30 Real Issues in 30 Days

Brian Lehrer's radio show is taking on actual issues of the campaign for the next 30 days (actually today is day 7).  I've listened through the first week of it and someone should give this guy a broadcast medal, he is covering issues that matter in a fact-based forum with experts, historians, policy wonks, and real callers.

To cut through the play-by-play campaign noise and focus on a long view perspective this is a must listen.

The full listing, with streaming, is available here.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Political Training Wheels

The McCain campaign has decided Sarah Palin is off limits for interviews at this time until she can be fully brought up to speed on the issues at hand. Of course the news media is up in arms over this decision but let's face it, it is McCain's campaign and it is fully within his right to run it this way.

My concern is over someone who is 57 days away from possibly assuming a vice-presidency needing secret meetings to make sure she can fully communicate her (supposed) own ideas concerning the platform.

For all I know about Sarah Palin she is a very well-spoken woman who has little experience outside of firing museum directors, librarians, teaching creationism, banning books, denying human caused global warming, and asking for $27M in federal earmarks for the "bridge to nowhere".

She also lives really close to Russia which the Republicans would like you to believe means she has great international relations experience even though she only recieved her passport in 2006 and has visited a total of 4 countries.

All of this makes me believe she doesn't know a whole lot about what she's talking about or what her job would be as vice-president, I think she says it best:




For me this all adds up to one thing, it was a highly political decision by John McCain, who has touted his campaign as getting away from the Washington influence and doing what is best for our nation.  It seems like this decision is better for him personally in his quest for the presidency, a stance that politicians in Washington have held forever.  The reformed maverick showing his true intentions again.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

And All The Pundits Say...

The love of truth lies at the root of much humor
-Robertson Davies

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

I Need A New Dictionary

reform - noun
   1.  the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc.  The Bush policies have shown a great need for reform.

Psst...voting with someone 90% of the time is not reforming their policies.  At least Sarah Palin only said it 9 times tonight in her acceptance speech.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Preparedness in the White House

 Great question Sarah, maybe you should take a look at the last 200 years of our republic and figure it out.  It looks like we have our first candidate for "Fucking Moron of the Week" incumbent.

I can't believe this lady will be 1 heartbeat away from being the most powerful person in the world if McCain is elected.  Judgement in politics has reached an all-time low.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

No Words Needed

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Birth Control Pills Soon to be Abortion

That's right folks, the Bush administration continues its war on science and its practitioners by redefining the term "abortion". This move attempts to try and cover more people under pre-existing laws concerning medical procedures and provider's abilities to refuse them.

Under the new definition of "assist in the performance" people such as the instrument sterilizers can now refuse to participate if they feel abortion or any other procedure goes against their personal beliefs. No word yet on whether the custodians who clean the operating floors will come under this protection (though I severely doubt it considering the intent of this move).

The definition of abortion though is the one that people should be scared of. Traditionally an abortion has involved terminating pregnancy after the embryo has successfully implanted in the uterus. The new definition, one which more closely resembles the religious beliefs of the administration at the expense of the science and medical tradition, is much, much, much broader:

Therefore, for the purpose of these proposed regulations, and implementing and enforcing the Church Amendment, Public Health Service Act AS245, and the Weldon Amendment, the Department proposes to define abortion as "any of the various procedures--including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action--that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."

This is a major, major change in the definition which brings every form of contraception under its umbrella. Birth control pills, plan B, even IUD's.

Women should be appalled at this, as well as the myriad reproductive rights and care the administration has taken away from them. Please contact your representatives and tell them where you stand on this. Things start off on a slow roll, such as allowing Viagra to be covered under insurance but not birth control, and eventually take a mind of their own (now we'll just adjust the definition of abortion to bring those techniques under scrutiny).

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Moratorium Placed on US Solar

What the fuck?!?!? Yes, that's right, the U.S., the country I live in and call home, land of the largest collective research and university system/intellectual property bank, the so called "richest" country in the world, the self-made policemen of the world, the home to more scientists and engineers than any other place on earth, has shut down all solar projects on public land.

Surely the reason behind this should be an earth shattering revelation to the rest of the world, who are currently pressuring the market for silicon in an attempt to build an energy infrastructure powered by an INFINITE AND FREE SOURCE. Wait, what?...we're shutting down solar projects because a two year study into their environmental impacts needs to be done? That's right, the same government who refused to open emails from the EPA concluding that greenhouse gases are pollutants and must be controlled, has decided that solar installations may be too harmful to the environment to begin construction on them. Yes, the same government that has decided that offshore drilling is the answer have had an epiphany of conscience.

