Grrrr….  BTW, this is the view I would like to see from my oceanside condo in Napili, Maui.

If you have one you want to can let me borrow for next to nothing, please let me know in the comments.

The New York Times reports that banks don’t really want to service delinquent loans and work out a new payment schedule because they are doing quite well collecting revenues associated with delinquency, thank you very much.  As the ecoomists tell us, it’s all about the rents:

Even when borrowers stop paying, mortgage companies that service the loans collect fees out of the proceeds when homes are ultimately sold in foreclosure. So the longer borrowers remain delinquent, the greater the opportunities for these mortgage companies to extract revenue — fees for insurance, appraisals, title searches and legal services.

“It frustrates me when I see the government looking to the servicer for the solution, because it will never ever happen,” said Margery Golant, a Florida lawyer who defends homeowners against foreclosure and who worked in the law department of a major mortgage company, Ocwen Financial. “I don’t think they’re motivated to do modifications at all. They keep hitting the loan all the way through for junk fees. It’s a license to do whatever they want.”

Quelle Surprise!

The media has been very effective as spinning the health care reform bill as a “government takeover” even though it’s anything but.  Ok, so as long as that’s the way the public sees it, why not actually make it a government takeover? What do you have to lose at this point?  Let this be a lesson to Democrats: next time you’re in the majority, the first thing you need to do is get control of the airwaves.  Work on breaking up the media conglomerates.  THEN you can stomp all over the right wing noise machine. Control the message and you control the legislation.  Oh, and it might help if you didn’t go out of your way to piss off your base during the primaries.

I don’t read much Michael Barone and don’t know where he falls on the political spectrum but he’s absolutely right about Obama’s inability to legislate.  Obama never had much practice.  He started running for president almost as soon as he entered the Senate.  He doesn’t have his own constituencies there.  One thing Obama is good at is comandeering the airwaves during lunch.  It seems like he’s on TV in the cafeteria every single day.  It reminds me of those banana republics where the dictator’s face is plastered on every billboard and street corner.  Very, VERY creepy.  BTW, from what I can see, no one is paying attention anymore.  Familiarity breeds contempt.

Marie Cocco asks why we can’t have Medicare for All?  You have to ask yourself why so few voices advocating for single payer or medicare for all were invited to discussions on health care.  The approach to health care reform was skewed very heavily to the right.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The power to create citizen based political bodies with direct oversight of all our elected officials, and their appointees, is not granted by word in the Constitution.  But Amendment 9 makes it clear that the right to do so cannot be denied as it is a right “retained by the people.”  The power to create such bodies has not been delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor is it prohibited by it to the states.  Therefore, according to Amendment 10 the states, or the people, have the right to do so.  States also have the right to amend the Constitution.

That is hope, that is change.  Change is not electing some demagogue or corrupt politician who thinks that what’s best for him is automatically what’s best.  You know what is best for you.  I know what is best for me.  Politicians in Washington know what is best for them.  How often do those propositions coincide?  Take a look at the state of our economy for the answer to that question.  

We already have a 500 year old working model for a participatory democracy in America: the Haudenesaunee Confederacy.  I will be looking at their system in depth as I believe it may make for an excellent guide for us as we begin to plan the shift to participatory democracy, so that our republic can continue to fulfill its mission; to be a place where the indefeasible, unalienable rights of human beings are steadfastly protected against anyone who would attempt to take them away.

It is high time that we stopped thinking politically as Republicans and Democrats about elections and started thinking patriotically as Americans about national security based on individual freedom. It is high time that we all stopped being tools and victims of totalitarian techniques—techniques that, if continued here unchecked, will surely end what we have come to cherish as the American way of life.

–Senator Margaret Chase Smith

At the present moment I am among those who are resisting powerful voices from the Democratic Party and pressure and intimidation from fellow Democrats, who say I MUST vote for Senator Obama or else…or else somehow I am a lesser Democrat. Balderdash.

