christian values.
"That's what we elect presidents for -- in that moment of crisis ... which we can't foresee, to make the right decision for our country and values," Lieberman said to a largely Jewish audience inside the center Wednesday night. "The man I want to sit behind the big desk and make those decisions in the Oval Office is John McCain."
Up to 500 people packed a hall inside the center to hear the Connecticut senator, a former Democrat who is now an independent. In previous presidential elections, Jewish voters have generally voted Democratic. But some who attended said that they will be voting for McCain this time.
"McCain has been strong on national security," said Mark Segel, an insurance agent from West Bloomfield. "He will confront Iran."Lieberman also spoke about the threat of Iran and said McCain will be a president "our enemies will respect and fear." Lieberman added that McCain believes "the enemies of Israel are our enemies" and has said that "I will never allow a second Holocaust to occur in my lifetime."
My reaction:
Since when is the Holocaust Memorial Center to be used for political events?
I have been interested in the Holocaust for 40 years, long before it became
"fashionable". I think it is shameless the way it has been exploited and
devalued, with all sorts of things being compared to it that are not in the same
league. And now the Center is deemed suitable for partisan activities. I have
great respect for Joe Lieberman, but he should have given his speech elsewhere.
What's next? Holocaust Memorial soap?
What If John McCain Picks Joe Lieberman as His Running Mate? Plus: My Final Veep Predictions
First: a campaign slogan for McCain.
McCain will govern, whereas Obama will McGovern.
I am beginning to think that John McCain is not going to pick Mitt Romney as his running mate, but rather Joe Lieberman, the politician with whom he is the most comfortable. Lieberman is an independent Democrat and an orthodox Jew. He was Al Gore’s running mate in 2000. He is an extreme hawk on the middle east, and also quite knowledgeable. Here are a few jokes, to prepare for this eventuality. (I had some jokes about a McCain-Romney and an Obama-Clinton ticket in a previous post.)
Having Joe on the ticket makes John look like less of a hawk.
McCain wanted Joe to leave the Democratic Party, as in “Leave her man!”
This is a more exciting ticket for Joe to be on. In 2000, it was, in reality, Bore-Lieberman.
The Democratic refrain: Say it ain’t so, Joe.
McCain loses his temper and is somewhat unleavened. Joe is only that way during Passover.
McCain intends to have Lieberman bunk at the White House, so that Joe can answer any 3 AM phone calls that may occur, except on Saturdays.
Romney is on his first wife. McCain and Lieberman are both on their second. McCain wanted a running mate with the same divorce rate as his.
Joe will appeal to union members and to African-American and Jewish voters. So they will have all the bases covered, but not Right Field.
My Final Veep Predictions:
If comfort is the key factor, then McCain will pick Lieberman and Obama will pick Virginia Governor Tim Kaine.
The strong possibility of Kaine’s being picked is discussed in a New York Times article. He has Kansas roots, is a devout Roman Catholic, opposes abortion and the death penalty, and like Obama, is a Harvard Law school graduate. Kaine has less government experience than Obama. Here are a few more jokes, if you can stand them.
Obama-Kaine has KKK roots. Kansas-Kenya-Kansas.
Having Kaine on the ticket makes Obama look like he has more experience.
No one can accuse Kaine of being a Muslim.
Kaine balances the ticket. Kaine vs. Obama:
unassuming - assuming
opposes abortion - supports
opposes death penalty - supports
On the other hand, they both graduated from Harvard Law School, and they both pronounce “tomato” the same way, as in “you like tomahto, and I like tomaeto” from the old George Gershwin tune.
His name may be Kaine, but he’s certainly able.
Campaign slogans. For Obama: On election day, vote Obama-Kaine and pray for no rain. (In the late 1940’s, when Warren Spahn and Johnny Sain were the ace pitchers for the Boston Braves, there was the famous phrase “Spahn and Sain and pray for rain".)
For McCain: Do you want McCain-Lieberman to govern, or Obama-Kaine to reign?
John Edwards has admitted to having a “short affair’ with staffer Rielle Hunter in 2006.
She shot videos for his campaign , although she had no previous experience as a filmmaker. You can read about it, for example, here. His top ten excuses (Letterman style):
10. Someone told him to “Get Real” and he heard “Get Rielle”
9. He needed a “short lust” before working on a “short list” for veep.
8. He was looking for a “blonde back-up” for the campaign trail.
7. She was a “Hunter” with a bounty (as in bountiful).
6. She seduced him by saying his hairdo was better than hers.
5. His true love is really himself, but he was looking for new ways of expressing it.
4. They had sex but he didn’t exhale (you know what).
3. John McCain ditched his first wife for a younger woman, so he wanted to “level the playing field” in case he and McCain were the eventual candidates.
2. He thought they were doing a “dry run” for a Viagra commercial he planned to do later with his wife Elizabeth.
1. She called him “Love Lips”, but he realized too late that “Love lips sink campaign ships.”
Posted 8/11/08
"Asian Invaders" and Joe Knollenberg
Congressman Joe Knollenberg (R-9th district) had a post on his official government website entitled "Protecting our Families from Asian Invaders," later changed to "Protecting our Families from Harmful Products", which was about a recently passed House Bill that gives stronger oversight of foreign imports to The Consumer Product Safety Commission. There was an understandable uproar over the original title from the local Asian-American community, as .there should be from everyone.
