Blog @ MoreWhat.com

The President-elect as early Jun 24, 2007 had a take on Gitmo… SAN ANTONIO — Barack Obama told a Texas crowd on Sunday that he wants the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detainee facility closed Since then or whenever Obama first stated his intent on Gitmo things appear to have changed. Wow, the mantra of change can be expressed in terms other than those intended by the Obama 2008 campaign now that he is President-elect. The first indication of this change was from reports that Obama and/or his camp were contemplating where to ’store’ the detainees at Gitmo if they were to close the facility. There is a chance that Barack Obama was and is as inexperienced as opposition to his election, including this blog, had stated throughout the campaign. Has the stark realization begun to settle in now that the Messiah has been privy to the daily intelligence briefings? Becoming commander-in-chief may have caught the former junior US Senator from Illinois and Illinois State Senator by surprise. All that focus on winning the election may have overlooked some study time on what would really be necessary to fulfill his Constitutional obligation if elected. Which also raises the question of his popular choice of Senator Biden to shore up his lack of foreign policy experience. Did Joe forget to have the discussion with Barack or fail to bring the requisite resume’ to the Office of Vice-President needed to prepare the newly elected American leader?

Even the left leaning MSM has recently expressed four reasons that Obama will not make good on his campaign promise to close Gitmo anytime soon.

The Gitmo Dilemma
Four reasons Obama won’t close the controversial prison soon.

Reason one is repatriation and the additional problem that detainees may face torture if this route is taken not to mention releasing those regarded as terrorists by some is a case of Russian roulette even for those on the left convinced of their innocence. The second reason listed is ‘not in my backyard’ if relocating detainees is viewed as an option for closing Gitmo’s detainee center. Oops, number three outlines the problem in federal courts or even the possibility of military courts having to deal with the small matter of a change from war time rules to civilian rules and items like the Miranda decision. Would future detainees be placed at Bagram air base in Afghanistan? Poor Barack Obama, so many options and so few good choices. It was much easier during the campaign when rhetoric and presentation trumped reality.

The distance between political campaigns and the realities of governing may be coming home to roost for Barack Obama and those who voted for him. During the campaign as included in Rush Limbaugh’s interesting endorsement of Obama as the candidate who can be anything you want him to be, it is quite reasonable to return to the notion that besides selecting Obama to avoid passing on a chance to elect the first black President in the US, voters may have accepted the idea that this mystery man could really be The One and not ‘that one’. Matters of law, the Constitution, its interpretation, core American values and the entire list of items expressly stated as concerns of conservatives and laughed at by liberals will be the focus of much of Barack Obama’s Administration.

One reason this blog would not support Barack Obama as the first black President of the United States during the campaign was practical and honest. Based on how little was really known about the candidate Barack Obama raised concern that beyond the risk to the nation if he was elected and proved to be the wrong choice the damage done to the idea embodied in the election of the first black President in the US would suffer as well.

Gitmo is certainly not the only issue to face the newly elected President with grave implications of principle and law. It is just the beginning of a journey that among other things may raise the level of importance in the public’s mind on what should take center stage when exercising the civic responsibility of voting and all that should be considered when doing so. In order to arrive at the voting decision requires more than casual observation of political campaigns during each election cycle. One must actively engage in the process regularly by reviewing history, this nation’s most important documents and adding to one’s knowledge in a fashion adequate to the task. Too many elections are determined by votes cast with uninformed personal opinion or not cast at all. An uninformed or selfish or apathetic electorate may be more dangerous to the republic than the terrorists discussed in this post.

Become and/or stayed informed as it is of grave importance to the survival of this nation. In addition to that, as a matter of current events, the financial woes dominating the news can be directly linked to the general public being lax in their attention to important issues. Another reason to avoid the socialist nature of those who favor a nanny state expected to attend to every individual’s requirements when given complete authority. The corporate welfare being distributed this year and beyond may be an indication the nanny state is currently in full bloom. Rely on it for your welfare at your own peril.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The report below suggests use of the word ‘global’ when referring to current economic troubles around the world not only describes the geographic nature of the problem but geopolitical as well. German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s concern of money going to US automakers from US taxpayers putting German automakers at risk provides a substantially humorous face on this reverse order of trade subsidy worries. How many foreign countries place barriers to US goods all the while accepting US corporate outsourcing to spur growth in their own economies?

The early promise of ‘a new direction’ in France with the election of Nicolas Sarkozy may be giving way to the honeymoon is long over and the French are scurrying back to their old ways of sending up flares of impending doom and expecting external concessions. This blog’s suggestion that the best thing about Sarkozy leading France was the opportunity for more photo ops of Carla Bruni may end up being less comedy relief and more political reality.

Russia seems to be the only country in this report which relies greatly on the other part of the auto industry equation, energy. The recent dive in the price of oil from its July record highs leaves the nation with the split personality between cold war demon and new world democracy with a severe reversal of fortune in petro dollars.

The only thing missing from all this international intercourse is the predictable hope for world peace and global tranquility. The only common ground here is that all concerned are on equal footing when it comes to playing the game, ‘blank’ on your neighbor. But it is reassuring that good and evil in international politics is equally balanced among the nations described in the report. And that is only because the likes of Iran and similar nations are not noticeably involved. Maybe they are a little less noisy with the fall of oil prices too.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

European officials are taking a close look at how the United States is helping its ailing auto industry.

President George W. Bush welcomes Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany to the Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy Saturday, Nov. 15, 2008, at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C. White House photo by Chris Greenberg

German Chancellor Angela Merkel says she wants to make sure aid to the U.S. auto industry will not put Europe’s own auto companies at a competitive disadvantage.

Merkel’s comments came at a news conference Tuesday in the northern Italian city of Trieste with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Carmakers in both the U.S. and Europe have been asking for government help, with French automaker Peugeot, Europe’s second largest car company, warning the global auto industry is in danger of a collapse.

Meanwhile, France wants to see a stronger international response to the global financial crisis.

In a statement released today, French President Nicolas Sarkozy says France will host a summit in January because world leaders must show they can offer “concrete solutions.”

At a meeting of industrial and developing countries last week in Washington, leaders only managed to agree on a set of principles to prevent the global economy from getting worse.

The Paris summit will be co-hosted by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and will include world leaders as well as Nobel prize-winning economists.

Reuters news agency reports International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn says the list of countries asking for help is growing every day. And Russian President Dmitri Medvedev says his government may need to spend another $180 billion to stabilize the Russian economy.

Russia has already spent almost $200 billion on a series of measures to counter the economic meltdown. The World Bank today cut its growth forecast for the Russian economy in 2008 and 2009.

India is also worried about the effect of the global financial crisis on its economic growth. Finance Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram said Tuesday the government should cut interest rates. He also called on businesses to cut prices and accept lower profit margins to help stimulate the Indian economy.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies says the financial crisis is having an impact on donations from wealthy nations.

And migrant workers from the Philippines tell VOA the financial crisis is having an impact on how much money they are able to send to their families back home.

In 2007, Filipino migrant workers sent more than $14 billion to the Philippines, equal to 13 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP.

GOP bailout stooge to Cavuto: “It’s not your money” (Michelle Malkin) 

A brief time out for a news break to see where the hell we are today. One could say Joe Lieberman won after the Dems took away a subcommittee chairmanship but left him as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. Conventional wisdom says Obama pressured Dems including Harry Reid to do what it takes to keep Joe Lieberman in the Dems caucus for his vote. Rush Limbaugh just stated his opinion that Lieberman will grovel to stay in the Dems good graces. This blog has a different take. The Dems as well as the GOP do not know for sure how the undecided Senate races will play out. While there may be other Senators who could consider switching sides in the aftermath to adjust the majority, Lieberman remains a wild card. To defect from the Dems to the GOP now would be premature as the Senate majority may not reach supermajority after the remaining races are decided. Don’t be surprised if Lieberman becomes a Republican if a supermajority results from the outcome of the other Senate races.

The 42/13 vote favoring keeping Lieberman in his Senate chairmanship raises a question. 42 Dems were either going to vote to keep Joe or were feeling pressure from the President-elect or some combination of those two scenarios. The question is how the 13 who voted against him will vote on subsequent issues in the Senate? Depending on what Senate Dems view as necessity between loyalty to their base or brokering deals with the President-elect it is reasonable to expect the performance of Congress and their approval rating from this point forward will mirror that of the 110th Congress or dismal.

Another good point expressed by Limbaugh today was Congressional posturing with the bailout scams. They gave carte blanche to Hank Paulson in hopes of looking good regarding the economy and other financial matters. Now that their bills including oversight have come under fire along with Paulson the ’spectator’ Congress is scrambling for cover and likely searching for scapegoats to take the heat.