Not much more than half a century ago, another political party was dominated by a figure who used fear, ignorance, bigotry, and smear to advance his personal power and supposedly the power of his Party. That figure was Joseph McCarthy and he was a Republican. Many Democrats today know about Joe McCarthy and his witch hunts. But fewer, I think, know of Senator Margaret Chase Smith – possibly the most successful woman politician in twentieth century American federal politics – who not only took on Joe McCarthy, but also Barry Goldwater when she refused to take her name off the ballot for the Republican nomination for Presidency at the 1964 Republican National Convention, thereby denying Barry Goldwater unanimous consent to his nomination.

Among Senator Chase Smith’s many accomplishments:

• After four terms in the House, she won election to the United States Senate in 1948. In so doing, she became the first woman elected to both houses of Congress.
• She introduced legislation granting permanent status for women in the armed forces.
• She cosponsored the Equal Rights Amendment.
• She was the first woman to have her name placed in nomination for the presidency by either of the two major parties.

Read more about Senator Chase Smith at the website of the Margaret Chase Smith Library

For now, read the speech delivered in her first term as a U.S. Senator, standing up to a far more powerful Republican than she was. Margaret Chase Smith may have been less power powerful than Joe McCarthy. But her defiance of his tactics and methods certainly made her no lesser a Republican.

Declaration of Conscience, June 1, 1950 – delivered by Senator Margaret Chase Smith on the United States Senate Floor
(emphases added)
Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly and simply about a serious national condition. It is a national feeling of fear and frustration that could result in national suicide and the end of everything that we Americans hold dear. It is a condition that comes from the lack of effective leadership in either the legislative branch or the executive branch of our Government.

That leadership is so lacking that serious and responsible proposals are being made that national advisory commissions be appointed to provide such critically needed leadership.

I speak as briefly as possible because too much harm has already been done with irresponsible words of bitterness and selfish political opportunism. I speak as simply as possible because the issue is too great to be obscured by eloquence. I speak simply and briefly in the hope that my words will be taken to heart.

I speak as a Republican. I speak as a woman. I speak as a United States Senator. I speak as an American.

The United States Senate has long enjoyed worldwide respect as the greatest deliberative body in the world. But recently that deliberative character has too often been debased to the level of a forum of hate and character assassination sheltered by the shield of congressional immunity.

It is ironical that we Senators can debate in the Senate directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to any American, who is not a Senator, any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming an American—and without that non-Senator American having any legal redress against it—yet if we say the same thing in the Senate about our colleagues we can be stopped on the grounds of being out of order.

It is strange that we can verbally attack anyone else without restraint and with full protection and yet we hold ourselves above the same type of criticism here on the Senate floor. Surely the United States Senate is big enough to take self-criticism and self-appraisal. Surely we should be able to take the same kind of character attacks that we “dish out” to outsiders.

I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its Members to do some soul searching—for us to weigh our consciences—on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America; on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.

I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech, but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.

Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.

Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism—

The right to criticize;

The right to hold unpopular beliefs;

The right to protest;

The right of independent thought.

The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs. Who of us doesn’t? Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own. Otherwise thought control would have set in.

The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as “Communists” or “Fascists” by their opponents. Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America. It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others.

The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed. But there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause Nation-wide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations.

As a Republican, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the Republican Party faces a challenge today that is not unlike the challenge that it faced back in Lincoln’s day. The Republican Party so successfully met that challenge that it emerged from the Civil War as the champion of a united nation—in addition to being a party that unrelentingly fought loose spending and loose programs.

Today our country is being psychologically divided by the confusion and the suspicions that are bred in the United States Senate to spread like cancerous tentacles of “know nothing, suspect everything” attitudes. Today we have a Democratic administration that has developed a mania for loose spending and loose programs. History is repeating itself—and the Republican Party again has the opportunity to emerge as the champion of unity and prudence.

The record of the present Democratic administration has provided us with sufficient campaign issues without the necessity of resorting to political smears. America is rapidly losing its position as leader of the world simply because the Democratic administration has pitifully failed to provide effective leadership.