This is not just some semantic quibble, for example if the original title had been "Protecting our families from harmful Asian [or Chinese] Products". No, this represents a dangerous Asian-bashing mindset that has no place in our elected officials or their staffs. Just exactly who or what is "invading"? Are we being targeted by foreign exporters? In fact the Chinese have taken draconian measures against those responsible for oversight. "Asian Invaders" is just an updated version of the "Yellow Peril". This type of archaic "tone-deafness" is just one of the many reasons that Joe Knollenberg should be voted out of office.
Here is the post if you are having trouble accessing it.
Posted 8/6/06
True? No. Childish? Yes. But that's not all. This ad is also deliberately and deceptively racist. Of all the famous celebrities they could have compared Obama to, why not Tom Cruise? Or Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Donald Trump, or Oprah Winfrey? Why Britney Spears and Paris Hilton? Why two white blond bimbos?
Only one reason. It's a somewhat tamer version of the white bimbo ad used so successfully against Harold Ford in Tennessee. In juxtaposing Barack Obama with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, the McCain campaign is simply trying to plant the old racist seed of black man hitting on young white woman. Not directly, but subliminally and disgracefully.
Here is the comment I posted.
The analogy Bill Press makes with the Harold Ford "attack ad" is poorly drawn. McCain's ad is trying to portray Obama as a "celebrity bimbo" like Britney Spears or Paris Hilton, not a celebrity with stature, as the others are that Press mentions. It is an infantile approach, to be sure. Instead of "swift-boating" Obama, they are trying to "rock-star" him, claiming that he is a big celebrity with no substance other than as an orator or entertainer.
Obama is for sure a man of great intellect and substance, but what worries me is that all this worldwide celebrity has gone to his head. He may be the best man to be our next president, but he is certainly not the only one who is up to the job of repairing all the damage from the Bush years."
And finally, an excerpt from Dana Milbank’s article in Wednesday’s Washington Post about Obama’s meeting with House Democrats the day before in the Cannon Caucus Room
Inside, according to a witness, he told the House members, "This is the moment …. that the world is waiting for," adding: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
As he marches toward Inauguration Day (Election Day is but a milestone on that path), Obama's biggest challenger may not be Republican John McCain but rather his own hubris.
I have received comments on my various posts, many from what appear to be Rush Limbaugh fans, and I‘ve finally had it. They have been mesmerized by “El Rushbo” and cannot reason properly. They say that liberalism doesn’t work. Excuse me, but who has been running things for the past seven years? Not liberals. Rush Limbaugh distorts things, and sometimes he outright lies. He has a cult following, and we should encourage his followers to visit exdittohead.com. He may have “half his brain tied behind his back,“ as he likes to say, but anyone with half a brain can see that his “logic” is an existential joke.
His followers have all this received wisdom, but it is really received inconsistencies and distortions of the truth. Here are two recent examples.
He says that Obama is acting like he’s already president because he cautioned Iran not to wait until after we have a new president for them to respond to concerns about their nuclear program. But wasn’t Obama’s statement in fact supportive of the recent efforts of President Bush?
He chastises Obama for trying to turn a visit to a military hospital into a political event. But hasn’t President Bush exploited the military throughout his presidency by using them frequently as a backdrop for his speeches, not to mention his “Mission Accomplished” stunt?
And then there’s “Operation Chaos”, which I’ve previously commented upon.
Some people pass off Limbaugh’s antics as merely displaying his sense of humor, but there is nothing funny about the fact that so many people buy into his twisted view of things, and for this reason I consider him a much greater threat than a few dolts at Fox News.
Granted that he can be humorous and insightful, and that it is easy to fall under his sway. Nevertheless, we need to treat Limbaugh like the pariah that he is. The press pays homage to him, but when I listen to his show, the distortions I mention above are evident, but not to his followers, who call in and fawn all over him.
Posted 7/27/08
A Breath of Hot Air, and My Vice-Presidential Predictions
Barack Obama’s soaring rhetoric, as in his speech yesterday in Berlin, is beginning to exhibit an eerie resemblance to hot air. He cannot be all things to all people, so why doesn’t he move a bit closer to earth? His attitude that he can be transformational, without offering many specifics is, when you think about it, rather insulting to other progressive politicians. Whatever you may think of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, or Joe Lieberman, to name a few, they’re not exactly chopped liver. So my advice to Obama is “Get off it, Barack!”
And now my predictions for Veep. Obama: Hillary Clinton. McCain: Mitt Romney. If I’m right, imagine the jokes:
McCain may have a “Rom-mate”, but he’s sure no roommate.
Barack wants to make Hillary the official number two in the White House, but first he must help her pay her Bill.
McCain has added a catcher’s Mitt because of all his errant throws.
With Hillary on the ticket, you get two Veeps for the price of one, but it’s no bargain!
Bill Clinton will rename the Vice-Presidential residence the “Navel Observatory”
Posted 7/25/08
You can use this area to showcase additional text or photos. Try to reinforce the message on the rest of this page, or simply ask your visitors to contact you, as in the sample below.
Still have questions? Please contact us anytime! We look forward to hearing from you.
Hint: Be sure to include a link to your contact page!
west bloomfield, MI
gbacheli
