The End?

It is unlikely that I will continue doing this site. I just don't have the time to devote to a full-time, politics only blog. I was hoping for some contributors, but that didn't happen. So, just read The Dark Stuff, or the better political blogs like Think Progress, Talking Points Memo, or Daily Kos.

John McCain's Poor Judgment on Afghanistan

First, McCain said that capturing or killing those responsible for 9/11 wasn't "that important" (Face The Nation, 3/2/02), and now in this 2003 video, he argues that Iraq is more important and that we can simply "muddle through" in Afghanistan. And he is the one considered "stronger" on foreign affairs?

In addition to his bad judgment, McCain has not attended a single hearing on Afghanistan in the last two years. Not a single one!

Is It Possible To Be a Liberal Zionist?

I found the following article from Dissent Magazine fascinating. I am Jewish (though not particularly religious), politically liberal, and consider myself to be a strong supporter of Israel. Often times, these things conflict. I find myself opting out of debates on Israel because I don't really agree with the extremes on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian issue, and that's all one really hears these days (especially in the US).

Is it possible to be a "liberal Zionist"? Can one really be a supporter of Israel while being critical of many of the Israeli government's policies? If the tone of international, left-wing criticism of Israel makes you angry, can you really be considered a liberal? Would you want to be? What if you support the idea of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, but have serious reservations about trusting the Palestinian leadership and their motivations? Does defending the cause of people who willingly elected a terrorist organization (Hamas) to be their government give you "the willies"? If you wonder about these same things, then read this article. Here is a small excerpt:

And what is the secret we hardly acknowledge? We are all for a two-state solution, we are eager to call a halt to Israel’s expansion, to put an end to the settlement movement, to restore Israel’s good name, to make almost any compromise consistent with the preservation of Israel’s character as a Jewish state and its commitment to democracy. We are, in a word, “doves.” But we don’t trust the Palestinians; we worry about Iran; we haven’t a clue about how you get from here to peace; we don’t take America’s support for granted; and even if we did, we are not exactly proud to have to depend on that support. We worry that Israel has taken multiple wrong turns, not only on the big question, its peace policy, but on a range of domestic issues as well—most notably, its increasingly inegalitarian economy (where it now ranks with the United States on disparities in income distribution); its corrupting entanglement of religion and state; the decline in the quality of its educational system; its manner of dealing with the 20 percent of its citizens who are Palestinian. We are dismayed by the extent of public corruption. In short, we fear that Israel is at risk both domestically and internationally.

I will be cross-posting this on my main blog as well. If you have any thoughts, I'd love to hear them.

Laura Ingraham Is a Bitch

Obamowitz?

New Pew poll shows that 1% of Americans believe Barack Obama is Jewish.

I Always Knew There Was Something Wrong With That Guy

The Washington Post is reporting that Hillary Clinton's senior strategist for her failed bid for the Democratic nomination, Howard Wolfson, will be working for Fox News. Obviously, he is a sore loser and has decided (like Lanny Davis) that working for the Republican National Committee's "news" channel is the best way to sabotage Obama's candidacy. What a jerk.

Attention Mika Brzezinski: No One Wants Your Opinion, Just Read The News

I am starting to get to the point where I get nauseous every time I listen to the media gush on about John W. McCain. Reporters and news readers are supposed to simply report and read the news - not add their two cents into the mix. But apparently, all standards of fairness can be tossed out the window as reporter after reporter shows their blatant preference for John McCain in the presidential election.

The latest example (and the one that got me to make a posting on it) happened this morning on MSNBC. News reader Mika Brzezinski was reporting on a "controversy" about John McCain's supposedly unimpeachable military record. Mika seemed to forget that she was no longer on her morning commentary show, Morning Joe, and offered her opinion on the news she was reading. Apparently, she was personally offended that General Wesley Clark (a retired 4 star general who was Supreme Allied Commander in the highly successful Bosnian campaign in the 90s) made the argument that though McCain's service is admirable, he never held a command position, and is therefore no more qualified to be commander-in-chief than Barack Obama (based solely on military service). It's a logical and perfectly reasonable point.

She said that attacking McCain's service was "out of bounds" and wondered if it was a smart move politically. Two things, Mika...he did not attack McCain's record. He said it was admirable. He merely pointed out the fact that McCain was not a high level commander during war time. Neither comment should be considered "out of bounds." The Republicans and the media seem to feel that anything short of gushing praise for McCain's record is tantamount to an attack on his patriotism and service. It is not. No one is attempting to take away McCain's time in a POW camp. But just as John Kerry's two Purple Hearts did not shield him from having both his service and judgment examined, the same standard should apply to McCain.

As the Republicans argued in 2004, the fact that someone served in Vietnam is admirable, but that alone does not make one qualified to be president. Why does this standard not work for McCain? The fact is, John McCain lacks the judgment to be president. His military service from the 1960s is not relevant.

Let's examine McCain's judgment: McCain called for military strikes against North Korea in the 90s, opposed the deployment of troops into Bosnia, backed the invasion of Iraq and the initial occupation strategy, argued against the notion that Iraq was diverting resources from fighting Al Qeda in Afghanistan, opposed the Webb GI bill by arguing that it was "too generous" to service members (then skipped out on the Senate vote for the bill), and has consistently argued that a 100 year commitment in Iraq is in America's best interest. Why is this dismal record not open for debate, Mika Brzezinski and the rest of the media?

The case of Ms. Brzezinski is especially aggravating because of the fact that her brother works for the McCain campaign, and her father was criticized by the Obama campaign for comments he made about the Israeli lobby in America. She has a clear anti-Obama bias, and needs to keep it in check when she leaves her commentator role and reverts back to reading the news.

There are, literally, hundreds of examples of pro-McCain bias floating around, but I just felt like focusing on this one.

Ralph Nader: It's Time For the Retirement Home

As if Ralph Nader's 2000 vanity campaign for president wasn't horrible enough (he is the reason we got Bush despite what he and his six remaining supporters say), Mr. Nader can now add racism to his lengthy resume. In a desperate attempt to get some sort of attention for his floundering campaign, Mr. Nader decided to attack Barack Obama along racial lines, and essentially argued that Obama is not black enough for Nader's taste.

"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white?"

How exactly does one "talk white?" I didn't realize blacks and whites spoke differently. Did you mean ebonics? Does Obama speaking in complete sentences mean he doesn't understand how other blacks speak? WTF?! Perhaps Ralph Nader doesn't know any black people. Maybe all of his knowledge about African-Americans comes from 1970s movies. You know, Ralph, the two black guys in Airplane that spoke "jive" were not real people. They were characters in a movie.

To aid Ralph Nader, I have included some folks "talking black"

I admit that I do hate Ralph Nader. I will forever blame him for the 2000 election. He is extremely arrogant, politically tone deaf, and his justification for his perpetual run for the presidency is completely disingenuous. He is not a serious candidate - never has been. He only campaigns against Democrats, never against Republicans or Libertarians. He is almost like Joe Lieberman in a weird way. Because the Democratic Party refuses to bow down to his "unique" wisdom, he wants to destroy it. Fuck you, Ralph. Fuck your campaign. Fuck your supporters. Fuck your antiquated racial stereotypes.