This blog has long held Presidents have little effect on the markets or the economy with few exceptions. Granted, a President can effect a day or week’s trading by statements or actions originating from the White House but they usually have about the same effect as published earnings reports for bellwether stocks reported on a quarterly basis. That could be extended to economic reports such as the PPI, CPI, jobs, etc. But one still has to wonder what the impact was over the 2008 campaign reality that the next President would be either Obama or McCain with a marginally different layout in Congress after the dismal performance between the 110th and the Bush Administration beyond the success of the troop surge in Iraq?

As there always is, there will be winners and losers in the public and private sector including ‘main street’ and the public at large while the major issues play out over the next year or two. Besides obsessing over possible extreme and lasting outcomes of the current economic climate in this country it is likely the nation will survive this latest test. The question is will we learn anything from it and act differently in the future? As an addendum to this post, few seem to be analyzing the actions of other countries to the current global economic ‘meltdown’ in terms of the US response thus far. All seem to be injecting cash into the situation or in other words throwing good money after bad just like the US. What does this say about the allegation we are becoming more socialist in our approach to solving problems? Or is it just that Hank Paulson was in a position to assist those he knows on Wall Street and took it? Not like Congress would mind sharing in that effort. After all, how many of them were in part responsible for the subprime mess that started it all?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Rosemary’s News and Ideas, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Faultline USA, third world county, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe

Not only is Thomas Jefferson honored and respected for his status as a founder of this country but for his insight and refreshing honesty about all the topics he engaged. It is reasonable to say he was not a fan of the press as it frequently caused him at the very least annoyance or discomfort and possibly impeded the pursuit of his goals. And his commentary on it and support of its freedom is well documented. The following is eerily representative of where we find ourselves these days as there is a renewed effort from the left to raise the issue of the Fairness Doctrine and attempt to silence the opposition in direct conflict with the first amendment.

The reference below with the exception of writing style or choice of words could easily be thought of as borrowed from current commentary about the press.

“I deplore… the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them… These ordures are rapidly depraving the public taste and lessening its relish for sound food. As vehicles of information and a curb on our funtionaries, they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief… This has, in a great degree, been produced by the violence and malignity of party spirit.” –Thomas Jefferson to Walter Jones, 1814. ME 14:46

Of course the entire discussion centers around the first amendment presented below.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But as much as Jefferson could detest the press he also vigorously supported its freedom.

Thomas Jefferson, on the necessity of a free press (1787)

The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

another quote on the press……

I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month, and I feel myself infinitely the happier for it.

A quote from Thomas Jefferson again reminds us that throughout history things do not necessarily change much.

on democracy………

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

on the nanny state………

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

The last two quotes above were only supplied due to its relevance to the nature of the polarized population where liberal sentiment is at odds not only with current conservatives but the history and founding of this nation as echoed through the words of Thomas Jefferson.

While slander and libel are common enough terms and their restriction and penalty for use are understood as necessary restraints to the idea and limitations of free speech. The press and individual rights to freedom of the press and free speech are understood to be necessary even when the exercise of these rights are objectionable to some. Trying to limit that freedom solely on objection to content as a matter of personal opinion with no basis in law to limit as in the case of libel, slander or the like renders the Fairness Doctrine an attack on the first amendment.

While persons on either side of an issue may express opinions or even facts their opposition finds objectionable, neither side should be allowed to silence the other as a remedy. Restricting freedom of speech is the first step towards tyranny whereas continued exercise of the freedom of speech strengthens against such tyranny.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A puzzling anomaly presented itself when returning to the interactive digital hardware and software used to electronically access the network of related clusters of similarly engaged devices sometimes referred to as the internet. The modem displayed an indication there was a problem with the connection. A brief tour of recently visited sites resulted in evidence of a problem vanishing. As an additional check a not recently visited site was selected for which there was no likelihood of cached pages or other reference to it. Still no problem. Good.

The not recently visited site was Slashdot. As long as it was right there a review of the current offerings ensued. Purely by chance the reading of a brief request and the reaction to it was read. It seems a postgraduate student was seeking recommendations for physics texts that would be helpful with work in post author’s class on partial differential equations. This is not a story about math or physics. While it may be for the student it should not be for the rest of us. The following advice was offered to the student after expressing concern that the equations to be solved focused on physics problems and it would be good to have a better understanding of physics to deal with the math.

I’m told I should not worry about what the equations describe and just learn how to work with them, but I would rather not follow that advice. Can anyone recommend physics books for someone in my position? I don’t want to just pick up a book for undergrads. Perhaps there are things out there geared towards mathematicians?”

The commentary and other reactions to the student’s post together with the above information presents a good example of what is wrong with American education and people’s opinion of it or concern about it. The replies for this post at Slashdot offer a range of responses from what appear to be serious attempts to assist and recommend to adolescent attempts at humor or ridicule. But the entire discussion reminds this blog author of his own personal experience years ago to a similar dilemma.

The occupation, career or specific education requirements do not matter. It is sufficient for purposes of this post to explain the problem itself without benefit of distracting details. The subject matter presented in a course of study left me with a recurring concern that to fully understand the topics not only required understanding what they were and how they worked but why. When I mentioned this to a friend similarly engaged but in a different region of the country his reponse was much like the person offering advice to the student described in the Slashdot post. He said to not worry about it and just get through the classes. He went on to say the rest would take care of itself. I humbly disagreed then and still do today. Again, to understand what you are studying and how it works is necessary but so is knowing why.

Cognition, cognitive thinking, cognitive understanding or any number of other combinations possible with the word cognitve can be thought of as the ability to take what one learns and apply it to other things. Such as learning why things work the way they do so you can apply that knowledge to conditions or problems you face from that point forward. This is not presented as some sort of academic paper rather a brief explanation of this blog author’s opinion of the importance of knowing why things work the way they do and other answers related to the short question ‘why’.

To omit such pursuits in the area of education or an effort to learn seems an unfortunate contradiction to say the least.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Just the two words ‘Hillary Movie’ in an article title or sentence are enough to grab one’s attention. It is less clear whether the same reaction would arise by adding another pair of words, ‘Supreme Court’. But all four words are included in an Associated Press tidbit at Newsmax that features quotes for the politically inclined in the aftermath of the long and troubling finale to the 2008 Presidential election. But the troubles never really end at the conclusion of an election. It just allows more time to focus on all the other issues that took a back seat to Presidential politics over the last two years.

This is a combo post. Incorporating an extension of the political coverage here in combination with recently expressed intentions to focus on the more important matters of this nation’s founding, its core principles and all that implies. This blog has published extensively on the topic of politics and HRC, the Queen of Cringe, aka, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Heavy attention was placed on her since her announced run for the White House. A blogroll from Blogs Against Hillary has been prominently featured in the sidebar for nearly the entire 2008 campaign. The sentiment on the former First Lady has been openly expressed and not favorable for the entire history of her Presidential run. So it figures there would be some joy at presenting quotes mentioned above from the AP report.

“Hillary is the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist,” Morris said in an ad that is part of the court record. The court record refers to the lower court and Supreme Court records by virtue of the lawsuit over presentation of a documentary that was to be aired as early as last January. In an ad on the Citizens United Web site for the Obama movie, he said, “He is representative of the ultimate left of the Democratic party.” Dick Morris, [is] the former pollster for President Bill Clinton,

The Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a conservative group that wanted to promote and air its anti-Hillary Clinton movie without complying with a landmark campaign finance law. The conservative group, Citizens United, has produced a collection of videos described as documentaries two of which feature Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. It is reported that movies produced by this group have received or been nominated for some awards. SourceWatch reports they are a 501 organization and may have been a 527 or connected to 527 political action committees. Founded in 1988, the group appears to be focused on topics that are mentioned here as imporant. Our nation’s founding, its principles and the need to promote or foster conservative principles such as family values, fiscal responsibility, free enterprise or markets and other familiar concerns including adhering to the US Constitution. Remarkably that is what the court case and presentation of the group’s videos being barred by the FEC involves.

Links and resources are offered at the end of this post following a comment or two by this blog’s author.

At issue in the lawsuit is Citizens United’s right to air its video or ads at a time which the FEC contends was too close to an election and the whole promotion and airing of videos was deemed a political campaign or ad therefore being barred by law. The plaintiff suggests free speech rights versus the FEC overstepping its authority by denying those rights with its barring of the videos, etc. Ever since McCain/Feingold and the high court ruling supporting free speech rights within the context of political campaign ads and those used by groups not connected directly with political campaigns, this whole matter seems to be a little muddy. And while personally this blog may favor the efforts of Citizens United plus hold a troubled opinion of what exactly campaign finance reform or free speech or poltical ads should have to do wth each other, the bottom line at this point may be the entire argument and premise for getting here may be flawed and misguided while the SCOTUS response to such things seems reasoned under the circumstances.

