You make the call: Is Baucus being influence peddled by big health insurance PACs? Look at the link below from the Federal Elections Commission. He sure receives a lot money from people. Take a look:

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/2009_S8MT00010

Conservatives and fake Democrats complain about the public option because they fear it will harm the insurance industry. The essential problem that is not discussed explicity by most analysts is: whose interest should be served - whose should take priority?

Why should the insurance industry's interests take a front seat to the American public who desperately needs a public option? Part of the problem is the amount of money that conservatives and fake Democrats take from the healthcare and pharma industry: money creates a prioritzed system - the more you give, the more a member of Congress will care. But who is serving the interests of the American people? Not many. Those who are trying to speak for those who don't have the money to buy political access are shouted down as socialists or anti-capitalists trying to hinder economic growth. These arguments slyly move the argument away from why healthcare reform is necessary: the public needs it and wants it.

The interests of the American public should take priority over those of the healthcare industry, this is something we must all recognize. The health of this nation is at stake, and if we let these fat-cat lobbyists and CEOs write policy for those members of Congress willing to prostitute themselves for PAC money, then, democracy is in danger as is the health of this nation.

Check out the FEC contribution list below to see how much money Evan Bayh has taken from lobbyists. It is easy to see why he considers himself a bluedog Democrat: by accepting money from some of the richest PACs, he has taken the side of fat-cat healthcare companies and insurance providers. And we thought Indiana elected him to represent the people? Oh, he's representing the people - the people on H Street in D.C.

Clearly Bayh is less concerned with the moral issue of helping people who need better health care and more concerned about lining his pockets for the next election. But don't believe me. Look at how much money the PACs have given him. Money can buy you love if you give enough.

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/2009_S8IN00049

A really serious question:
if only one candidate shows up to the debate this Friday, is that masterdebating?

The problem is not that Palin's daughter is unmarried and pregnant. I think we are all sympathetic to her situation and the stress her family is going through.

What is significant in regard to Republicans, especially the evangelicals, is their supposed moral superiority over so-called liberals. They praise abstinence programs although they do not work; while at the same time denigrating sex education in the schools - especially the idea of condom use to help eliminate STDs and pregnancy.

As we see time and time again, conservatives have trouble keeping up with their moral convictions. And that's okay with me - but don't be hypocritical about it. Don't preach against homosexuality while your in a gay relationship. Don't try to pass legislation defining marriage as between a man and woman, while you're trying to pick up men in a bathroom stall. Don't praise absinence programs when your children are out having sex.

That's like a heroin user proclaiming to the world, "You know, we need to keep illegal drugs off the streets."

When it comes to morality, Dems and Conserv. are both about in the same boat for the most part. The difference is that conservatives, that is Republicans, pretend the higher moral ground as if they actually live it day by day.

It reminds me of the story of Jesus stating, "Let he who has not sinned throw the first stone." In the Bible, everyone drops their rocks and walks off. If the crowd had been Republicans, they'd all be winding up and throwing as hard as they could.   Read More »

Okay,
I know this is old news, but Bill and Hillary really went out of their way to play nice within the party. Really - top-notch and classy. You know it was really hard for them to do it, but they sucked up.

The pay-off? I don't know about Bill, but Hillary is going to get something out of this. Supreme Court justice? I hate guessing games, but sometimes they're fun. Some kind of deal was made. No one kisses up that much without getting something back - especially in politics.

But you know, their performance showed how disciplined the Democratic Party is. Who knows what's going on behind closed doors, but you know they're all working hard to make sure Obama wins in November.

And we're only just getting started!!

Great fun all around

It's been a while since I've been on. Perhaps someone has already addressed this, but Evan Bayh should not be Obama's vice presidential running mate. Many of us in Indiana view him as a political opportunist. Quite unlike his father, the great statesman, Birch Bayh, Evan, with his finely combed hair and well-tailored suits has done little to help Hoosiers except to express that he is for family values. But who isn't? I, too, support family values! So what?