If it has not been clear that the Bush administration is simply an arm of the oil/gas/coal industry before, then this should seal the deal. Detriment to the environment is something that we as a human society cannot escape, but it is feasible to minimize the negative impact we have. I'm unconvinced and will remain so that further oil/gas/coal dependency is safer for the environment than a push toward any renewable source.

And the problem could be magnified by the time we are ready to start building in the future. The New York Times reports:

The decision to freeze new solar proposals temporarily, reached late last month, has caused widespread concern in the alternative-energy industry, as fledgling solar companies must wait to see if they can realize their hopes of harnessing power from swaths of sun-baked public land, just as the demand for viable alternative energy is accelerating.

The unfortunate story of many of those start-up companies will end with failure, a fact no moratorium would have changed for many, but some would have survived. Those that did would have become the experienced companies, those looking to expand and rethink their first designs, one thing that can not be learned is experience. With this moratorium there will be none of those survivors, the few who go on to become second generation alternative-energy companies. The logic baffles me.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Texas GOP passes Theocratic Platform

The Texas Republican Party Convention has just ended and their platform has been set for this election cycle. The Texas Freedom Network has delved into the document and highlighted some key points, but really this is the same document the party has used for the last three election cycles. The platform calls for religious zealotry and the destruction of separation of church and state. The party's assault on religious freedom for all people, regardless of beliefs, has been renewed once more. The far-right extremists once again pushed a platform that calls on government to promote their own religious views above all others, here are some highlights.

• The Texas GOP declares that "America is a nation under God founded on Judeo-Christian principles" and that the party is pledged "toward dispelling the myth of separation of church and state." [pp 18]
• "We support school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded and which form the basis of America's legal, political and economic systems." [pp 17]
• "We oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) or other religious symbols." [pp 11]

The platform also reaffirmed support for policies that undermine public schools, sound science and medical research.

• The GOP would challenge the teaching of evolution in science classes by promoting "intelligent design"/creationism and the so-called "weaknesses" of theories such as evolution. [pp 17] The platform does not recognize that evolution is the foundation of all biological sciences.
• Texas Republicans "oppose any sex education other than abstinence until heterosexual marriage." This position prohibits teaching students age-appropriate, medically accurate information about birth control and the prevention of sexually transmitted infections. [pp 17]
• The party not only rejects medical research involving embryonic stem cells, it calls for imposing criminal penalties on medical professionals and scientists who engage in such research. [pp 14]
• The state GOP supports shuttling millions of dollars from public schools to pay for private and religious school tuition through tax-funded vouchers. It opposes requiring that private and religious schools, even those receiving tax-funded vouchers, meet any state standards and other regulations set for public schools. [pp 16] The platform also calls for the abolition of property taxes, which provide nearly all local funding for public schools in Texas. [pp 21]
• The party supports granting the heavily politicized State Board of Education sole authority over content in and the adoption of public school textbooks. [pp 16] In 1995, due to hundreds of changes in textbooks to meet personal, political and religious objections by the state board, the Legislature limited the state board's authority.
• Texas Republicans call for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education and government-sponsored programs that deal with early childhood development. [pp 16, 17]

Page 19 of the platform declares that Texas Republicans "deplore all discrimination." Yet the platform also calls for widespread and systematic discrimination against those who are not heterosexual.

• The platform calls to support "sodomy" laws in order to fine and/or imprison adults who engage in private, consensual sexual intimacy with someone of the same gender. [pp12]
  
• The party would push for a federal constitutional amendment banning any state from permitting same-sex marriages or any other legal recognition of or benefits for same-sex relationships. Issuing marriage licenses or performing civil ceremonies for same-sex couples would constitute a felony charge. [pp 12]
• The party supports the repeal of the state's hate crime statute. [pp 19]

And to top it all off we have the platform trying to trash what good the Texas government has done or is trying to do.