The Democratic administration has completely confused the American people by its daily contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances—that show the people that our Democratic administration has no idea of where it is going.

The Democratic administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia through key officials of the Democratic administration. There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges.

Surely these are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country. Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic administration.

Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or intellectual honesty would prove equally disastrous to this Nation. The Nation sorely needs a Republican victory. But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the four horsemen of calumny—fear, ignorance, bigotry and smear.

I doubt if the Republican Party could—simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest. Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory.

I don’t want to see the Republican Party win that way. While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people. Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one-party system.

As members of the minority party, we do not have the primary authority to formulate the policy of our Government. But we do have the responsibility of rendering constructive criticism, of clarifying issues, of allaying fears by acting as responsible citizens.

As a woman, I wonder how the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters feel about the way in which members of their families have been politically mangled in Senate debate—and I use the word “debate” advisedly.

As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for irresponsible sensationalism. I am not proud of the reckless abandon in which unproved charges have been hurled from this side of the aisle. I am not proud of the obviously staged, undignified countercharges that have been attempted in retaliation from the other side of the aisle.

I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity. I am not proud of the way we smear outsiders from the floor of the Senate and hide behind the cloak of congressional immunity and still place ourselves beyond criticism on the floor of the Senate.

As an American, I am shocked at the way Republicans and Democrats alike are playing directly into the Communist design of “confuse, divide and conquer.” As an American, I don’t want a Democratic administration “whitewash” or “cover-up” any more than I want a Republican smear or witch hunt.

As an American, I condemn a Republican “Fascist” just as much as I condemn a Democrat “Communist.” I condemn a Democrat “Fascist” just as much as I condemn a Republican “Communist.” They are equally dangerous to you and me and to our country. As an American, I want to see our Nation recapture the strength and unity it once had when we fought the enemy instead of ourselves.

It is with these thoughts I have drafted what I call a Declaration of Conscience. I am gratified that Senator Tobey, Senator Aiken, Senator Morse, Senator Ives, Senator Thye and Senator Hendrickson, have concurred in that declaration and have authorized me to announce their concurrence.

Statement of Seven Republican Senators

1. We are Republicans. But we are Americans first. It is as Americans that we express our concern with the growing confusion that threatens the security and stability of our country. Democrats and Republicans alike have contributed to that confusion.

2. The Democratic administration has initially created the confusion by its lack of effective leadership, by its contradictory grave warnings and optimistic assurances, by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home, by its oversensitiveness to rightful criticism, by its petty bitterness against its critics.

3. Certain elements of the Republican Party have materially added to this confusion in the hopes of riding the Republican party to victory through the selfish political exploitation of fear, bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance. There are enough mistakes of the Democrats for Republicans to criticize constructively without resorting to political smears.

4. To this extent, Democrats and Republicans alike have unwittingly, but undeniably, played directly into the Communist design of “confuse, divide and conquer.”

5. It is high time that we stopped thinking politically as Republicans and Democrats about elections and started thinking patriotically as Americans about national security based on individual freedom. It is high time that we all stopped being tools and victims of totalitarian techniques—techniques that, if continued here unchecked, will surely end what we have come to cherish as the American way of life.

Source: “Declaration of Conscience” by Senator Margaret Chase Smith and Statement of Seven Senators, June 1, 1950, Congressional Record, 82nd Congress. 1st Session, in Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. and Roger Burns, Congress Investigates: A Documented History, 1792–1974 (New York: Chelsea House, 1963), 84–88.

Society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.

The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.

 

If you are a Democrat, or Democrat leaning independent who desires to stand against Senator Obama you are not alone. Go to the blog roll here and you will find pathways to millions of people who are refusing to vote for Senator Obama. Whether it is for his and the DNC’s destruction of democratic process, the quelling of dissent, the suppression of our constitutional rights, or his lying about his associations, you do not owe him any allegiance in thought, word, or deed. Your vote is your own. Use it as you will. And remember the words of President Adams. This is your country. These are your freedoms. Your vote is your own and no one else’s. Most importantly, you are not alone. It is your God given human right to stand with us and say NO!

posted from Oh…my valve!