Put another way, Citizens United may be promoting a good thing in terms of conservative values but using the videos as part of that effort may be a poor choice and the law or its application or interpretation no matter how correct may be making a bad situation worse. It will take more posts on this subject with the required research, review and study to come to some kind of conclusion if one is available.

You might like to start with the link below ‘Amicus Curiae Brief of the American Civil Rights Union In Support of Jurisdictional Statement of Appellant Citizens United’ as it was, here at least, an attention getting title. At first it was viewed as a typo and the reaction OMG, the ACLU is butting in again. No, the ACRU is not the ACLU at all and the reading is quite enlightening although that is not a commentary on the substance of the brief or the argument presented.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Supreme Court to Review Hillary Movie

MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM (USDOJ)

Citizens United v. FEC

Supreme Court Documents (08-205):

• FEC’s Motion to Dismiss or Affirm (October 2008) [PDF; 31 pages]
• Amicus Curiae Brief of the American Civil Rights Union In Support of Jurisdictional Statement of Appellant Citizens United (9/17/08) [PDF; 17 pages]

Supreme Court Documents (07-953)

• Supplemental Brief for the Appellee (FEC) (March 2008) [PDF; 10 pages]
• Citizens United’s Supplement to Motion to Expedite and Advance on Docket (2/14/08) [PDF; 3 pages]
• FEC’s Motion to Dismiss or Affirm (2/14/08) [PDF; 29 pages]

District Court Documents (07-2240) :

• Defendant FEC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (6/6/08) [PDF; 71 pages]
• Errata for Memo Opinion denying CU’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (1/16/08) [PDF; 1 page]
• Memorandum Opinion denying Citizens United’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (1/15/08) [PDF; 15 pages]
• Defendant FEC’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction (01/08/08) [PDF; 29 pages]
• Plaintiff Citizens United’s Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction (12/21/07) [PDF; 22 pages]
• Plaintiff Citizens United’s Amended Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (12/21/07) [PDF; 20 pages]
• Defendant FEC’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (12/20/07) [PDF; 50 pages]
• Response to Plaintiff Citizens United’s Motion to Expedite (12/20/07) [PDF; 2 pages]
• Defendant FEC’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Consolidation of the Trial on the Merits with the Hearing on the Preliminary Injunction (12/20/07) [PDF; 12 pages]
• Plaintiff Citizens United’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (December 2007) [PDF; 43 pages]
• Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (December 2007) [PDF; 15 pages]

Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, , third world county, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Pirate’s Cove, Rosemary’s News and Ideas, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe

The economy was given center stage in the 2008 Presidential election during the last two or three months of the campaign. It can be argued that matters of the wallet are the central focus in most elections at all levels. While the war on terror, more specifically wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, may have taken a back seat to economic issues late in the game, time tested strategies of blaming the party holding the White House resulted in the ‘hope and change’ mantra from the left taking a lesser role to the ‘four more years of’ argument directed at the right. Even though the incumbent was barred from re-election by term limits. John McCain by virtue of his party affiliation was painted as another George Bush term while the Democratic party candidate was portrayed as the superior choice without evidence to support the claim.

The facts or opinions outlined above point to politics. While that may seem obvious there is a tendency to focus on politics and ignore the larger task of governing. Even in election campaigns the notion of a candidate’s ability to govern is discussed but typically gives way to a political analysis of that ability rather than a serious search for proof of those attributes which suggest or indicate the direction the nation may take if one candidate is selected over another. So we ultimately select this nation’s leader based on politics rather than principles. Much, if not all, of what happens in government or the act of governing is driven by politics rather than principles. Again, this may seem obvious to anyone reading this. But the question of why do we allow this to continue is what really matters. As well as finding a way to alter this sad state of affairs.

A recent post and discussion on this blog as well as a parallel circumstance at Perri Nelson’s Website is responsible for this particular post. Now that the 2008 election is history and some try to take stock of what will now happen the idea of ramping down political discussions in favor of those which focus on principle and the founding of our United States of America may help focus attention to what should guide the governing of this great nation. While politicians get the lion’s share of criticism, and rightly so, for allowing politics and personal agendas to dominate the act of governing the public shares that guilt by allowing their own bias toward personal gain to influence all they do including decisions made at the ballot box.

This brief introduction on what topics will be featured here more often than in the recent past will conclude with a quote from the show West Wing which some liked to rename Left Wing. ‘We are all guilty so no one’s to blame’. If memory serves, the character, President Jed Bartlett played by Martin Sheen, said that while talking to his Chief of Staff on whether or not he would concede a Congressional censure for lying to the public. The point is the quote. He said that while making the larger point that no one takes responsibility for their actions. You could stop after ‘we are all guilty’. We are. And we need to do something about it. A good place to start is revisit what is important. An example would be what is important for the country rather than self. We have the freedom to act as individuals in our own best interest. So acting as individuals in what is in the country’s best interest should not be a stretch. We need more of that if we expect others to do the same. The more of us who do, the better off we will all be.

Insufficient as it is that ends this post on principle. Unfortunately, other obligations require this to be continued later. Please stay tuned.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Ignore all the noise from the left and other sources not associated with anything that can be defined as conservative. Review the reports, articles, commentary and criticism which has grown to a list that does not lend itself to ease of use. The criticism of McCain, Palin and others by those who view themselves as conservative has taken and maintained center stage from some point in the 2008 Presidential election campaign. The scary part of this phenomenon may be the similarity between its characteristics and those most commonly associated with liberals when the kook fringe is angry at the DNC or the more common practice which follows a Democratic party loss in any area of government but certainly after defeat in an election.

Today, another example of this unnecessary and derisive activity appeared on this blog’s radar. Yes, Michelle Malkin’s RSS feed is regularly checked by this blog and together with a post there today referencing the Right Wing News survey of least favorite people on the right chosen by a group of bloggers and Malkin’s post indicating McCain won, publishing this post was ‘inspired’.

Think back to the early months of the 2008 Presidential primaries. The argument could be made that the central characters on the GOP side of the process were Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. Until a couple of shocker events later in the season, Huckabee and McCain were not viewed as having a chance at the GOP nomination. We all know how that worked out.

It may be the case that Fred Thompson was the only realistic contender early on who had serious conservative credentials as viewed by most people on the right. There is little point in reviewing the controversial approach Thompson selected in entering the race. A similar review, debate or discussion on John McCain’s choices during the 2008 race should be civil, practical and worthwhile in terms of producing actual improvements to the GOP from this point forward rather than indulging in the emasculation of someone who has spent a lifetime serving our country.

There is a collection of personalities and events in recent political history in this country which likely played a role in how the 2008 election concluded. Two decades have seen Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 in the White House. The GOP won the majority in Congress in 1994, two years in to the Clinton Administration. Two years into the Bush 43 second term the Democrats regained the majority. And now they may be poised for a supermajority in the Senate and have reentered the White House by virtue of Barack Obama’s victory this month.

The conservative principles expressed by the GOP have been seriously degraded over the last decade. The Congressional and White House approval ratings have been in the tank for too long now. The ‘blame’ is obvious. And it should not be directed toward one man, one woman, one person or a select group of individuals as measured by another select group of individuals. The problem is systemic and requires something that has not been present in this country for a long time if in fact it ever existed. The principles that founded this country are to be preserved, protected and exercised by not one party or one group or set of individuals but by all Americans.

None of us are without flaws. We not only share a common heritage based on country and history but a shared responsibility to honor the contributions of those who came before us. To inherit a republic based on ideals including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well as other freedoms that provide opportunity for every individual only limited by their determination to succeed comes the burden of earning those rights through commitment to the obligation and responsibility of citizenship.

If we only occupy the sidelines expressing our discontent toward matters that displease or applaud the actions of those with whom we agree are we not negligent to our responsibility as citizens? It is easy to select someone in the public spotlight for ridicule. It also is no challenge to encourage those whose ideas we support. The challenge is to convert that support or opposition into a meaningful contribution resulting in the ultimate solution. While expressing approval or discontent may alter events if the response is large enough, how much more is accomplished through direct involvement? Besides the satisfaction of a real contribution the participation discharges some of our responsibility as citizens. In addition there is the bonus of being part of the solution rather than a mere spectator offering nothing more than a comment.

We all have daily obligations related to life in general that dominate a great deal of our time. In an ideal world each individual maximizes their opportunity to educate themselves while taking advantage of what is available for daily survival to be armed with the tools necessary for success. In turn we will pass that knowledge and experience to family and friends fostering the best of what is possible for humans to produce. As a society in this ideal world everyone contributes their best and all benefit from the results as problems are solved as they arise. Okay, wake up, that dream is done.

