Hypocrisy

As much of the Conservative blogosphere lines up to cast stones at john McCain's candidacy, one thing struck me a couple of days ago. Much of their ire comes from McCain's sponsorship of the McCain-Feingold bill on campaign finance. The argument is usually one that it is an unconstitutional impediment to free speech. Yet I have yet to see any of these conservatives bring Taft- Hartley into the debate. Taft-Hartley severely restrained the influence of the trade unions, and among its provisions were limits on campaign finance. Perhaps they should revisit and discuss this act along with McCain-Feingold when making their claims of unconstitutionality.

While they are at it they might also look at; The Federal Corrupt Practices Act, The Federal Election Campaign Act, The Hatch Act, The Naval Appropriations Bill of 1867, The Civil Service Reform Act, The Smith-Connally Act, The Espionage Act of 1917, and The Sedition Act of 1918.

Campaign finance restrictions that are viewed as unconstitutional only when they work against one's party, but not when they benefit it seem the epitome of hypocrisy to me. That's why I dismiss those who make this criticism of McCain-Feingold as partisan hypocrites and fools. It would be refreshing to see them called on this more often and forced to defend their positions to the blogosphere at large.

Divided we fall

I haven't blogged much recently. There have been plenty of worthy issues that have merited it for sure, but I've taken a bit of a step back on many current issues to get a little bit of perception. One thing that is quite troubling with the Presidential primary process in full swing now is how so many candidates are dividing America for their own political careers. Although in many cases it might be done with the noblest intentions and a firm belief in their own visions, the candidates are for the most part pulling us apart as they launch dogmatic assaults on each other.

The resent escalation of hostilities between Hiliary Clinton and Barrack O'Bama is the latest in the series. One thing I had found quite admirable about O'Bama, was his appeal as a uniter, and although I think the Clinton camp was responsible for beginning the escalation, I have seen little from the O'Bama camp as far as taking a moral high ground to try to unite when faced by this sort of tactic. If he can't manage this with the Clinton campaign, will he be able to manage it vs a Republican candidate? If he wins the Presidency will he be able to unite the people if a large portion of Congress is hostile? I'm simply not impressed by his performance here, nor that of Senator Clinton.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney seems to be about as divisive figure as anyone could imagine, and Mike Huckabee's recent pandering to the Pro Confederate flag crowd to win votes at the expense of inflaming deep divisions show little promise of uniting a nation if either were elected. I'm from South Carolina and I an very much for the Confederate flag, though as a sign of heritage, and not as one of racism as many of the more ignorant of my fellow South Carolinians indeed do, so I'm not speeking against Huckabee's feelings on the issue itself, but on his using it for his own benefit despite the fact he would be applying the fan to the fire when it doesn't need be applied. Thus far Rudy Giuliani has pretty much alienated 1/2 the country with his assaults on the Democrats for political gain, making him one of the worst of the lot.

That leaves me with John McCain. I'll tell you upfront here that I'm a long time McCain supporter. I see him as a uniter that can bring together the center, the moderate left and the moderate right, and even some from the far-right. The bad thing (or maybe its a good one) is that those who don't like him, tend to dislike him with a passion. But those are members of his own party. They will continue to apply fire to the situation even if he is elected making compromises with the other side of the aisle more difficult for McCain. So can he truly unite the country, or does he also fall short like the others? It will certainly be a political tightrope, with critics lining up on both sides. But maybe this is the correct test for America, whether a candidate who is more open to working with both sides of the aisle and facing criticism on both fronts will perform better than one who is firmly entrenched on one side who while having no chance to appeal to about 1/2 the electorate, still has a better chance of attracting the appeal of the other half than a McCain tightrope act would.

Yet, for all the dangers of a double bladed sword slicing at a McCain approach, I'm not ready to surrender 1/2 the population's wishes to the other half in the "safety" of pure partisanship. Its a test whose time has come, and whether we will or will not be able to pass it is a question of the utmost importance.

United we Stand

Divided we Fall

..and Fail.

Political Correctness gone crazy

A hair salon owner is being sued for religious discrimination after refusing a Muslim teenager a job as a stylist because she wore a headscarf?


Story here:

Whats next a Muslim woman suing for being refused a job in a shampoo commercial?

Cry Baby Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh on his show:

"McCain sort of halfway threw me under the bus by saying "if" what Limbaugh said as reported is correct, blah, blah, blah, then it's disgusting and horrible and so forth and so on."