• The Texas GOP opposes any taxes or regulations designed to deal with the serious threat of climate change. [pp 21]
• The platform calls on the state Legislature to transfer the powers and funding needed to investigate and prosecute charges of government corruption (such as former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land) from the Travis County Public Integrity Unit to another body. [pp 11]
• The party opposes mandatory vaccination programs for infectious diseases that endanger children in public schools and the general public outside them. [pp 16]
• The state party reaffirmed its hostility toward the international community by calling for the U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations as well as the World Trade Organization. It also opposes measures, such as the Endangered Species Act, that protect the environment. [pp 9]
• The party supports the repeal of the minimum wage laws. [pp 22]

There are many more topics including opposing women's reproductive rights, threatening judicial independence, and weakening civil/equal rights that are included in the document and if you have a few hours and are ready to get your mind blown I suggest you try and read the full document. Then maybe you'll have a better understanding why the school system in Texas is about to get blown to shit, because it is run by neocons who are in bed with the religious right and the GOP to steer education toward their spiritual beliefs.

In all honesty this isn't a new document, but you would think that eventually the party would come to terms with the fallacy of Judeo-Christian superiority.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Why Offshore Drilling is a Pander

"The worst thing we can do as a nation is taking the easy way out. ...If you start opening up offshore drilling, then you are buying time and you are not addressing the fundamental problem with fossil fuels." -Lindsey Graham (one of McCain's top boosters)

Sounds like a pretty reasonable argument to me, but for some reason that argument has changed lately. Now Graham and McCain are supporters of legislation that would open a 27 year moratorium on offshore drilling. This is a political pander and nothing more. 8 years ago, while running for the Presidential nomination, John McCain espoused on the reasons offshore drilling would not help Americans in the long run, now the tune has been reversed and he is going public with his idea that offshore drilling will lower prices of oil and open up a new supply of domestic oil. The only problem with this is that it will not help. This is simply a political line that Republicans are using just like they used terrorism in 2004. People are scared of rising gas prices squeezing extra income from their households, scared that they will have to start sacrificing the needs of their family simply to commute to work or the grocery store. And these are real concerns unfortunately, but let's look at why an expanded offshore drilling program will not address the issue of price or supply.

First, in 2006 legislation was passed that opened up 8.3 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to oil exploration. From these 8.3 million acres there has been a 0% increase in US oil production, the returns have yet to be seen. The federal government also leased 91 million additional acres for domestic production, most of which is going unused. So we know that opening up offshore drilling will not produce benefits within 2 years. We also know that there is plenty of offshore drilling space that has been granted but is yet to be used, so why do we need more? We really don't until we have used what has been granted so far, but don't take it from this liberal Dem, here's Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, a Republican, calling out McCain:

"For anyone to represent that someone drilling off the coast in Florida is going to lower gas prices here or anywhere in this country is disingenuous and a flawed argument...Oil drilling could take 10 years before any oil is pulled out of the ground, and there are a large number of leases held by oil companies that are not being exploited right now. We can't say we need more until we've exploited these."

But wait Marco, John says "There are areas off our coasts that should be open to exploration and exploitation, and I hope we can take the first step by lifting the moratoria...[drilling] would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis."

Well let's ignore the fact that since 2006 (the short term) we haven't seen any help in resolving our energy crisis or help with gas prices since opening up about 100 million acres to drilling. What do you need to get to the oil at the bottom of the ocean? Ships.

Unfortunately for us there are no ships! This New York Times article says that the world's existing drill-ships are booked solid for the next five years. And shipyards have ramped up production on new ships, unfortunately they fall prey to the same workings of every market and with the increased demand, the price of the ships have increased. In fact, in Asia (where most shipbuilders are located) the prices of a drill-ship have increased over $100 million a vessel to about a half a billion dollars. All of this demand also raises the price of running the rigs as costs for the newer rigs have reached about $600,000 a day, compared to $150,000 a day in 2002. Even those in Big Oil, like the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry trade group, says drilling offshore is unlikely to provide Americans with more oil for at least 7 to 10 years.

So we've seen that what he have opened to offshore exploration has not yielded any results (we are talking about short term relief, right?) and that even if we allow drilling we don't have the capabilities to exploit it. The third problem facing John McCain's idea that offshore drilling will ease short term fears about oil is that there simply isn't that much oil down there. Let's hear what people from the Bush administration have to say about the supply of oil offshore (Remember that McCain is running on a platform of being less oil dependent as well as easier on the environment).