We need a candidate with substance like Obama, someone who has gone out on a limb for particular issues that liberals support. Bayh's only goal as far as I can tell is that he wants to be vice-president: vp for Gore, vp for Kerry, vp for Clinton, and Obama. Please, if someone can explain this to me, I'm all ears.   Read More »

Just in from the Chicago Tribune: Hillary Clinton will concede tonight. Hopefully, we can all come together to win in November.

Fox news recently reported that a Chicago alderman subscribed to a "communist" magazine. The report wanted voters to know what their representatives were doing.

Get ready this coming election. It may only get worse with the conservative media. Who knows who it will out next. Can you believe Fox would stoop so low. Well - yes I can.

Of course, MSNBC tolerates red-baiting as well, such as when Pat Buchanan tried to stifle Rachel Maddow by stating, "Stop your Marxist dialectic." Merely humor? Probably. But it is an insertion point to fight left wing politics and stop it dead in its tracks.

I want to throw this issue out there...


First, I support Barack Obama for the the presidency. But let's assume that Hillary Clinton becomes the candidate.

I don't like Clinton - she has taken way too much money from lobbiests and special interests. She voted to authorize an attack on Iraq, she is firmly entrenched in the Democratic Power Brokers Club...

maybe you can think of more...

I just don't see how I could possibly vote for such a person. Am I supposed to give my vote to a Democratic candidate just because she is a Democrat? Even if I think she is the antithesis of what I think a Democrat should be? Christ...she even has the support of Evan Bayh...pretty boy from Indiana who is one of the biggest sell-outs in the Senate.

Is this what we do in party politics? - vote for that person even if we think she's not the right person for the job?

I'd like to know what some of you think about this issue.

Like the conservative southern churches, American Catholic bishops are telling the masses that they may burn in hell if they do not vote correctly.
We must not allow this kind of thinking to influence voters. It is an attempt to discourage independent thinking and honest questioning, and repudiates one's ability to choose freely.

Link

In these blogs, many of us have been arguing back and forth for one candidate or another. It has been interesting to read each blogger's opinions.

Recently, I have been reading Barack Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope. In general, I do not usually read books by presidential candidates because they are mostly superficial and pretentious.

Obama's book is most refreshing. It offers a sober analysis of politics and his honest views of politics in general. He doesn't sugar-coat his own stance, but really reinforces the difficulties involved in trying to please everyone, while at the same time acknowledging that some people will be alienated in the process.

Regardless of whether you like him or not, you will learn much from this book...and I do think it gives us hope for a better future.

Read the link. Obama has some interesting things to say about patriotism.

Link

Attached is a link that explains domestic violence and ways to confront it. I think one way to establish a peaceful society is through education; but also, for women, to empower them to understand the nature of a patriarchal society. I appreciate the earlier blog on tolerance and hope to add to that conversation.

Link

We are getting excited about the upcoming election. Many people are trying to learn all they can about the candidates so that they can pick one who best represents a winning Democratic candidate.

Yet, we need to consider who these candidates are and how much of our hopes and dreams we are placing into their laps. We sometimes look at them as if they are gods who have all of the answers. They are "saviors" who possess qualities we can only dream of; and we worship them as they become symbols of our aspirations.

The title of this post is "cult of the personality" because we should be wary of placing too much of our aspirations on these people. The more I learn about politics and politicians is that we need to hold them at arms length to the extent that we re-affirm their accountability to us as voters.

For instance, I am a strong supporter of Barack Obama. I think he is the one candidate talking about the kinds of values we long for in this country. On the other hand, I also see him as a man pursuing public office, which places him in another category for me: someone who courts voters to win elections.

There is nothing inherently wrong with any of this; but I am wary of anyone trying to sell me something, and unfortunatley politics is unable to extract itself from marketing and publicity.

I want Obama to win, but I do not want to view him as that one candidate who can make everything right without also taking a look at him with a critical eye. That "critical eye" part is an imporant part of being a citizen and a voter. I know this is sounding perhaps too philosophical. But the relationship between a candidate and the voters should remain tentative to the extent that we do not place too much efficacy into one person.

Again, we must hold these persons accountable to us in a way that they cannot forgo their responsiblity to the grassroot voters once they have won. Some of the commentary on these blogs sometimes reflects a lusty kind of love for some of the candidates, and this bothers me. I never liked cheerleaders: they cheer for the team regardless - because it's their school and their team. They won't say anything bad because it would be disloyal.