---------------

The man condemend someone who would call real soldiers phonys and stated that he would have to look at the real remarks before he decided whether he thought you actually said them. Not giving you Carte blanche to be defended no matter what came out of your mouth isn't throwing you under a bus. Is it a wonder that a man with the exceptional service record of Senator McCain would jump to the defense of real soldiers who were rsking their life for their country rather than a blowhard pundit who avoided serving due to a cureable ingrown butt-hair? You should be kissing McCain's butt for fighting the war you hid from, he suffered in that POW camp while you were nice and safe and you have the nerve to say this about him when he makes a statement to defend the troops first. That is the difference between a man and a wittle boy. Grow up Rush!

Americans For Polarization

From Andrew Sullivan's site:

reader writes:

You wrote:

"[Obama] detects an enormous weariness among Americans about their internal divisions in a time of war..."
There seems to be an assumption that politicians are divided, but Americans wish to be more united. The problem is: we are the divisions. There is no "us" (citizens) and "them" (national politicians). The pols reflect our divisions.

This is not to say that Obama's gamble isn't worth taking, nor that what he is doing isn't noble. Obama is an exceptional man for all of the reasons you have articulated on your blog. But I am not convinced that Americans want to be brought together. They may not want things to be as divided as they are now, but we still are divided on many key issues. And we're divided on what we should care about: economics vs values, for instance.

Remember: It was just 3 short years ago that 61 million people voted for GWB --- well after it was evident that his presidency was a disaster.

The fact is, Hillary vs Rudy may be exactly what the electorate wants.

Sullivan concludes:

It seems to be what Bush wants.

This may well be the case, if so I can't think of a greater tradgedy for America.

Rove's Legecy

Andrew Sullivan is spot on:

"While he spins. The man's legacy is a conservative movement largely discredited and disunited, a president with lower consistent approval ratings than any in modern history, a generational shift to the Democrats, a resurgent al Qaeda, an endless catastrophe in Iraq, a long hard struggle in Afghanistan, a fiscal legacy that means bankrupting America within a decade, and the poisoning of American religion with politics and vice-versa. For this, he got two terms of power - which the GOP used mainly to enrich themselves, their clients and to expand government's reach and and drain on the productive sector. In the re-election, the president with a relatively strong economy, and a war in progress, managed to eke out 51 percent. Why? Because Rove preferred to divide the country and get his 51 percent, than unite it and get America's 60. In a time of grave danger and war, Rove picked party over country. Such a choice was and remains despicable.

Rove is one of the worst political strategists in recent times. He took a chance to realign the country and to unite it in a war - and threw it away in a binge of hate-filled niche campaigning, polarization and short-term expediency. His divisive politics and elevation of corrupt mediocrities to every branch of government has turned an entire generation off the conservative label. And rightly so. It will take another generation to recover from the toxins he has injected, with the president's eager approval, into the political culture and into the conservative soul."

This man was one of the Chief Architects/Archvillians of dividing our nation along partisan lines sacrificing the temendous spirit of unity following the 9-11 attacks for a politically partisan agenda. Seeing him depart is a relief and the day shuld be a national holiday.

Now if only we can remove the rest of these archvillians, David S. Addington, Alberto Gonzales, Dick Cheney.....

An Unpatriotic Company

Johnson and Johnson has done the unimaginable, flied a lawsuit against the Red Cross.

Details here.

Excerpt:

Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, which uses a red cross as its trademark, filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the American Red Cross, demanding that the charity halt the use of the red cross symbol on products it sells to the public.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York, marked the breakdown of months of behind-the-scenes negotiations, and prompted an angry response from the Red Cross.

“For a multibillion dollar drug company to claim that the Red Cross violated a criminal statute ... simply so that J&J can make more money, is obscene,” said Mark Everson, the Red Cross president.

This is the organization that provides relief to Americans and folkes around the world in time of crisis and supports the efforts of our troops, and has provided care packages for our soldiers when captured by an enemy. For Johnson and Johnson to sue over the trademark is petty. I wont be buying any of their products until they issue a formal apology to the Red Cross and the American people. I call on anyone who reads this to do the same as your patriotic duty.

Until we see American soldiers getting a Johnson and Johnson care package in a war and Johnson and Johnson starts responding to natural disasters, I say to hell with their products.


Contact this unpatriotic company and let them know how you feel here.

http://www.jnj.com/contact_us/index.htm

Also I've begun contacting those that sale their products. Eckerd's, WalGreens, and CVS have been contacted so far, and I'll begin working on Grocery Store Chains as well.

UPDATE: More info about this can be found here.