For a variation on the theme please read my dear friend Dakinikat’s view at Sky Dancing in a Man’s World

For over two centuries Americans have prided themselves over the document that serves as the basis of our nation’s republic; the Constitution of the United States of America.  Conceived in wake of the initiation of the greatest social contract in the history of Western society, America’s founding principle is that each of us (certainly it has taken a while to fully define the “us,” but that’s another post) possesses the unalienable human right to liberty; the freedom to live one’s life as they see fit, provided that the individual does not tread upon the liberty and rights of another individual.  It was, and is like nothing ever conceived…by Western society.  Here in North America there exists the longest standing participatory democracy on earth, but it is not the United States.  It is the Six Nation Confederacy of the Haudenesaunee (you know it as the Iroquois Confederacy).

At least 200 years before the Declaration of Independence was written and signed, this confederacy was created for the mutual defense and peace of its members.  The Seneca, Oneida, Onondaga, Mohawk, and Cayuga comprised the original confederacy founded sometime in the 1570′s (by the estimates of European calendars), with the Tuscarora migrating to what is now New York State in the 1700′s.  The final Tuscarora migration ended in 1803.

 It was the Great Peacemaker, Deganawida, who brought the nations together under the Gayanashagowa, the Great Law of Peace, the Haudenesaunee constitution symbolized by the White Tree of Peace.  Many legends are told, but it is commonly held that his first disciple was Hiawatha.  His vision that peace would come through a uniting of the nations drove him to bring the confederacy together.  Essentially the premise of the Confederacy’s structure is that each nation remained autonomous in its own local affairs, with a great council holding sway over the affairs pertaining to the Confederacy as a whole; to put it in familiar terms to, “…establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare…”  I would argue that in many ways the Haudenesaunee Confederacy is more closely related to the Articles of Confederation in that the Articles clearly held up the states as totally autonomous entities.  Whatever the case, there is no doubt that the Six Nation Confederacy structure played a part not only in the creation of the Articles, but the Constitution as well.  It also seems that they have formed a more perfect union.  I believe there are two central reasons for this.  Firstly, it is a participatory democracy, whereas ours is a representative democracy.  Secondly, from the outset the governing structure of the Confederacy was egalitarian.

 There is no Chief Executive, but a Great Council of Sachems.  There are 50 Sachems, each equal in power.  The Sachems and the Chiefs of their respective tribes comprise the tribal councils. Unlike our Congress,  the Great Council cannot even convene itself.  It is convened by the Councils of individual tribes, and unanimity holds sway over all decisions.  Each tribe has the ability to veto the others.  A General Council is open to all to address, with the final decisions being made by the Great Council.

 From the outset, women of the Confederacy held real power.  It is the women who hold the power to approve or reject a declaration of war.  Clans are matrilineal.  It is also the clan mothers who choose the members of the Great Council of Sachems.  Any leader who does not abide by the wishes of the women, and the Great Law of Peace, can be removed by the clan mothers.  In other words, LISTEN TO THE WOMEN!

 Their democracy hears the voice of all the people.  Their democracy endures.

 Here in the United States the Supreme Court has struck down the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals decision compelling the Ohio Secretary of State to identify 200,000 voter registrations that might not be in compliance, or completely fraudulent to the state’s 88 counties.  Protecting the voter registration/voter fraud scheme of the Democratic Party’s nominee for President through its grassroots surrogates at ACORN, the Supreme Court, one of the three branches of our government as created by our nation’s constitution, has failed to protect and defend that constitution.  The Constitution protects the rights of legal citizens to vote, not Mickey Mouse.      

 Federal Justices swear two oaths when they assume office:

 I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ^^^  under the Constitution and laws of the United States.  So help me God.