Republicans in general have fallen into the cult of the personality by viewing George Bush as that one person who can find the answers. Even Bush himself thinks he is beyond reproach. The party faithful do not question him because he is "the president." They would not question the president - that would be disloyal - just like the hapless cheerleaders.

We should support our candidates, but not worship them. They should appeal to us because their ideas and goals are our ideas and goals. In the long run, we also have to remember that they are accountable to the voters who put them in office and they have a responsibility to fulfill. Let us discuss politics and move away from hero worship.

At the U.N. President Bush again used his "skills" as an orator and "statesman" to create more disharmony.

Basically stating that he is waiting for Castro to die so that Cubans may become "free" Bush again antagonizies another nation, creating more tension and social disharmony in the world. Cuban ambassadors answered back sarcastically stating, "Look at the 600,000 Iraqi civilians killed as a result of American actions." A fitting come back.

Again, world peace will not be achieved by the sword. If this nation is going to be a world power, it will need to establish more diplomatic means to achieve it. We need to move past the realism of Kissinger in order to establish more positive bonds with nations.

Link

Indiana senator, Evan Bayh will endorse Hillary Clinton for president. Why? There is an expectation that he will be named as her vice-presidential running mate.

As a Hoosier, I can tell you that Bayh is about as ineffective as aspirin for cancer. His entire career has been to get into the White House or as close to it as he is allowed.

For many years, his prime policy stance has been "family values." That really puts him on the cutting edge of politics. The only time Bayh rises to the occasion to help the working class is when he is running for election. He develops a few key ideas to drive interest in his campaign, none of which come to fruition.

A Clinton-Bayh candidacy will mean politics as usual, and Democratic politics will merely continue to mesh with Republican politics until both are indistinguishable.

The Democratic party needs a candidacy that will move to the left to the extent that it reins in the unchecked capitalism of the Bush administration and establishes political values that facilitate the lives of all persons living in the United States, rather than the rich.

The story is linked below. I know it's Fox Noise, but there isn't much it could do to harm this story.

Link

I post a link to a Chicago Tribune story that describes Obama as not having the kind of charisma to attract the "beer drinking" voter.

I'm not sure how much I agree with this story. However, polls showed during the last election that voters liked Bush because he seemed like a guy they would like to have a beer with. There always seems to be a lack of respect for someone who has intellectual ability. We already know what happens when a moron is president - what would it be such a sin to elect a person who actually has a deep thought?

Link

I post a link to a Chicago Tribune story that describes Obama as not having the kind of charisma to attract the "beer drinking" voter.

I'm not sure how much I agree with this story. However, polls showed during the last election that voters liked Bush because he seemed like a guy they would like to have a beer with. There always seems to be a lack of respect for someone who has intellectual ability. We already know what happens when a moron is president - what would it be such a sin to elect a person who actually has a deep thought?

Link

Most of the time, I do not watch the talking heads on television; however yesterday, one of Chris Matthew's "heads" stated, (something like this) "Let's stop pretending we don't know who will get the nomination for the Democratic Party - can't we just admit openly that Hillary Clinton is going to get the nomination?"

Matthews did not respond to this charge or even show any kind of emotion. Why? This is how the media moguls attempt to steer elections for us: providing a show that ostensibly seems objective, with purported "authorities" and "experts." Yet, underneath, they try to lay the groundwork for candidates that appeal to their own sensibilities.

Nobody can predict at this point who will get the nomination. Remember the "comeback kid?" Everyone thought Bill Clinton was washed up until he came in second in the New Hampshire primary. And everyone said he didn't stand a chance in hell of getting the nomination.

I write this to warn those who watch these shows to have a critical eye - or perhaps do not watch them at all. You'll get better reporting reading a newspaper, or even watching or listening to foreign news reporting like the BBC. Guys like Matthews have a political and economic agenda: they want to give you excitement so you will watch the next day. Truth is not a factor in these programs.

We have to distrust this kind of media and find other sources to educate ourselves.