Shawn Macomber, show me one President in recent history who lived like a pauper and was still able to financially swing the big run for President (and expect to win). Show me any man or woman who could do so today. Let's not kid ourselves. Find me one and I'll eat my hat. The Bushes were born with silver spoons in their mouths; Bill Clinton rose from a childhood of poverty to become extremely wealthy; LBJ had developed extremely profitable broadcasting business ventures by the 1940s; JFK came from a family who'd made their riches before he was born; Nixon did pretty damned well for himself as a graduate of Duke Law School, a small-town lawyer (like John Edwards); Jimmy Carter was an educated man of modest means who does not want for much, yet still serves the poor and downtrodden long after his presidency is over. Go all the way back to FDR and the New Deal. FDR was a rich man who fixed a very broken society, raising millions up from destitution.
The important point is the vision each man had for this nation; not how much dough lined his pockets. Macomber's mocking article about Uncle John's Cabin (which was nothing more than a mean-spirited flame-job) and his current (equally meaningless) attack is totally unfair to both Mr. and Mrs. Edwards. All the while, Macomber's up the right-wing's butt. I'm not sure who he thinks he's kidding. I mean, where's he coming from? If a potential presidential candidate has made a comfortable living for himself (or herself), is he (or she) supposed to be a greedy bastard who isn't supposed to give a flying flip about creating policies that will give others the same opportunity?
That's just stupid.
Senator Edwards has an understanding of how the American people feel and he's working his heart out to do something about their poverty. I don't care if he's doing it from the base of a mansion or a run-down shack...he's DOING it. He's not a silver-spooned ex-druggie/drunk fratboy like Bush who governs as if he could give a damn about the poor in this country. All the more power to Edwards.
Dear God, not another Bush Soul-Glimpse. This time it's Angela Merkel's. Let's hope he's not so far off as he was when he transcended through Vladdy Putin's orbs. He's certainly not batting 1000 in the Soul Glimpse department. How long before Chancellor Angela turns into the next evil dictator? ;)
- The cry of the post-Enron corporate piggies who hate anti-corruption regulation
And you'll never guess who wants to introduce a bill this week to roll back part of the Sarbanes-Oxley anti-corruption law (and likely weaken investor confidence): the House Republicans, who thrive in the culture of corruption. Doesn't that just figure?
Zogby Push-Poll on Anti-Amnesty Immigration Reform
I was sorry to see that the Zobgy pollsters participated in professionally formulating a disgusting push poll that set up leading questions for NumbersUSA.com to promote their anti-amnesty (anti-immigrant) policy on immigration reform. (NumbersUSA promotes a link to this story about Tom Tancredo's so-called "brilliant" immigration plan, which fails to take morality and human rights into consideration).
I generally see Zogby as pollsters of integrity. I don't think so this time.
From the Houston Chronicle:
A poll conducted for a group that wants immigration restricted shows that two-thirds of American voters agree with its goal and that only 43 percent favor a Senate bill that would let most illegal immigrants apply for legal status.
If you see how skillfully they were led, you wouldn't wonder why such a large majority answered this way.
After this unethical push poll was completed, a mass e-mail campaign was put into motion by Roy Beck, USA Numbers' Executive Director. See Zogby Slanders America at the One America Committee blog. "XpatriatedTexan" rips the slanted poll to shreds.
"I just think these things [House caucuses for blacks, Hispanics and Asian Americans] separate us instead of bringing us together. What If we had a white caucus?"
FACT: The U.S. population includes 12 percent African Americans, 9 percent Hispanics, and 3 percent Asian/Pacific Islanders and other groups. Congress, however, is 87 percent white; 85 percent in the House and 96 percent in the Senate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There's a good economy/bad economy debate going on in the political world. All it takes to solve the great mystery about the difference in the two parties' respective outlooks about the economy is to ask the average American: How do you feel about gas prices? Do you feel you have adequate health care insurance? Are you having to use more credit because you don't have enough cash on hand to pay the bills these days? How's your job security and job quality compared to five years ago (provided you have a job)? Are your heating fuel and electricity bills on the rise? How's your standard of living compared to five years ago?
Maybe the economy's not in trouble. Maybe it's just that the average American doesn't benefit a damned bit from a great economy. Maybe it's just the greedy lot who do benefit that you hear touting the "great economy". Do you think that's going to make the average American any happier to hear or convince them that they're being treated fairly?
In South Carolina this weekend, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware cleverly clarified the major difference in the way the Republican and Democratic parties view religion:
"They use religion as an organizing tool. We see it as a road to redemption."
Molly Ivins wrote about the Network of Spritual Progressives this week:
Rabbi Michael Lerner ("The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country from the Religious Right") is urging a 20-year commitment of 5 percent of GDP to end world poverty. The money would not be committed to governments, but to NGOs with solid records. And I say, why the hell not?
Is selfish and stupid working out so well for us? The progressive religious people will be meeting in Washington, D.C., on May 17-20 for a Spiritual Activism Conference. Naturally, being lefties, they pose no threat to separation of church and state. Amazing how easy it is to keep that clear just by thinking it through.
It really is quite that simple. The result of using Christianity as a political organizing tool has produced a radically Right policy that is both selfish and stupid (not to mention divisive for American Christians). It's time for all of that to change and it's time for the Democratic party to stop being afraid to admit that the majority of their members are people of faith who derive many of their values from their spiritual raising.
We win by the power of our ideas. This is surely no time to meekly hide the brilliant source and inspiration of many of those core ideas. And it's surely no time to allow the slimy political leaders who abuse our common faith and create a pathetically faithless agenda to continue without removing the rock they've been hiding under. I'll be attending the conference that Molly Ivins spoke about along with some of my fellow bloggers, and I'll be sure to report back after it's over.