From the Energy Information Administration (Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government) we have a report that says reserves found on the outer continental shelf for the lower 48 states will yield enough oil to supply the U.S. for 2.5 years at our current consumption rate. 2.5 years is not enough to make a difference in our supply, and what happens after we've exhausted those 2.5 years worth of oil? Where do we go drilling next to lower the price of oil? Unfortunately the answer is probably the north pole (which is a whole other can o' worms) where technically nobody owns the land or rights to drill, can't wait for that war for resources.

So we have established three points against the ability to relieve our dependence on foreign oil and alleviate rising gas costs. 1) Past legislation opening up offshore drilling areas has yet to yield any rise in production and has done nothing to alleviate the price expansion over the last two years; 2) There is a shortage of infrastructure (ships) that is required to extract oil from deep sea floors; 3) The supply of oil in proposed drilling areas will provide at most 2.5 years of oil at our consumption rate.

It should be clearly established now that either the McCain campaign has done little research and doesn't understand the requirements to extract oil from deep sea floors or they are trying to give the voters a false sense of security in an election year. This is the definition of a pander, expressing views during an election cycle that will resonate with the fears of the voters in lieu of the fact that the policy will do little to change the situation. So next time you hear John McCain talk about how he is doing everything he can to help the public pay less for gas, or that his opponent doesn't care about the welfare of the people, make sure to do a little fact checking yourself to determine if there is value in what he is saying, or if he's just playing off of your fears of $5/gallon gas.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Stick a Pin In It

So as I suspected a few weeks ago here, the right has started the mudslinging. And like I predicted, the main theme in their attacks on Obama are that...wait, get ready for it...HE'S BLACK! OMFG!!! Run to the hills, apparently this Obama guy is black!! We're all doomed!!!

That pretty little button comes from my home state of Texas, where a vendor is selling them at the Republican convention. How can you call such blatant racists your constituents? Maybe these guys can team up with the Obama monkey guys and start their own biggoted, knuckle dragging party.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Sounds Like Hill's Out On Saturday...

Via Mother Jones Blog, Jonathon Stein says the Clinton campaign will hold an event in Washington DC to thank her supporters and throw some support Obama's way.

Finally an end to this madness, it is about time! Now let's get the general election excitement started! 5 months of exciting stuff to come.

I'm sure the Republicans will play up the Obama-Islam/Crazy Liberal/inexperienced/Hussein vein, as Barack himself has acknowledged, but I think they'll keep it rather tame otherwise.

But that doesn't mean this race will be friendly by any means. The 527's are going to turn this election into a culture war. The groups may mask the true message behind the curtain of the madrasa, Rev. Wright, quotes concerning islam, and quotes his wife has made; but the message will be clear, Barack Obama isn't white.

My only hope is that it isn't affective. I feel like it shouldn't matter, I know I'm going to support him no matter what his color. There have been appointees (which granted is a wholly different mechanism with lower standard of replacement) from different countries who serve this country to their best (I'm looking at you California), and there will be plenty more as the cultural makeup of the country shifts (I know, didn't all you conservatives just squirm a little). I hope the population will be able to see past the racial tensions and cultural divides the ads will try to conjure up (on both sides of the fence) and focus on today. Are you better today than eight years ago? Realize that one candidate offers connections to the same think tank and political stronghold that has brought us to the present, while the other offers a new perspective. Its your job to truly look into the facts and find out whether that alternative perspective offers better than the future our current policies hold. Maybe I'm just infected with the liberal spew but I'm pretty sure I don't want anymore of what the Republicans are selling.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

The Veeping Villow...Confronting the Democratic Conundrum

Welcome to our new Senior Junior political correspondent Aurash Kamkar

First off, I want to thank Tye and Deano for allowing me to join the team and throw out some great posts. Lets get to it!!

As the end of the primary season draws near, a huge question is on the horizon: Obama's VP selection. The importance of this selection cannot be understated. This decision as we all know needs to shore up Obama on several fronts. The selection has to make him more formidable on national security issues and curtail fears about his experience. By experience, I do not mean governance, I mean pulling the trigger on a daunting choice, where he truly does trail his competitors. The VP choice also needs to bridge the ever more apparent Obama/Clinton divide. I know that many are calling for an Obama/Clinton ticket. This is a very sharp double edged sword. It would unify the party behind both, in addition it would unify an ailing republican base. The strengths of a Obama/Clinton partnership are negligible while the weaknesses are apparent even to the blind. The dislike of the Clintons will overshadow the GOP's disdain of McCain.