 I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

 When the Supreme Court of the United States allows a state official to conceal possible voter registration/voter fraud I say that it is acting in violation of that oath.

 To whom now do we turn to protect our rights?  The Executive Branch that is currently overseeing a regime of warrantless wire tapping?  The Congress that voted to sanction said regime while simultaneously granting retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that allowed the government to execute the scheme, or the Supreme Court that is going to allow the Democrat Party in Ohio to violate the sanctity of the franchise of the citizens of Ohio?

 My friends, at this moment we are without a legitimate constitutional body of governance.  In Lockian terms, the government of the United States has violated the social contract between itself and the citizens of the United States.  It is not operating to ensure our Safety and Happiness.

 I love this country.  It took in my family in the early half of the 20th century, sheltering us from the persecution of government sanctioned anti-semitism, allowing us to stake our claim to the American dream.  We are doctors, lawyers, teachers, entrepreneurs, and caring citizens.  We have served in the military at home and abroad, as well as the Civilian Defense Corps during World War II.  We have been active participants in this democracy.  We cherish it, and the freedom it represents.

 Is America perfect?  Far from it.  But having a major political party deconstruct democratic process to enforce its own political morality on its rank and file membership, as well as the American people, is not a legitimate way to move our society to achieving a more perfect union, and it certainly is not the way to ensure domestic tranquility. 

 My friends we are facing a constitutional crisis as we do not have a government that operates in accordance with the social contract laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.  I do not doubt that the Haudenesaunee Confederacy and Constitution will continue to endure as it has for more than four centuries. I wish I could say the same for ours. 

posted from Oh…my valve!

Got economic woes? Think you need to elect Barack Obama president to cure them? Better think about this.

Barack Obama  wants to buy the presidency. If you think this means he’s a good money manager, think again. The first president in modern politics to forego public financing in order to put himself “awash in money” was George W. Bush, whose eight year administration has played a major hand in creating those economic woes you’ve got.

In the 2004 primary season, George W. Bush was the first to forego public financing for the primary season. Right on his heels: John Kerry and Howard Dean. But both Bush and Kerry relied on public financing for the general election. Because accepting public financing caps both the total amount a candidate can spend and limits where he or she may spend it, when candidates accept public financing they agree de facto to a more level playing field. (There are still ways candidates can work around the limits placed upon them when they accept public funding (campaigns can encourage 527s, although they may not contribute to them, and campaigns can also et up “joint fundraising” committees -  details, more information, and useful links here.)

However, before he was even his Party’s nominee, Senator Obama became the first modern U.S.Presidential candidate to definitively reject public financing, and the constraints that come with it. (See “Obama, in Shift, Says He’ll Reject Public Financing”,The New York Times, June 20, 2008.) Prior to this flip, the three leading presidential contenders – Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton – had agreed to opt in to public financing for the general election. In keeping with his general style of changing positions and tactics whenever it suits him, guess who reneged on that agreement?  Barack Obama. John McCain chose not too. More information here.

Senator Obama claimed that he simply HAD to opt out of public financing because of the formidable might of Senator McCain’s campaign and PACs that would support him. Except that John McCain’s campaign does not have fiscal might, and nobody credible thought it would back when Senator Obama played victim to justify his decision. (See “Obama’s Lame Claim About McCain’s Money,” from the University of Pennsylvania’s Public Policy Annenberg Center.)

Meanwhile, John McCain, whatever else you can say against him, has kept his word and chose to stick with public financing for the general election, knowing that it could easily put him at a fiscal disadvantage in relation to the Dean/Obama created Obama money-reaping machine. (See the discussion here about how Senator McCain’s decision affected his ability to continue to advertise in Michigan.)

Perhaps you are thinking to yourself: well, that Senator Obama is just proving he is one smart money guy. If he can enrich his campaign coffers so well then he’ll enrich my bank account too. Now, all you have to do to is reread that that sentence to see the error. A person who is interested in funding his own will to power has no reason to be interested in protecting the economic interests of anybody else, particularly once he attains his goal. After all, if such a person succeeds in buying himself into office, why bother with worries about the needs of others? Personal greed is not only not good, it simply does not translate into care for the general welfare.

