Recent Comments:
Jimmy Carter Was Right {Political Machine Blog}
Jul 16th 2008 3:09PM I was working for the US Department of the Interior in Western Colorado in the late 1970s, and there were some interesting things going on in trying to develop the oil shale there. Yes, it is a very complicated process with problems to be overcome, but, with government help, works WAS in progress. When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, most of this was forgotten, put on hold, closed down. It was back to "feel happy, use all the energy you want, waste it, buy oil from the Mideast, who cares? The 'free market' will handle everything. We are the USA, Americans don't sacrifice anything, and we do what we want!"
I know Reagan is considered some kind of god now, and Carter is laughed at. Was Carter a great president? No, but he had some good ideas. Reagan put us on the road to the huge fiscal deficits that are causing economic problems, and his "hands off" ideas about energy, just use it all up selfishly, are coming back to haunt us. YES, for sure, if we had tried to follow many of Carter's recommendations back in the late 70's, we'd be better off now. Politicians have learned NEVER to ask Americans for any sacrifices. We'll just vote them out of office. BAD situation.
New Yorker's Obama Cover Touches Nerve {Political Machine Blog}
Jul 14th 2008 2:58PM By the time November rolls around, people will be SO sick and tired of both candidates that they will just want the election OVER. It has been going on for YEARS already and is getting tiresome. Very few "normal" rational people would put themselves through all the absurd hassle of running for president, so we end up with egomaniacs, freaks, and misfits. Bill Clinton was/is half nuts, G.W. Bush is just a weird little "sonny boy," and the two we have now are cardboard characters. Unless we change the process, we are going to keep getting these kinds of people. They are weird going in, enter the nutty "security bubble," and get worse. TOO BAD.
Hot Seat: Patriotism {Political Machine Blog}
Jul 4th 2008 1:21PM How do you define patriotism? Does it mean thinking your country is always right about everything? During the Vietnam war, during which I served as an Army officer, the "patriots" used to say: "America, Love It Or Leave It." I preferred the idea of: "America, Love It And Try To Makr It Better."
If you think the USA is perfect, does that make you a petriot? Maybe the REAL patriots recognize the good AND the bad and try to make improvements.
Hot Seat: McCain's War Record {Political Machine Blog}
Jun 30th 2008 1:43PM Certainly, McCain's ENTIRE record should be considered, just as is true with Obama. John Kerry's military record was definitely an issue in 2004, when his fine record was somehow used against him by Bush, the National Guard "hero" of Texas, and Dick Cheney, the "expectant father" draft dodger.
As a former Army officer, I respect how McCain handled himself as a POW, but I don't see how this relates very much to his qualifications to be president. I had some experiences with military academy graduates while I was in the Army and found many of them to have admirable traits. However, it seemed that some of them did not know the difference between what was worth dying for and what wasn't and, at times, carried the gung-ho attitude to extremes.
McCain does seem to lose control of himself at times, let his temper get the best of him. I know a man who attended the Naval Academy with McCain, and he says that the guy had trouble controlling his temper and was at times a "loose cannon." He will not be voting for him in November.
My doubts about McCain involve his age, his quick temper, some of his comments about staying in Iraq for 50 years and going to war with Iran, his statuts as a third-generation career military guy (father and grandfather both admirals--I saw too many arrogant, egotistical generals), and his close association with far-right clergymen.
Of course, I also have misgivings about Obama and, quite frankly, wish that other candidates had won (NOT Hillary Clinton).It will be better for the nation, probably, when those of us in the Vietnam era generation are no longer in leadership positions. One way or another, that war had serious, often negative effects on us and clouds our powers of reason.
US Army officer, 1966-69 (opposed the Vietnam war but served anyway)
Hot Seat: Did Bush Sanction Torture? {Political Machine Blog}
Jun 24th 2008 5:52PM Yes, the Bush administration probably did authorize torture, but if the USA had another terrorist attack, even a relatively minor one, most Americans would be IN FAVOR of torture, no matter what kind, no matter how sadistic, to "get information" to "make them safe." For years, the USA, in its position of safety, constantly complained and protested when other nations used harsh means to interrogate prisoners. When it happened to us just ONE time, all bets were off, beat the &%%# out of anybody anytime.
If the terrosists attacked again, most Americans would be willing to toss out the Constitution as just a piece of paper and give whomever is president unlimited powers. Remember, over 70% of Americans were FOR the invasion of Iraq back in 2003. If we had another attack, we would become like angry beasts again, willing to attack anybody anywhere with any kind of weapon (or, I should say, have our military do the attacking while most of US do nothing, sacrifice nothing, complain that we want more tex cuts).