I've looked over the literature about the different options. I firmly believe that former NATO commander Wes Clark is a perfect fit. He is experienced on the International scene along with many years of military service. He is a Clinton surrogate and more importantly he's not a career politician, he's a general, which should mitigate McCain's military virtues. A Obama/Clark ticket becomes very appealing to "upper crust" democrats as well as Midwest blue collar voters. Such a decision, should appease the Clinton wing of the party and diversify the pull of the overall ticket.

Any questions or comments are always welcome even stupid ones....
AK out

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Time to Call a Spade a Spade

Let's be honest people, unless Hillary rolls out another 40-60 superdelegates in the next week or two, her mathematical chances at taking the nomination are all but over. So what the hell is she still doing giving stump speeches and campaigning around the nation? Why can't she just give it up? Because she is too smart and keen on the political workings to be defused by one defeat. I'm sure she has studied the history books and you don't have to look very far (Reagan '76 and Hart '84) to find examples of those who were strong losers in an election and then became strong front-runners in future races.

She will be one of the strongest losing candidates that our political playing field has seen for a long while. And I fully believe she knows that this race is over, "I will work my heart out for the nominee of the Democratic Party to make sure we have a Democratic president" were the exact words out of her mouth last night after winning in a landslide victory in West Virginia. As a quick aside, the primary in WVa wasn't even a battleground until Hillary declared it so last week and the results of that election were known months in advance, so those results shouldn't scare anyone in the Obama camp.

What Hillary is doing is setting herself up nice for the 2012 or 2016 run to the White House. She is getting experience in organizing a nationwide campaign and setting the seeds in local communities, recruiting volunteers and organizers that will no doubt benefit her next run for the office. These are all lofty and altruistic goals but hopefully the tone of her current campaign will not divide the Democrats and Independents enough to see John McCain into the White House. That could be her biggest mistake in continuing this campaign. If the Democratic voters feel she betrayed the party to further her own goals (by dividing the vote and wasting precious general election campaign time) she may negate her chances for the future.

So while I won't say Hillary should step down, it is time to regear your statements and views towards the other candidate, it is time to uplift and fulfill the Democratic party. Divisiveness should not be tolerated, no matter how valuable the personal goal is, this election is too important for American's around the world to have mudslinging and stereotypes sway the voters minds.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

McCain's Policy to Double the Price of Electricity

The John McSame campaign continued its march of ignorance this week with a deeply insightful diatribe about climate and national policy. In an interview with E&E News (sub. req'd) the campaign tossed out some info that should really make you question whether the Senator from Arizona could successfully take on the threat of global warming and climate change.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a McCain campaign policy adviser, dropped a few incredibly stupid ideas on the American public, I don't know which one is worse.

1. "The basic idea is if you go with a cap and trade and do it right with appropriate implementation, you don't need technology-specific and sectoral policies that are on the books and that others are proposing
simultaneously."

Unfortunately Holtz-Eakin is wrong, and without an aggressive technology development/deployment effort (especially in the transportation sector), a cap & trade system will fail because of the economic strain it will place on America. And what about the explicit statement that McCain opposes "technology-specific and sectoral policies that are on the books" if we have a cap & trade?


How many people who truly care about climate change, other than Sen. McCain, think we are truly pushing clean technologies and transportation too hard? We already know that he doesn't support renewable technology tax credits that have been on the books for years, far before we had a cap & trade policy. This is an especially jaw-dropping statement given that even the delayers themselves have been saying we need a bigger clean tech push for years.

2. Holtz-Eakin called into question the Democratic candidates calls for a new federal low carbon fuel limit, stronger fuel economy standards and policies to reduce US oil consumption. Cap & trade was spouted as the ideal solution by itself and when asked whether McCain would block new corporate average fuel economy requirements that Bush signed into law last December, Holtz-Eakin said, "He's not proposing to eliminate those. He simply wants to check as time goes on if they become completely irrelevant. You might want to take them off the books [!!!], but we're not there yet." (emphasis mine)

In the Energy Information Administration's own analysis of using a cap & trade system to reduce emissions, a good economic model of McCain's strategy because it doesn't capture technology deployment strategies or fuel economy standards, the price of carbon hits a politically impossible level, $348 per metric ton, which, in the EIA analysis, doubles the price for electricity.