Greed and ambition do not make for good fiscal leadership. Putting yourself on budget even when the other guy won’t does show a certain integrity, particularly if you also co-sponsored the leading campaign finance reform bill of our time:  the McCain-Feingold Act, formally known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. (By the way, Senator Clinton voted in favor of that bill; Senator Obama was not a member of the Senate at that time.)

John McCain took a lot of heat from his fellow Republicans for not only speaking up about campaign finance reform but actually DOING something about it.

Time for we Democrats to put the heat on Barack Obama for what he has and has not done, with regard to fundraising, campaign spending, and a long list of other matters where he his conduct does not comport with the standards we as Democrats expect from a nominee running under our name. Senator Obama’s lack of integrity does not have to be ours.

He set up positions at Pyle’s ford to the south and Wistar’s ford to the north of his main position in the hopes of engaging Howe’s forces along the road from Baltimore to Philadelphia (now commonly known as Route 1).  Howe sent a force to march the route Washington predicted Howe would take, but sent the bulk of his force to cross the Brandywine north of Wistar’s ford and marched them south, outflanking Washington’s forces on September 11th.  After a hard fought battle Washington’s army retreated and regrouped in Chester.  Though there were minor skirmishes in the weeks that followed, Howe’s forces marched unopposed into Philadelphia.  Howe assumed the war was over.  Washington and Congress had other ideas.

The Congress relocated to York.  Washington relocated the army to Whitemarsh, and then Valley Forge where armaments and supplies had been hidden in the small town.  He found the community burned to the ground by the British.  Howe and his men spent the winter partying and getting drunk in Philly.  

The stories of privation at Valley Forge are legendary: the bootless men leaving bloody footprints in the snow; maggot infested hardtack, and fire cakes were the choice meals when there was any supply of food. Desertions were frequent.  Death and disease dwindled the numbers further.  Washington positioned 11,000 men at the Brandywine.  In the opening months of 1778, 1000 men were reported unfit due to illness, as many as 3000 were reported dead.  Morale could not have possibly been lower.  But Spring brought new life and new spirit to Washington’s army.

General Nathanael Greene replaced the unmotivated General Mifflin as quartermaster general.  Roads to Lancaster were improved, and supply wagons began to arrive.  Under the direction of Baron von Steuben, the undisciplined army was forged into a legitimate force.  The new alliance with France brought seasoned, and well supplied soldiers to reinforce the army, and their naval power drew out the British from Philadelphia who moved to defend New York from French assault.  Washington’s army followed them.  At the battle of Monmouth, Washington took to the field to personally reverse his men, who had been ordered to retreat by their incompetent field commander.  In the end it was the British who retreated.  Washington’s army was now a force to be reckoned with.

This November we walk toward our long winter.  Regardless of who wins we are out in the cold.  One result makes our work infinitely easier.  The other will make things daunting at best.  What is Guy Fawkes Day going to feel like?  Pretty bad.  What is January 20th going to feel like?  Worse, I suspect.

We must cultivate new alliances.  We must put agendas and egos aside.  We must stop seeing our little patches of turf in the coalition as our own and make them part of a larger machination.  We must reach out beyond our coaltion for the kind of practical political support that we are going to need to achieve the goals we have set for ourselves.  Our ability to do so will be a major determinant of our success or failure.

In the meantime I would suggest getting your hands in the earth.  Do some weeding, plant and prune for winter, gather your firewood.  Benjamin Franklin said, “Failure to prepare is preparing to fail,” and, “Diligence is the mother of good luck.”

He also said, “Don’t plan to hunt two hares with one dog.”

cross-posted at Oh…my valve!