The point is that the same rhetoric and speeches are being used by candidates to get elected. The same chance outcomes are being observed in elections. Most likely the same responses will be coming from Washington, the states and local governments. It is a ritual long on history and short on new outcomes. The people may change but the process and response to it are predictable. ‘They’ politicize. ‘We’ agonize. Push replay and let’s do it again. Talking about it may be part of a successful process but there needs to be more. And simply complaining about what happened last week or last month brings nothing to the table.

Just as a successful manager may inform employees expressing complaints that they need to provide solutions not problems, we all need to become more actively involved in the process rather than moving from expressing one opinion after another. That’s my opinion for today. A brief anecdote of one successful action and a current repetitive failure for which I continue to fight will follow below.

When a local effort to curb illegal immigration was initiated I became personally involved which required public participation in local government that was in opposition to my personal preference to keep a low profile and work under the radar. After applying pressure on local officials who opposed the idea and encouraging strangers to support the idea as well as speaking publicly in support of the measure it passed. More time will have to pass before its ultimate success or failure can be measured for effectiveness and whether more needs to be done.

My personal life has been in tatters for a few years now and the solutions needed to solve my own problems are illusive. Failure should not be embarrassing. I continue to pursue solutions and as for critical parts of the problem some measure of success may be forthcoming but only time will tell. I do not complain. I keep working on the problems, actively. Okay, here’s one more story.

I also made a nuisance of myself on several measures which surfaced in Washington over the past few years. While I take no credit for the successful outcome on those legislative items I do feel good about being part of the process. Did my near continuous reminders and arguments to the entire US Senate and some in the House have an effect? Who knows? But I am still on mailing lists and communicate regularly with those I first contacted. Yes, I am sure it is only with minor league staffers if not just some interactive software. But the specific responses to my correspondence and follow up questions on the topics from legislators indicates to me someone is paying attention. Maybe it helps.

Get involved. But be careful what you do because it can have unintended consequences. Years ago I was so personally involved in what can be categorized as local politics it may have had a negative effect on my personal life. While I do not credit that for my divorce it certainly did not help. One must do risk assessment.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The report below suggests President-elect Barack Obama has made a ‘bipartisan’ move. It also suggests by quote from the Obama team that ‘there is one President at a time/. This blog takes exception with both suggestions. From the Office of the President-elect to change.gov to enlisting the services of Madeleine Albright, formerly of the Clinton Administration and Democrat, and the addition of former Republican Congressman Jim Leach who represented a staunchly liberal Iowa district for 15 terms and was re-elected easily, numerous times and is described as moderate on some issues and liberal on most, there is no evidence of bipartisanship or not meddling in the final days of the Bush Administration.

A post published here earlier on Jim Leach referenced Wiki (accuracy sometimes suspect) for the appraisal that he was called conservative on fiscal matters but never saw a program he didn’t want to fund. He is liberal on social issues and foreign policy. One could make the leap to call him a RINO which would not qualify Obama’s choices here as ‘bipartisan’.

If Obama does not attend the summit but has his surrogates meet with reps from the 20 countries how is that not meddling in the final days of the Bush Adminnistration? And as for the Office of the President-elect and change.gov being described as efforts to smooth the transition they can just as easily be defined as a tool to begin influencing reaction to the White House with a high profile appearance when the transition should be seamless and in the background.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama Taps Bipartisan Team for Washington Summit

By VOA News
13 November 2008 U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has named a bipartisan duo of Washington veterans to meet with foreign delegations at a global financial summit beginning Saturday in the U.S. capital.

Officials say former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, a Democrat, and former Republican Congressman Jim Leach will represent Mr. Obama at the gathering of delegations from 20 countries.

President-elect Obama is not attending the summit and will not meet with foreign dignitaries as he has not yet been inaugurated. His aides have said that there is one president at a time in the United States.

President George Bush called the summit of the world’s richest nations and biggest emerging economies to seek ways to prevent future financial crises.

Mr. Obama, however, has been in touch with many foreign leaders who called to congratulate him on his election last week. They included the leaders of Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Mexico and South Korea.

The president-elect has also spoken with Mwai Kibaki, the president of his late father’s country, Kenya, as well as with Pope Benedict XVI.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters.

Washington Finance Summit Seeks Ways to Combat Economic Slowdown

By Barry Wood
Washington
13 November 2008

Video: Finance Summit Preview - Download (WM)
Video: Finance Summit Preview - Watch (WM)

Amid a dramatic global economic slowdown, leaders of 20 developing and industrialized economies are holding an emergency summit in Washington Saturday, November 15. VOA economics correspondent Barry Wood reports on what may result from a meeting whose formal discussions will last only five hours.

When world leaders convene in Washington, they will focus on a slowdown that has affected virtually every country.

In just months, $25 trillion have been erased from global stock markets. Millions of jobs have been lost, and consumers are holding on to whatever cash they have, sparking further declines.

Former US Treasury official Ted Truman helped plan financial meetings of industrialized countries. He believes this broader gathering –not of seven but of 20 — is significant.

“I hope it will focus on the big problem we face, which is global recession,” he said.

To maintain consumer purchasing power and avoid calamity, leaders must commit to coordinated measures, says Wing Thye Woo of Washington’s Brookings Institution.

“Boosting government expenditure, lowering interest rates, and countries should not engage in export promotion policies at this point,” he explained.

Some countries, especially China, have already announced emergency spending programs. Experts say China is signaling a desire to play a bigger role in the global economy.

“They are now important players and will become even more important in the future,” Woo said. “We need the Chinese to continue growing fast.”

The need for better regulation of financial institutions will also be discussed, as will the need for developing economies — like China and India — to have a bigger say in the International Monetary Fund.

Ted Truman says the financial summit could mark the beginning of regular consultations between developed and developing countries.

“I think the most significant thing about this meeting is that it probably marks the beginning of the end of the G-7 as a summit organization,” he said.

Annual G-7 summits of the United States, Canada, Japan and western European nations have taken place for over 30 years. The broader group accounts for 75 percent of global output.

The discussion from just about everywhere continues as observers attempt to draw conclusions about the trashing of Sarah Palin. With no statistical sampling or professional polling data or anything substantial to provide guidance suffice it to say most comments lay blame on Senator McCain for those leveling insults her way. The most popular suspects are aides from the McCain/Palin campaign staff and John McCain himself. Maybe not for participating in the leak of insults but for appearing indifferent to the situation.

There are four videos presented here. One of Michell Malkin expressing her outrage at John McCain on Neil Cavuto’s show. One of O’Reilly and Greta van Susteren debating the relative merits of reports on the matter and a two part from YouTube offering McCain’s appearance on Leno November 11th. This is followed by a full text transcript of the Leno appearance by McCain.

The opinion on this blog has been and continues to be one of skepticism. No serious evidence has been witnessed by this blog’s author to allow a clear conclusion to be drawn showing guilt by McCain or his aides for all the bad press directed toward Sarah Palin. That is not to say it is or is not out there, just that it has not been seen from here.

Is the loss of adhering to conservative principles by the GOP or the loss of the 2008 Presidential election by the GOP ticket so painful that those who appear to have supported the Republican candidates for that office need to apply blame to someone for the current situation? It seems fair to say that whoever is trashing Sarah Palin is not a former or current supporter of her candidacy for Vice-President of the United States. If that includes members of the McCain/Palin campaign staff then someone was hired who should not have been. Where is the strong evidence supporting the notion that the campaign aides are responsible? Sadly, based on Michelle Malkin’s mention on Cavuto’s show of Carl Cameron and Newsweek as sources to explain some of this hours were spent searching for such information with no success. Of the content found related to the ‘trashing’ nothing was seen that confirms the accusation towards aides from McCain’s campaign staff. Even van Susteren refers to the reports as ‘gossip’ and would not have run with the story based on that whereas O’Reilly would have.

While some criticize McCain especially for not ‘denouncing’ aides for bashing Palin this blog believes his responses on Leno were reasonable. These things happen in campaigns, no one likes a sore loser, Palin and Obama inspired many and it’s time to move on. If anyone is expecting all the bad press directed at Sarah Palin to be withdrawn or labeled as lies by those who published or broadcasted them, they are living in a dream world. The best thing that can happen is to get back to the work of advancing the cause of conservative principles and politics in order to move this country forward in a practical and reasoned way. The ugliness of the last campaign must end. Let the ugliness of politics as usual in Washington begin anew. There will be no revolutionary changes in government if history is any indicator. Get a grip and help move the country forward. All this ranting and outrage is pointless. Coming from those on the right they are starting to sound like liberals with all the whining.