3. "You don't need redundant policies that interfere with the flexibility that is the key to meeting these desirable goals at low costs," Beyond a cap & trade "he wants to see the use of nukes. The ultimate policy proposal will be designed to make sure that's true."

The hypocrisy blows my mind. I'll keep it short but taking out "redundant policies" that push clean energy while ramming a very expensive nuclear technology down our throats? A nonpartisan Keystone report "Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding" (June 2007) found nuclear "power isn't cheap: 8.3 to 11.1 cents per kilo-watt hour." And as a study by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) found, nuclear power plant costs have soared in the last couple of years. And, of course, nuclear power has a major supply bottleneck, that will inevitably drive up costs for any country that wants to rapidly accelerate the construction of nuclear power plants.

Those are the facts, and unfortunately it has been proven time and again that the McCain campaign is unconcerned with the facts (sounds a little too much like Bush for my liking). From creationism, vaccination, economic policy, hell damn near everything, the guy refuses to sit down and look at the observed evidence and facts surrounding issues. This scares the shit out of me as I'll be paying for a mistake we made concerning facts in Iraq for the rest of my life. I don't want to go down that same road and I'm afraid that's all McCain offers.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

"Not This Time"

No matter who you support-wow

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Barack Obama: On My Faith and My Church

From Barack's personal blog at the Huffington post, his response to the controversy surrounding Anthony Wright.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Why the Contempt of Congress Issue Matters

House Democrats recently filed a civil lawsuit against White House Chief of Staff Bolton and former Whitehouse Counsel Miers for their refusal to comply with Congressional subpoenas relating to the Fired US Attorneys Scandal. The details are complex, and wading through the swamp of legislative and legal rules and precedents for such a move is a daunting task at best. Yet the importance of this issue cannot be overstated. It is looking more and more likely that this issue may go to court, and if that is the case, one side will lose. I know that sounds very simple and obvious, but there are important implications to any definitive court ruling on this matter. Either way, such a ruling would set a precedent for all future Congressional/Executive clashes. Either the court will rule that the President can essentially grant Executive Privilege protections to nearly anything and anyone he wishes, or it will rule that Congress does posses meaningful oversight powers granted by the Constitution, and not even the President is exempt from the compulsions of that power. Obviously, the latter is the outcome Progressives (and human beings) believe would be best for the country, but a situation could easily arise wherein a Republican Congress could abuse such powers against a Democrat President. Both cases threaten to upset the delicate and already teetering balance of power in our government by overpowering one branch against the other. This will be an important issue to follow as it unfolds.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Obama 2002: I'm Opposed to Dumb Wars

Clinton ridicules it and everyone talks about it, but have you read it? Here's Obama's speech about the Iraq War given in 2002. Highlights added by me.

"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

"The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

"My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

"I don't oppose all wars.

"After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

"I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

"What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

"That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

"Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

"He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

"I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

"So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

"You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

"You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

"You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

"Those are the battles that we need to fight.

"Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

"The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."

All I want to say about this speech is that there is a deep understanding of world affairs and military consequences of going to war, a cool ability to make the right commander in chief decision in times of great pressure and a flawless, item by item, forecast of what would go wrong if the war was initiated.

Lying underneath the speech sits a man who can cooly look through an issue and foresee outcomes and unintended consequences. One who can balance the needs of the nation versus the needs of the world, and a man who takes a vast quantity of information and parses important ideas and concepts from the different political agendas. This is what I'm looking for in a President. Not the smartest or most experienced, just someone who can look at a situation and say something needs to be done and here are the various outcomes, this one will suit us the best. Kinda eerie how correct the young Senator Obama was 6 years ago.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

God Retracts Endorsement of Huckabee.

Anyone remember Huckabee saying this after winning the Iowa caucus?

HUCKABEE: There’s only one explanation for it, and it’s not a human one. It’s the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of five thousand people. (Applause) That’s the only way that our campaign can be doing what it’s doing. And I’m not being facetious nor am I trying to be trite. There literally are thousands of people across this country who are praying that a little will become much, and it has. And it defies all explanation, it has confounded the pundits. And I’m enjoying every minute of them trying to figure it out, and until they look at it, from a, just experience beyond human, they’ll never figure it out. And it’s probably just as well. That’s honestly why it’s happening.

Well Huck, can you explain why the man upstairs would endorse a candidate to win a state but not the whole country? The bearded white man works in mysterious ways.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...