Cross posted from Tom in Paine

HOW DEMOCRATS CAN DEFEAT OBAMA, SEE McCAIN WIN, STILL GET EVERYTHING THEY WANT AND RESPECT THEMSELVES IN THE MORNING.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. But one fellow most Democrats know they don’t want to be in bed with is Barack Obama. The other choice, John McCain, doesn’t sound too appealing to many Democrats either. The third choice is, as Sarah Palin
would no doubt support, is abstinence. But the argument some make is
that abstinence is the same as voting for John McCain. And it is.

Many Democrats seem to be going through a period of conflict over this election. They see Obama
for what he is, a dishonest, snake oil salesman, unfit and unqualified
to be President, throwing out one sweet talking lie after another at
the political Mr. Goodbar,
trying to pick up as many votes as he can get. And while most reject
him, they also are recoiling over the idea of having a one night stand
with a Republican, any Republican, though the guilty pleasure of having
Obama
lose and cheating on the cheater is too good to resist.But what they
worry about the most is , how will they feel in the morning?

Many of these are Clinton supporters who very much wanted to see Hillary
Clinton get the nomination for a variety of reasons, including the
historic ones. And while many supported Clinton for the breakthroughs
she represented to women, the real reason Clinton was the superior
candidate had nothing to do with gender. She was simply the superior
and more qualified candidate. And Obama clearly unqualified and from a character point of view, unfit.

And so what would make a Clinton supporter who viewed Obama as the clearly inferior candidate
even consider voting for him now for President? the only reason seems
to be either guilt over voting for a Republican, or a sense of not
cheating on the Democratic Party, a party that this year cheated on
them and violated every rule, procedure and principle of democracy in
order to have to a nominee that the majority of the party voted against.

There
is also the ongoing belief that a Democrat, any Democrat, would be
better than a Republican in the White House. And in most cases that
would be true. But not this year.

The truth is, there are more good reasons to defeat Obama and the Obamacrats than to elect him, even for the staunchest of Democrats.

For those who actually think Barack Obama
is qualified to be President,no amount of truth, logic or reason is
going to change their minds. To do so means having to admit they were
taken in and made fools of, and as any cop will tell you, most con men
get away with their con because their marks are so embarrassed to admit
they were taken they just keep quiet.

Obama
is simply unfit to be President in any way. Whether it was his serial
lying about his relationship with Jeremiah Wright and what he knew and
when he knew it, and the fact that he was more than willing to tolerate
Wright’s views of 911, and his views on race and never felt offended
enough to walk out, to his lying to the people of Ohio about NAFTA and
his other reversals and broken pledges on everything from public
financing of campaigns to FISA, he is simply not someone you want to take home to the White House.

Aside from his dishonesty, clinical narcissism
and almost pathological lack of conscience, he has no ability to do the
job he is seeking and has never in his life ever exhibited even the
smallest evidence that he could do it. On the basis of integrity, there
is nothing to consider. Obama has no integrity and as far as we can see from his past, never did.

McCain
on the other hand, though one can disagree with some of his policies,
has in fact demonstrated that he is willing to stand up for what he
believes, and more importantly, stand up to Republicans which, based on
some of Obama’s policy statements makes Obama sound more Republican than McCain.

Yes McCain has agreed with Bush on a lot of things but Obama has actually agreed with Bush on more and based on his public pronouncements, it ia Obama that sounds more like a Bush 3rd term than McCain. Obama
has endorsed Bush’s faith based initiatives which are clearly
unconstitutional, endorsed Bush’s position on Iraq (let the commanders
on the ground decide), now says he supported the surge, reversed
himself on off shore drilling so his position is now more Republican, reversed himself on the DC gun ban, and has said that the Republican Party is the party of ideas.

So
for those Democrats are have been reluctant to vote for a Republican or
see a Republican win on ideological grounds, what is it that they think
they are getting with Obama?