So, now for the videos and transcript and have a good view and a read. Feel free to point out where you think this post has errors or simply express your opinion. It appears to be time to focus on what is needed for the next round rather than obssess on past losses. If you look back at the primaries and what took place then and since the outcome was never really a surprise. Too many obstacles to overcome combined with a ship adrift in rough seas allowed a decision to accept any port in a storm. The harbor was not entirely friendly nor conducive to success. It is time to right the ship and head for open water not lament the damage caused or how it happened.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Michelle Malkin on McCain and the Palin attacks

O’Reilly, Van Susteren debate Fox report

McCain on Leno 11/1108 Parts 1 & 2

TRANSCRIPT: JOHN MCCAIN ON “THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JAY LENO

“THE TONIGHT SHOW”

Jay Leno: As I said, today is Veterans Day. I cannot think of a better person to have as my first guest. Vietnam veteran, real American war hero, also just ran a hard-fought campaign against Barack Obama, now our President elect. Please welcome, in his first television interview,

Senator John McCain. (Applause.) Welcome back, sir.

Senator John McCain: Thank you, my friend. And thank you for having all these brave servicemen and women here. I’m honored to be with you. Thanks.

Jay Leno: It’s been a week since the election. How are you doing?

Senator John McCain: Well, I’ve been sleeping like a baby. (Laughter.) Sleep two hours, wake up and cry. Sleep two hours, wake up and cry. (Laughter.)

Jay Leno: Well, how –

Senator John McCain: I gotta tell you one quick story about Arizona. As you know, the great state of Arizona I’ve had the honor to represent. And we have a problem in Arizona. It’s really kind of a sad thing, because Barry Goldwater from Arizona ran for President of the United States. Morris Udolf (sp.) from Arizona ran for President of the United States. Bruce Babbitt from Arizona ran for President of the 1 United States. I, twice. Arizona may be the only state in America where mothers don’t tell their children that some day they can grow up and be President of the United States. (Laughter.) I mean, that’s a sad story.

Jay Leno: How about your wife Cindy? How is she taking it? Because sometimes –

Senator John McCain: Yeah, it’s tough. It’s tougher always on the family members. But she’s doing fine. She’s doing very fine. Thanks for having her and Meghan on the show. Appreciate it.

Jay Leno: They were great guests.

Senator John McCain: Thank you. And I’m glad to be back for my 14th time. I’m happy to be on.

Jay Leno: The day after the election, it was so weird. I turn on the TV, and I see you coming out of your house or apartment. You get in your car, and you drive somewhere by yourself.

Senator John McCain: Yeah. To get a cup of coffee, yeah. I didn’t have a single accident.

Jay Leno: I mean –

Senator John McCain: Maybe one.

Jay Leno: What was that like to suddenly be surrounded — “He’s coming down the hall. Remove” — and then suddenly — I mean –

Senator John McCain: Well, secret service people, despite the idiot you talked about tonight, they’re wonderful people. They’re brave. They serve the country. They’re just really the best of America. But it is a bit confining, you know. So I’m able to –

Jay Leno: So what did you do that first day? Where were you driving when you –

Senator John McCain: Went down to get a cup of coffee. Cindy and I went down to get a cup of coffee and — not the newspaper. I knew what it was going to say. (Laughter.)

Jay Leno: And you went up to the mountains too?

Senator John McCain: Yeah, went up to our place near Sedona and had a very nice time.

Jay Leno: Now, which house is that? Number 12?

Senator John McCain: You know what? That’s — let’s see. 27.

Jay Leno: 27.

Senator John McCain: But we’re — you know, look, it’s a great honor. It’s a great privilege. It’s an incredible thing that I was able to do. And I saluted, as you know, and admire and respect the winner, Senator — President elect Barack Obama.

Jay Leno: Actually, to me, that was, I thought, a nice moment when you were talking somewhere. In the campaign when I saw ugly things going back and forth and a woman said, “Well, Barack Obama, he’s an Arab or a terrorist,” and you stopped and you said, “No, he’s a good man and he’s a family man.”

Senator John McCain: Yeah, a good and decent person.

Jay Leno: And I like that. I thought that was quite impressive.

Senator John McCain: Well, you’ve got to have a respectful campaign. And that doesn’t mean it isn’t tough. I mean, campaigns are tough, and they should be because you’re seeking the most important position in the world. But there’s a difference between being tough and being personal or angry. And look, America right now — I don’t have to tell you — I don’t have to tell anybody out here, especially those members of the military — that we’re in two wars. We’ve got housing problems. We’ve got economic crisis. We’ve got all these problems. Now it’s time for America to join together and support the man who was just elected President.

Jay Leno: Now, what do you think was the main reason you lost. I mean, it was close. You got –

Senator John McCain: I think personality.

Jay Leno: Personality fault? (Laughter.)

Senator John McCain: Maybe too many people saw me on the Jay Leno show.

Jay Leno: What would you — is there anything, looking back, you would have done differently? Seriously, is there anything you said, “Maybe I shouldn’t have said this”?

Senator John McCain: You know, one of the things — I do study history. And every book I’ve read about presidential campaigns is the person that one ran a perfectly flawless, beautifully machined, great campaign, and the person who lost, “Oh, my God, all screwed up.” I could tell you a lot of things that we may have made mistakes on. But Jack Kennedy, after the failure of the invasion of the Bay of Pigs, said, “Victory has a thousand fathers. Defeat has one more lonely orphan.” He didn’t use the word “orphan,” but we’re on television. So that’s the way it is. Look, I’m so happy to have had the friends, go to the places we went to, Gee’s Bend, Alabama, where Martin Luther King went before the March in Selma. And I met a group of African-American women who make quilts, singing. I’ll never forget so many of those wonderful experiences that I had that no other way I could have had — I could have had the experiences I had.

Jay Leno: When you sit with friends, you discuss it, it does seem like, as viewing this, knowing you, I would see sort of two McCains. Sometimes I would see one McCain, and then the times when you were being funny, like at the Al Smith dinner and “Saturday Night Live” and said, “Oh, that was” — I said, “Why can’t we get” — “where is that McCain?” That one didn’t seem to be quite as visible. Is it the pressure and the tension of –

Senator John McCain: I think these are tough times, and you have to — and campaigns are tough. I don’t, frankly, think that a lot of people wanted a standup comic. They wanted to know how we were going to address the issues. That’s why I didn’t worry about your write-in candidacy. (Laughter.) But, you know, you just do the best that you can. And again, it’s an incredible honor. You know, we’re not — I’m not denigrating my past, but I stood fifth from the bottom of my class at the Naval Academy. If my old Marine company officer were here today, he’d say, “In America, anything is possible.” (Laughter.)

Jay Leno: Look, we’ll take a break. When we come back, we’ll discuss Sarah Palin. We’ll be right back with Senator McCain. (Commercial break.) Welcome back. Talking with

Senator John McCain. Let’s talk about Governor Palin now. The polls show that she hurt you. I know you’re too much of a gentleman to probably answer this question, but did she? Do you think it hurt you at all?

Senator John McCain: No, look, Sarah Palin and her husband, who is an amazing guy, four-time champion –

Jay Leno: Snow machine.

Senator John McCain: Yeah, snow machine –

Jay Leno: I didn’t hear that. Was that mentioned?

Senator John McCain: One time the guy — with 250 miles to go, Todd broke his arm and finished the race. Look, I’m so proud of her. And I’m very grateful that she agreed to run with me. She inspired people. She still does. And look, I’m — I couldn’t be happier with Sarah Palin. And she’s going back to be a great governor, and I think she will play a big role in the future of this country.

Jay Leno: Did she ever get off message at one point?

Senator John McCain: Did you expect mavericks to stay on message? I’m sure that from — look, we did a lot of things together, a lot of these rallies. The people were very excited and inspired by her. And that’s what really mattered, I think. Look, she’s a great reformer. She took on the governor of her own party when she ran for governor.

Jay Leno: Gotcha.

Senator John McCain: She understands all the energy issues. There’s a $40 billion pipeline coming to bring natural gas to places like California. And so look, she’s a marvelous person.

Jay Leno: Now, these aides that were criticizing her — and I think everyone agrees there were Republican aides who were criticizing her. I know you wouldn’t go for that. I know you’re an old soldier. You don’t let people talk — but why?

Senator John McCain: One — these things happen in campaigns too. I think I have at least a thousand, quote, top advisors. “A top advisor said” — people I’ve never even heard of, much less a, quote, top advisor or a high-ranking Republican official. It’s — these things go on in campaigns, and you just –

Jay Leno: Why don’t we just move on.

Senator John McCain: I’m just very proud to have had Sarah Palin and her family, a wonderful family.