So, yes, feel bad about Bush's authorizing torture, but if you DO, then don't forget your beliefs if we have another attack. I am willing to take my chances against the terrorists, NOT forget what America once stood for. Are you?
US Army officer, 1966-69
AOL Straw Poll: June 5 - June 13 {Political Machine Blog}
Jun 12th 2008 11:33AM I have purchased a custom-made bumper sticker for my car. It says:
(MY NAME) FOR PRESIDENT
HE NEEES THE MONEY
It is sad that the three candidates we had left were Hillary Clinton, Obama, and McCain. None of the three is really a good choice. Some of the ones who dropped out earlier in both parties wwere much better, such as Dodd, who has years in the Senate and served in both the Peace Corps and the US Army, and Richardson, lots of experience in many different areas of domestic and foreign policy.
Clinton, Obama, amd McCain are al "gimmick" candidates, Clinton because she is a woman and former first lady, Obama because he is black, and McCain because he was a POW for five years. None of those gimmicks has anything to do with qualifications to be presidemt, but with many Americans, the presidential campaign is just a version of American Idol or some other mindless TV show.
The Clintons' Chilling 'Enemies List' {Political Machine Blog}
Jun 11th 2008 8:09PM What, exactly, can the Clintons do to "get" their "enemies"? She is a Senator from NY,and unless you live there and want a favor from your senator. she has no power over you or influence on you. Bill Clinton is an ex-president whose influence actually ended the day he left office. In addition, he has lost a lot of respect, much of what he had left, as a result of his behavior during Hillary's campaign. The Clintons have a record of tossing people overboard when it benefits them or protects them,so what entitles them to expect others to stay "loyal" to them?
Hillay's major problem was that she was viewed negatively by about half the population going into the campaign, and it is almost impossible to overcome that. In addition, both Clintons had the attitide that the nomination was HERS by some sort of devine right--a sure way to turn people off and lose.
AOL Straw Poll: June 5 - June 13 {Political Machine Blog}
Jun 10th 2008 11:37PM All you Hillary supporters who are still angry because she didn't get all the Michigan and Florida delegates after she HERSELF agreed earlier that they would not count: Do you want more Supreme Court Justices picked by a Republican,shifting the court to the right even more for many years? Do you want more of the endless abortion fight, when most Americans do NOT want abortion made illegal? Do you want a war with Iran, when after five years, we still haven't settled the mess in Iraq (which has one-third the population and half the land area of Iran)? Do you want a continuation of the tax breaks for the wealthy, which McCain voted AGAINST as being unfair but NOW says he SUPPORTS? Do you want to continue with the same broken health care system? Do you want a continuation of most of the Bush policies? If so, shoot yourself in the foot and vote for McCain to "punish" Obama for being the nominee.
Obama wasn't my choice. I liked Senator Dodd, who, frankly, has more ane better experience than either Hillary or Obama (years in the Senate and service in BOTH the Peace Corps and the US military). My second choice was Bill Richardson, who also has a wealth of experience in federal and state government, in the UN, etc. But they didn't win. So, am I going to be childish and take my "toys" and go home? Nope, Obama is a better choice than McCain and another four years of a Republican in the White House. GROW UP, people. This is an important election. We aren't in grade school where we pout because we didn't get our way.
AOL Straw Poll: June 5 - June 13 {Political Machine Blog}
Jun 8th 2008 11:49PM It is going to be a hard race. Obama will face what Doug Wilder did a number of years ago when he, a black man, ran for governot of Virginia. Many people TOLD pollsters they would vote for Wilder,and he had a big lead in all the polls. On election day, many of his voters could not really cast their ballots for a black guy. Wilder did win but by about 1%, and a recount was needed. You have to take about 5 points off what the polls say about Obama,because a lot of people are racists but won't admit it to a pollster. If you have valid reasons for not voting for Obama, his positions, his experience, etc., fine, but if, in your heart, you know you are voting against him because he is black, you should be asahmed of yourself.
Hot Seat: Clinton for VP? {Political Machine Blog}
Jun 5th 2008 5:13PM Hillary Clinton ALONE would be fine, but with Bill Clinton along for the ride, it is a problem. This guy has taken major steps down since leaving office. He always was an egomaniac who demanded to be the center of attention and quite probably a sex addict. His off-the-wall statements during the cmapaign would be used against Obama and be harmful. Plus the fact that a lot of people don't want a repeat of the Clinton marriage soap opera to be on center stage in Washington. The SUM of Bill and Hillary together is LESS than the sum of the parts. I actually think she would have been nominated if she had divorced Bill back in 2002 or 2003. He cost her the nomination and might cost the Democrats the election. SHE is fine, he is a loose cannon.