McCain
on the other hand has broken with Republicans when his conscience told
him too, incurred the wrath of Rush Limbaugh and conservatives over his
position on illegal immigration, daring to take a more humane approach,
and before that, incurred the wrath of many in his party with the
McCain-Feingold
bill in which McCain joined forces with one of the Senate’s most liberal
Democrats to pass campaign finance reform. And sticking to that philosophy is campaigning using public financing, while Obama who pledged to use public financing reneged on it as soon as he became the nominee leaving MoveOn, Maureen Dowd, and editors across the country feeling used and with tears on their pillows.

Like it or not, the record shows McCain is the real reformer and the real deal, while Obama
is what most of the 18 million Democrats who voted against him know him
to be — a snake oil salesman who has managed to bamboozle a lot of
dumb and impressionable people hanging out – the Democratic Mr. Goodbar, who has hoodwinked  the dumb media blonds like Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and almost everyone at Newsweek, the NY Times and CNN who he has eating out of hand.

The
other thing to keep in mind about McCain is that he is rated last by
conservative groups in supporting conservative legislation. His voting
record is ranked 49th
among Republican Senators by conservative watch dog groups which is why
a lot of conservatives cant stand him. In other words, disaffected
liberal Democrats who cant possibly in good conscience vote for Obama could do a lot worse than bringing McCain home to mother.

How absurd is the idea of Obama as President? Think about Obama being put in charge of the country’s nuclear codes. I know. It almost makes you laugh out loud. Do I think that Obama would actually do something stupid with those codes? No. I bring it up to point out the true absurdity of Obama
being elected President, and to put a fine point on the realities of
and the enormity of the job and its responsibilities and how woefully
and laughably inadequate Barack Obama is to those responsibilities.

The final argument people try to use on Democrats who don’t support Obama
is Roe v.Wade and that a McCain presidency would put that in danger.
That is utter nonsense and fear mongering and the people trying to use
it to scare people know it.

First, regardless of McCain’s
personal opinions there is no indication that overturning Roe is in any
way a priority or even a desire for him. Secondly, no President has
been more outspoken against Roe and has made his preferences more
clearly known than Bush and even with two conservative Supreme Court
appointees it didn’t happen, has never come close to happening, and
wouldn’t happen under McCain. And for a variety of reasons, not the
least of which is that even Scalia
has expressed a great reluctance to overturn long standing
precedent,especially that which would cause great social upheaval
unless there were great, immediate and pressing concerns.And then there
is always the issue of who would have standing to bring a direct
challenge to Roe and the answer is practically no one or it would have
happened already.

Roe is no concern in a McCain presidency.

Aside from Obama’s unfitness for the job (which is reason enough) the other compelling reason for an Obama defeat is to reform and fumigate the Democratic Party which Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, Chuck Schumer and others has turned into the Obamacratic Party which becomes more and more of an embarrassment every day as Pelosi’s disastrous performance with the bailout bill proved.

Obama is the nominee because of a dishonest primary in which these same people, along with the press, did everything possible to sell Obama
as the nominee and do it dishonestly as they knew how including rigging
the roll call vote violating every Democratic Party rule and procedure
in the process.

Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, Fowler and every member of the DNC who engineered and went along with fixing the process need to go. Those who won’t resign (though I think many will after an Obama
defeat) need to have their power and their base removed, so the that
the Democratic Party can air itself out. And the only way that can
happen is with an Obama loss. And the bigger the better.

And
with McCain promising that he will only serve one term, that becomes
even more attractive. In 2012 there will be two new candidates running
even if McCain wins

Twenty-five years ago the Republican Party
got through Watergate. This year the Democratic Party has to go through
Fumigate and it can start with a big Obama loss. And on the morning of November 5th,
with a McCain victory, the majority of Democrats can wake up, open the
windows and let in the fresh air. And they can feel good about the
night before and McCain winning. Even if its only a one night stand.

NOTE:
Democrats For Principle Before Party has one commercial finished and
two more in the works opposing Obama to be run in battleground states
like Pa, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. The first one can be seen directly
under this post. You can contribute to the airing of these commercials
by clicking on the “donate” button below.