Jay Leno: I sort of guessed — when Barack Obama picked Joe Biden, I — it seemed to me he picked Joe Biden because Russia had just invaded Georgia and it seemed like, “Wow, I want to go with somebody with foreign experience. Biden’s got” — it seemed like he became a choice because of that. That’s just my guess. If this economic thing had happened a month earlier or prior to you choosing, would you might have gone with an economic person, maybe a Romney or somebody like that? Is there any chance — how much did the world events play in the decision?

Senator John McCain: The world events didn’t play a role. I just looked at people, and I saw all of the things that she had to offer. And all of them that we had to actually, quote, choose from or ask to serve with us were all good people. I like them all very much. It wasn’t an easy process. I just thought that — I really believe that Sarah Palin is amongst some, like Tim Pawlenty and Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, there’s a group of young Republican governors and — mainly governors, but also some in the Senate — that I think are the next generation of leadership of our party. And we’re probably going to — our party has a lot of work to do. We just got back from the woodshed.

Jay Leno: How about Joe Lieberman? Was he a close choice? Was that possible?

Senator John McCain: Joe is one of the finest, most wonderful men I’ve ever known in my life. I have never known a finer man than Joe Lieberman, and I believe I won the nomination because right before the New Hampshire primary — and I know I don’t expect a lot of you to remember all the details — he came out to supported me. It mattered. Independent voters voted with us. I love Joe Lieberman.

Jay Leno: That might cost him the chairmanship now. Is that –

Senator John McCain: I hope not, because Joe is a wonderful person. And we want people to stand up for –

Jay Leno: Can you do that? Can you lose your chairmanship in the Senate just because you picked what your party perceives as an –

Senator John McCain: It generally is not done. I don’t, obviously, know what — what’s going to happen. But I know that Joe Lieberman is one of the — and by the way, on national security issues, he’s really, really good.

Jay Leno: And he’s an independent now; right?

Senator John McCain: He’s a, quote, independent Democrat.

Jay Leno: Would you want him to be a, quote, independent Republican?

Senator John McCain: No, no.

Jay Leno: Try to get him over on the other side, kind of lure him over –

Senator John McCain: I’m honored to have –

Jay Leno: — get him some clothes, expensive clothes, maybe nice suit? (Laughter.)

Senator John McCain: Neiman Marcus?

Jay Leno: Neiman Marcus.

Senator John McCain: But yeah, I think that — I think that Joe is going to probably remain as what he is, an independent who stands up for what he believes in. We need more people like Joe Lieberman.

Jay Leno: I want to talk to some more. When we come back, I want to ask you about a couple of issues and if you think the outcome would have been different if those issues had been different. More with

Senator John McCain. (Commercial break.)

Jay Leno: Welcome back. Talking with

Senator John McCain. Let me ask you this: If the main issue had remained the Iraq War, do you think the outcome might have been different?

Senator John McCain: If frogs had wings — (Laughter.) Anyway, won’t finish that line. You know, I don’t know, Jay. If you get into this “might have been” or different scenarios — we fought, I thought, a good campaign. I’m honored by the friends we made. I’m honored to have had the opportunity. I know it sounds a little repetitious, but that’s what I’ll take with me. By the way, Senator Obama inspired millions of young people, and I think we inspired some people too. And that’s really what I think was important, that legacy.

Jay Leno: At what point did you feel like you’re up against almost a historical movement? It seemed almost bigger than either candidate. You know, when I watched Senator Obama give his speech and I saw people who had not been part of the process –

Senator John McCain: Never been — oh, yeah.

Jay Leno: — suddenly moving –

Senator John McCain: Especially a lot of young people too.

Jay Leno: A lot of young people. At what point did you realize, “Oh, this is kind of bigger than both of us”?

Senator John McCain: I never thought that, because I’m a fighter. We always — I knew I had a headwind. I can read the polls. They tried to keep them from me. “You don’t want to read that, Senator.” But no, I knew we had a real headwind.

Jay Leno: Do you feel the press kind of favored him? Did you see sort of –

Senator John McCain: Yeah, it’s all the press’s fault. (Laughter.)

Jay Leno: All the press’s fault.

Senator John McCain: No, no.

Jay Leno: Was there any hostility in the media? Like that Letterman fallout, was there any hostility there? (Laughter.)

Senator John McCain: You should have seen “The View.” (Laughter.)

Jay Leno: I saw “The View,” yeah.

Senator John McCain: No, but look, we’re big guys. We’re supposed to be able to take this kind of stuff, you know. You know, one thing I think Americans don’t want is a sore loser. And I’ve got a great — I get to go back to the United States Senate and work on a lot of issues and continue to serve. That’s been my life. That’s been my life.

Jay Leno: Joe the plumber, was that a gift for Republicans? Is that like you’re watching the other guy and you go, “Oh, there’s gold. The guy looks like Mr. Clean”?

Senator John McCain: I loved him. He’s a great guy. Joe Wurzelbacher. Great guy. Had the chance to get to know him a bit. He’s kind of the classic American trying to get ahead, trying to make it. A great guy, great guy. And honest to God — I’m not kidding you, because we took polls all the time — that guy went from zero to 70 percent name I.D. in 48 hours. Really. It was amazing. It was amazing. And he handled it incredibly well, incredibly well.

Jay Leno: Now, in 2012, you’ll be 76. Still a young man.

Senator John McCain: Yeah, here we go again. Ready to go again.

Jay Leno: Ready to go again? (Applause.)

Senator John McCain: I don’t — I wouldn’t think so, my friend. It’s been a great experience, and, you know, we’re going to have another generation of leaders come along, and I’ll hope that I can continue to contribute. That’s all.

Jay Leno: Any thoughts on Veterans Day today? I know this is one thing — you see, we had a lot of fun with you, but it’s always about age, maybe you’re cranky, but it was never about your patriotism or about your love of country because you are a true soldier and a true hero.

Senator John McCain: You’re very kind. (Applause.)

Jay Leno: Maybe you could — could you share with us something maybe you didn’t get a chance to share during the campaign.

Senator John McCain: Just about every day, but especially on Veterans Day, I think of a guy I was in prison with a long time ago. For a few years we were in Hanoi and prison camps in north Vietnam. They kept us in solitary confinement, two or three to a cell. They finally moved us into large cells, 20 or 25 prisoners in each cell. The guy that moved in with me was a guy named Mike Christian. Mike was from a small town near Selma, Alabama. Very poor family. Enlisted in the Navy at age 17. Later became an A6 bombardier navigator. Was shot down and captured. He loved this country. I moved in the same room with him. The uniform we wore in prison was blue, like, short-sleeved shirt, like, pajama trousers, and shoes — sandals that were cut out of automobile tires. I recommend them highly. One pair lasted me five and a half years. (Laughter.) Part of this change in treatment, they let us have some packages from home in which were small items — some of us — like a handkerchief or a scarf. He took his blue shirt, fashioned himself a bamboo needle, got a piece of white cloth, piece of red cloth, and sewed the American flag on the inside of his shirt. Every evening before we would have our bowl of soup, we would put his flag — his shirt on the wall of the cell and pledge our allegiance to the country. It was an important part of our day. One day the Vietnamese came, searched the cell, found his shirt, removed it, came back that night — and I’m telling it fast — opened the door of the cell, called for him to come out, closed the door of the cell, and beat him very badly for a couple hours. Then they threw him back into the cell. The cell in which we slept had a concrete slab, light bulbs in all four corners, naked light bulbs. We cleaned Mike up as well as we could. I went over to lie down on the concrete and go to sleep. And I happened to look over in the corner of the cell, and underneath the lightbulb, with a piece of white cloth and a piece of red cloth and his bamboo needle, was Mike, with his eyes almost shut from the beating that he had received, sewing another American flag. He wasn’t doing that for us. He was doing it for his country. He wasn’t doing it for himself. He was doing it for his country and our ability to pledge our allegiance to our flag and country. I’ll never forget Mike Christian. (Applause.)

Jay Leno:

Senator John McCain, thank you for being here. Thank you so much for your patriotism and your service to your country. I know you’ve got to go. Cindy is in the audience. There’s his lovely wife Cindy right there. John McCain, thank you, sir. (Applause.)

The MSM never ceases to amaze. Controlling what gets published historically handled by editors or gatekeepers or censors and the analysis by notables such as Marshall McLuhan may have suggested a practical side to media manipulation. There is a limit to how much can be presented in a given period of time. Regulation and perhaps public pressure influenced how far the media could test their first amendment rights. The term(s) yellow journalism has been around for more than a century and deals with the notion of honest content versus sensationalism but more importantly and more broadly the misuse of the power of the media by those who control it.

An inadequate review of media power, history and the critical issues to be sure, but the purpose of the above paragraph is to remind those who read this of the risk associated with mainstream media, its power to influence, and that these issues are not new. Unless you were sleeping for the last two years it is obvious much criticism has been directed equally toward the mainstream media and alternative sources such as conservative talk radio. For the mainstream the central claim was bias in reporting that favored one candidate over another. For the alternative media example, conservative talk radio, has been under threat by the so-called Fairness Doctrine aka, censorship, and CTR’s opposition against efforts to silence them.

This post features an article by Kate Snow from ABC News that demonstrates both the bias side of media as well as an often lacking presentation that is essentially neutral with respect to the subject. It starts with the title of ‘Campaign’s Over, Palin Still Talking’. For all the commentary in the media about Palin being kept under wraps with limited or non-existent press availability, the title is at least a curious choice. Then in the opening paragraph of the report’s online version Snow describes Palin as ‘closely guarded’. From being guarded to going rogue and everything in between the media coverage of Sarah Palin has been suspect and offered support to the notion of mainstream media bias related to the Presidential candidates for 2008.

On what may be the neutral treatment of Sarah Palin by this report from ABC News the first comment has to be a question. Is playing nice regarding Sarah Palin to be the mainstream media’s attempt to deflect the ‘bias’ criticism they so richly derserve now that the election is over for Palin, et al? The neutral part appears to be a collection of quotes from Sarah Palin on several targeted aspects of her personal and campaign life that were central to the bashing she received from opponents including the MSM. The report has antiseptic descriptions accompanying the quotes giving a matter of fact flavor to Palin’s response on stories about her during the campaign. It is reminiscent of stories where the media featured accusations that destroyed a person’s life only to publish retractions or news of an acquittal or exoneration on an obscure back page of the paper. It all seems a little contrived.

Since this story on Sarah Palin may be equivalent to a back page correction it is offered here to give some support to fair treatment of the Alaska Governor. “Some support’ refers to any positive effect this blog can provide based on traffic rankings. The support by this blog for Sarah Palin is full throated. She is spectacular for many of the reasons that made her a rich target for unrestrained media criticism as well as that from her political opponents. She is not a campaign robot or product of a political strategy in search of the shell of a candidate to be filled with the rhetoric to represent special interest agendas. She speaks honestly without pretense reflecting the spirit of many in this country who favor a return to the basic principles that have served this republic well in its brief 200 plus year history.

“I would have preferred more opportunity to speak to the media more often, because there were a lot of things that I think it could have, should have said that could have, would have helped John McCain,” Palin said in the interview that aired Monday night.

Wow, ABC reporting about an interview with Greta van Susteren of Fox News without characterizing it as an extension of the GOP. But the point here really is Palin may be exactly right. Many suggest McCain held back on strategies that may have improved his chances for victory. This applies to not only focusing on Obama’s flaws that were dismissed by the MSM and others but an honest and necessary discussion on his plans as President to disarm the lame, predictable notion from his opponents that McCain/Palin would be four more years of President Bush.

“It started off with the rumors or speculation even in mainstream media that Trig wasn’t actually my child, that Trig was somebody else’s child and I faked a pregnancy,” she told NBC’s Matt Lauer on the “Today” show. “That was absolutely ridiculous and it took days for that false allegation to ever be corrected.”

Gee, where was all this coverage on the evening news from the ‘traditional’ broadcasters during the campaign? Were they too busy advocating for Barack Obama? Was this not a story to be corrected by the media before election day? Try to make the argument the media is not biased in favor of liberal candidates.

“Never ever did I talk about ‘well, gee, is it a country or a continent? I just don’t know about this issue.’ So I don’t know how they took our one discussion on Africa and turned that into what they turned it into,” Palin said.

Aides have told ABC News that Palin simply misspoke once during debate prep and accidentally used the term “country” instead of “continent” when referring to Africa.

Barack Obama being corrected by George Stephanopoulos when he used the phrase, ‘my Muslim faith’ and GS injected, ‘Christian faith’. Joe Biden being descibed as ‘that is just Joe being Joe’ referring to supporters’ reaction to one of Biden’s well documented gaffes. But not for Sarah Palin is the selective objective reporting occasionally available in the MSM. At least not when it is relevant or required as a matter of journalistic responsibility.

No commentary would be complete without mention of the most ridiculous coverage about Palin beyond the personal and family attacks. That would be the clothing story. Something too stupid to comment on aside from the fact it demonstrates the MSM’s need to carry ’sensational’ stories, true or not, to bring potentially damaging coverage to a candidate they do not support.

Palin says she’s never set foot in a Neiman Marcus or Saks store. She says the only thing she ever asked for was a diet Dr. Pepper. Her longtime aide told ABC News she might have also asked for coats when the weather got colder and a tube of toothpaste at one time.

She told van Susteren and Lauer that the clothing was purchased by stylists hired by the RNC. She says she and her family arrived at the convention in Minneapolis, Minn., and were told the stylist would outfit them.

Imagine what this blog’s author thought when the story broke? That’s right. The clothing thing was a strategy put forth by the campaign staff or others responsible for deciding the candidate’s appearance, etc. This story has been a colossal waste of time. But its purpose was clear. To add more brush strokes to the media’s painting of Sarah Palin. But make sure there is no negative press for Barack Obama or Joe Biden other than those stories that cannot be ignored and we, the MSM, will spin the bad stuff into oblivion. But hey, said the MSM, do we have any more dirt to throw on Palin? Tina Fey might work. Thanks NBC.

Sarah Palin may have a significant role in national politics in the years ahead. This blog’s author will support her efforts in any such role. Those on either side of the political spectrum in this country should understand that not all issues important to a candidate personally see the light of day or have an impact on the results. Too discount Sarah Palin solely based on philosophical differences would be a mistake made too often in this country. Liberals who oppose Palin would do well to consider her love of country and desire to protect it and strengthen basic principles associated with the founding of this nation. That of course would assume that such things are important to liberals.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

To support our troops and all those who serve in uniform it is necessary as ordinary citizens to participate in the process that ultimately affects how well the nation serves those who serve it. While reviewing various sources for items related to Veteran’s Day two instances feature public response to the topic from the leaders of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress. Below are the press releases from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and House Minrity Leader John Boehner.

Pelosi Statement on Veterans Day

For Immediate Release
11/10/2008

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on the occasion of Veterans Day, which will be celebrated tomorrow:

“On Veterans Day, Americans across our great nation come together to honor the brave men and women who wore our nation’s uniform, to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice, and to pay special tribute to those serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the globe. Without the brave efforts of all the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen, none of us would live as free or be able enjoy the blessings of liberty.

“The New Direction Congress treats every day as if it were Veterans Day, as we work to strengthen our military and ensure that our troops have the tools they need to complete their mission safely and the benefits and health care they were promised once they return home.

“In the last two years, we provided more resources to care for American veterans than was done in the previous 12 years combined—including the single largest increase in veterans’ health care funding in the 77-year history of the VA. We also helped make the heroes of Iraq and Afghanistan part of a new American economic recovery—just like after World War II—by restoring the GI Bill’s promise of a four-year college scholarship.

“Our pledge to meet the needs of our veterans is about redeeming a promise made by an American president long ago in the midst of our nation’s bloodiest war. In his Second Inaugural Address, President Lincoln promised that our nation would “…care for him who shall have borne the battle, his widow, and his orphan…” We are keeping that promise to America’s veterans.

“On the battlefield, the military pledges to leave no soldier behind. As a nation, let it be our pledge that when they return home, we leave no veteran behind. On this Veterans Day, let us all pause to thank our men and women in uniform—both past and present—and to say a prayer for those serving today that they may return safely home.”

First of all let it be said here that in all likelihood Speaker Pelosi sincerely appreciates the contribution and sacrifice provided by members of the armed services. It is also a matter of public record that she has opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has taken it upon herself to visit places like Syria as a self-proclaimed diplomat for political reasons in opposition to President Bush. The Democratic party and their alliances with organizations like MoveOn and other anitwar, perhaps anti-American activists and the far left insulted General Petraeus as well as the service of heroes like John McCain and others. That sentiment is present in her press release above with her repeated mention of ‘return home’ which has become her not so subtle call for surrender and appeasement in light of the success of the troop surge which stilled the storm attempted by her antiwar base. Let’s see how supportive she is on veterans’ issues beyond the political rhetoric and minimally effective legislation along with her routine criticism of the opposition party and claim of innocence for her own. A little public oversight and interrogation of her is in order.

Boehner Statement Honoring Our Nation’s Veterans

Washington, Nov 11 - House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today issued the following statement honoring our nation’s veterans:

“As the United States begins another peaceful transition of power from one President to another, we are once again reminded of how truly fortunate we are to live in a nation where such a monumental task seems so routine. On this Veterans’ Day, we take the time to remember and thank those who have made this and all of democracy’s gifts possible. The men and women who have proudly and selflessly served our nation in uniform – and those currently protecting us here at home and overseas – can look upon the events of the next 10 weeks and know that they have had a stake in preserving and defending the oldest and greatest democracy on Earth. We are in their debt, and we express our gratitude to them, and those who came before them, on this special day.”

#####

House Minority Leader John Boehner was smart enough to avoid any direct links to the state of veterans’ affairs in his press release. That does not let him off the hook for responsibility in these matters any more than it would Nancy Pelosi. But at least he did not mar the observance of Veteran’s Day with political rhetoric. It is again worthwhile to note that the current peaceful transfer of power from one Preisdent to another is also an outcome preserved by the service of veterans to this nation’si ideals. From Minority Leader Boehner on this special occasion, enough said.

In the days or months to come there will be reports of how effective or ineffective inquiries to the above members of Congress were regarding veterans affairs. This would be the blog author’s gesture to honor Veteran’s Day by advocating for proper treatment of veterans to honor their service in addition to a special day which commemorates that service.

Reid Statement On Veterans Day

November 10, 2008

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today released the following statement to commemorate Veterans Day, Tuesday, November 11:

“Since America’s earliest days, brave men and women have put their lives on the line to protect our nation, its citizens and their freedom. This Veterans Day, we honor the service and sacrifice of America’s veterans and pause to thank those defending us throughout the world today.

“As our country continues to fight wars on multiple fronts and a new generation of soldiers becomes the next generation of veterans, we must renew our promise to our troops that we ensure they receive all the support and benefits they have earned.

“I look forward to working with President-elect Obama and my colleagues in Congress to fulfill our obligation to our military men and women who have dedicated their lives to our great nation.”

###

Surprisingly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s press release for Veteran’s Day touches on this blog’s specific point on veteran’s issues. Also surprising is at GOP Republican Senate dot gov there is no PR from McConnell on this topic. At his own Senate site is only a PR on $75 million he scored for a KY Vet’s Hospital. This too will require further explanation. But the bottom line is not primarily what public statements are available but what is actually being done to serve veterans. More on all this later.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

On this Veteran’s Day this blog was at a quandary. The number of worthy stories to share about the honor and sacrifice of those who serve and those who have served make choices incredibly difficult in terms of what to publish this day. After much consideration an old phrase came to mind, keep it simple, stupid. And so it will be.

What veterans have blessed us with over this nation’s history cannot be measured as the gift is supreme. Controversy from time to time attempts to lessen the greatness of these honorable Americans. That there are those who would belittle their service to country demonstrates that even the best among us are not immune to the acts of the worst among us. And yes, they proudly serve and their service demands respect and much more from those who benefit from this noble endeavor. That would be all of us.

Veterans are often underserved and forgotten when they in turn may need some effort from their fellow countrymen. Let this day remind us of our responsibility to veterans for all they have done. It should not be too much to ask that their needs are attended to for all they have done for us.

Veterans, on your day, we will keep it simple. Thank you for all you do and have done. This nation would not survive without you. You are responsible for the nation’s survival to this point and no doubt will be in the year’s ahead. Thank you. It is not said enough.

A couple of photos may help expressing the sense of history and continuing service to country by veterans everywhere….

Thank you all.

Stanford Matthews

Is Howard Dean the first casualty of Barack Obama’s Democratic Socialist party? If Howard Dean annoys the Washington liberal power elite and disappointed his initial loyal ‘netroots’ far left wing, one might expect that he is in line for a significant position within Barack Obama’s America. Most reports out today are sketchy and only indicate Dean is resigning as DNC Chair after one four year term with no announced plans for what’s next?

Since the media and the DNC elite anointed Barack Obama as their candidate for 2008 how does that square with Howard ‘the scream’ Dean? Rahm Emanuel and Howard Dean have ‘clashed publicly’ more than once and with Emanuel as WH Chief of Staff and Dean resigning as Chair of the DNC you could conclude Dean is the first casualty of the Obama Administration. For no other reason than timing, Joe Lieberman may be the second as undecided races delay the specifics on the Democrats’ Congressional majority for the 111th Congress.

One part of a report from WaPo is especially entertaining. Grassroots — and netroots — activists, who propelled Dean’s presidential bid and then helped get him elected as chair of the party in early 2004, love the former Vermont governor and credit his chairmanship of the DNC with the rebirth of the Democrats as a national party. (Dean’s pioneering accomplishment during his four years in office is the 50-state strategy, a plan that put Democratic staff and organizations on the ground in every state in the country.)

The rebirth of the Democrats as a national party is the entertaining part. How does the rebirth description square with the approval rating of Congress that is in the tank? If the rebirth is based on 2006 midterm victories as well as the election of Barack Obama in 2008 why was the Democratic party described nearly continuously in the recent past as the party who could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The imploding nature of the party has been well documented with scattered success typically followed by resounding defeats. Possibly the most notable was the overreaching habit surfacing after Bill Clinton’s 1992 election as President followed by the RNC retaking the majority in Congress in 1994.

Was the public and media reaction to the Clinton victory in 1992 equivalent to the 2008 version of King Obama the First? That’s okay, liberals, enjoy the moment. But for as much as liberals like to point out that GOP losses are a reflection of President Bush and failed policies they are reluctant to add the two year old majority of the Democrats in Congress has an approval rating lower than the outgoing President. That comparison is in typical liberal fashion dismissed as the GOP minority blocking the DNC’s agenda. Could it be that the GOP supported an RNC only agenda from the White House with support from Congress and the DNC did the same on their party’s behalf?

If the DNC goes hard left and only approaches the business of governing from their viewpoint a reversal like that of 1994 will be likely. As transformational as the Obama presidency has been pitched by the liberals if it does not succeed in finding common ground and only pursues the far left agenda not only will the DNC be reduced to a minority in Congress at the next midterms but former Senator Barack Obama will become a one term President.

The sketchy news on Howard Dean’s reported departure as Chief of the DNC may be a tea leaf. An early indication of the change political reality places on winning campaign rhetoric. This of course was followed by the not so unclear selection of Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff. The outcome of the undecided races, Joe Lieberman’s future, and the placement of Obama accomplices within his administration or other areas of government will add to the reality of what an Obama White House will be like. The first legislative calendar in the 111th Congress as well as executive order reversals by President Obama should raise the controversy level early next year.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For all the he said, she said reports circulating about Sarah Palin this blog had chosen to wait and see what developed in terms of retractions or corrections and the like. Recently, reports that indicate McCain campaign insiders were not responsible for the latest collection of stories trashing Gov Palin is why this blog has chosen to weigh in now.

Whether the McCain campaign insiders did or did not contribute to the Palin-bashing is more or less irrelevant. If you think about it, every candidate is subject to a certain amount of bashing as it is just part of the game, sad to say. It may be testament to Governor Sarah Palin’s immense popularity that she received what many conclude was the lion’s share of media abuse and if not certainly a tremendous amount of it.

The idea of her possibly running in 2012 for President may find some of you puzzled. For those of you who are the following observation is presented. Barack Obama rose to the national spotlight for the first time, based on media reports, at the 2004 Democratic party convention for a speech he gave. In four short years he became President-elect. It is noted by many if not all that this was a tremendous accomplishment and of historic significance. Sarah Palin burst onto the national scene in 2008. She has accomplished at least the following…..

Ninety-one percent (91%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, including 65% who say their view is Very Favorable. Only eight percent (8%) have an unfavorable view of her, including three percent (3%) Very Unfavorable.

When asked to choose among some of the GOP’s top names for their choice for the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, 64% say Palin.

One related note and one aside about the report above. It was presented by Rasmussen Reports. The related note is below indicating an after the election report about the accuracy of Rasmussen’s polls. The aside is that this blog has often presented Rasmussen data or referred to their polling as it had been believed here they are quite spot on. This information was presented to support the notion that one historic event could be followed by another in a surprisingly similar fashion. Perhaps after the election of the first black President the election of the first woman President will follow in much the same way as Barack Obama’s achievement.

The final Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Election 2008 showed Barack Obama leading John McCain 52% to 46%. We are pleased to report that those figures precisely matched the actual election returns.

A Fordham University analysis put Rasmussen Reports on top of the list for accuracy among 23 national pollsters.

Sorry Hillary, at least from the view at this blog we still hope the first woman President is not you.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Rosemary’s News and Ideas, The Pink Flamingo, Rosemary’s Thoughts, A Newt One- Hysterians masquerading as historians, Faultline USA, A Newt One, and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe