Liberals Letters And Lunch

Google Reader (51)

2011-03-27T21:34:00.000-07:00

Google Reader (51)

Porky Pig - That's All, Folks!

2011-02-23T13:18:00.000-07:00

sound file

2009-08-07T11:44:00.000-07:00

sound file

2009-08-07T11:02:00.000-07:00

sound file

2009-08-07T10:57:00.000-07:00

sound file

French Proficiency Test

2009-08-07T10:53:00.000-07:00

French Proficiency Test

Letter to the Editor ... Sierra Vista Herald

2009-06-11T15:25:00.000-07:00

I note with interest the current debate in Washington D. C. over a public health care system. Our very own Senator Kyl spoke openly recently against a public health care system. I find this ludicrous in view of the fact the man has enjoyed a government backed health care system for the past two decades. I guess it’s a case of I’ve got mine, and I don’t care about yours. I’ll also bet he never sat in an emergency room waiting for care for eight hours or longer. Not sure where our other Senators and Representatives are on the issue, but they also enjoy government health care system, not to mention a life long pension. If you wish to have the same health care benefits they do, it might be a good idea to contact them and let them know.

Kathie Crow

A SIMPLE ANSWER TO A COMPLEX PROBLEM

2009-06-07T17:46:00.005-07:00

There is a way to provide comprehensive, universal, and cost-effective healthcare to every man, woman, and child in this country. That way is through a single payer system. Insurance companies and politicians who benefit from the staggering amounts of money they dole out do not want you to understand this reality.

Insurance money is paying for ads claiming "government bureaucrats" will make medical decisions for us if we adopt universal, single-payer care. This is a lie. In fact, insurance company employees make medical decisions about patient care each day.

As a retired senior executive of a major insurance company, I am familiar with the bonuses paid to employees who reduce or deny care. I am familiar with the enormous amount of waste within the private health insurance industry.

A single payer system cuts out that waste … waste that includes some $400 billion a year in administrative costs, billing, profits, CEO compensation, advertising and lobbying. These things have nothing to do with providing care. But they have everything to do with inflating the cost of that care.

According to the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office, we can provide universal care AND save $100 to $200 billion per year. Everyone covered. Cost lowered.

While many private insurance plans and all HMOs and PPOs place restrictions on the providers and facilities their policyholders may use, there are no such restrictions attached to the public, single payer, Medicare program.

We have better trained doctors and a finer medical infrastructure than industrialized nations with universal, single payer systems. Yet the care provided to our citizens, compared to those countries, ranks poorly and costs 40% more.

We can have improved health care quality, coverage for all our citizens, and lower costs if we demand single payer care.

Stephanie Koppenhafer

The Tea Party Sham

2009-04-18T16:26:00.002-07:00

Printed in Sierra Vista Herald
April 20, 2009

I read with interest the account of the local “tea bag” event. I am puzzled by the actions being taken. Tea bags are being sent to Giffords. Why not to all representatives? Where was the outrage when this horrible crisis was being created?

Bush came into office with an advantage few presidents have enjoyed -- a $230 billion surplus. But his $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001, a $1.5 trillion tax cut in 2003, and a massive defense buildup through the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, quickly blew through that surplus. After the financial crisis emerged last fall and the ensuing bank bailouts, Bush's budget deficit ballooned to over $1.2 trillion according to CBO. That is 8.3 percent of GDP. As Center for American Progress Vice President for Economic Policy Michael Ettlinger explained, budget deficits swelled under Bush because his supply-side tax policies slashed revenues while failing to deliver strong economic performance.

No tea bags then; none to any of the Republicans who passed all Bush’s budgets. It seems this was simply an anti-Obama, anti-Democrat event. People are entitled to gather for that purpose. They should, however, be honest about it.

Stephanie L. Koppenhafer

Letter to the Editor, Sierra Vista Herald

2009-04-17T20:50:00.001-07:00

I supported the election of President Obama and will continue to support him when I can. I will also let him know when I disagree with him. Today is such a day.

I applaud his release of the Bush Department of Justice memoranda which provided the legal rationales used to justify the CIA's torture of terror suspects.

I am appalled by the President's accompanying statement "It is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties (i.e. commit acts of torture) relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution." Here the President ignored his oath to enforce the law. The acts of torture directed from above and carried out by CIA officers were crimes and if our laws are to mean anything, then the President has a duty to follow them. That it may not be convenient at this time to enforce the law is the cover used by politicians when they do not want to do what they should.

Not only is the practice of torture offensive to humanity and morally wrong; it has been shown to be ineffective. Moreover, not torturing is one means of protecting the members of our armed forces who may find themselves prisoners of war.

This decision if left to stand will provide justification for the future presidents to say that in 2009 President Obama provided immunity to those who carried out torture. Let us not use the words "We were just following orders" like those offered by the "good Germans" at the end of World War II as an excuse for their crimes against humanity.

Ed Waters
Korean War Veteran

Open Letter To Senators Kyl and McCain Suzanne Kemerly

2009-02-14T00:19:00.004-07:00

What do you see when you look at the overwhelming unemployment statistics? More than those incomprehensible numbers, I see hardworking human beings and their families, each job loss sending another wave of panic through our communities.

I implore you to consider a practical stimulus program, not a political one. Tax cuts? Been there, done that, with few benefits for any other than the wealthy. The few cuts that might actually trickle down to what’s left of the middle class will do little more than last year's rebates. We need real, honest help here, not something to placate campaign donors.

Education, health, and other critical programs are being cut at state and local levels; send dollars there, where we need them. Spend what may actually help us survive this – dare I say it? – depression. Repair some roads and schools, create jobs, and give us reason to hope.

Perhaps you never had to struggle in your lifetime or have forgotten what it was like. Come down from your castle in the air and learn or recall what it’s like to be an “ordinary” citizen of this country. Often as people move up the ladder of power, influence, and wealth, they lose touch with not only where they came from, but especially with the people who sent them there. We’re not here for you; you are supposed to be there for us. Please don’t abandon us in some misguided schoolyard political spat. We don’t need Republicans and Democrats right now, we need honest concern and assistance. Please be the leaders we elected you to be, willing to do what is needed regardless of which party initiated what.

A giant Hooverville - Published: Tuesday, February 3, 2009

2009-02-05T20:16:00.000-07:00

GOP legislators and Governor Brewer are trying to turn our state into a giant Hooverville. The legislature passed budget cuts to education and other programs in the dark of the night on Friday.

The Legislature’s live proceedings are available at http://www.azleg.gov/. Who would expect proceedings to start around 10 p.m. on a Friday night?

I not only speak for myself but for the 48,966 citizens of every party who voted for me last year. My pleas for sound policy and people fell on deaf ears. The saddest part is that it was unnecessary because Arizona is in line to receive more than a billion dollars for the fiscal tax year ending June 30, 2009 from the feds within a very short time.

I find it laughable that some blame the former governor for the current situation since they have been in control of the Arizona House since 1966. They were the ones who insisted on unwise tax cuts and lack of adequate regulation to protect consumers. They are betraying their own value of personal responsibility by blaming someone else for their actions.

They have failed to take responsibility for their failed and unsound policies.

Governor Brewer’s hasty signing of these bills before taking off for the Super Bowl will have devastating and long lasting effects on all levels of public education which will be detrimental to business development and our state’s recovery. Please contact her immediately and express displeasure with her actions.

Andrea Dalessandro, Green Valley

Letter to be posted in the next couple of days

2009-01-28T11:11:00.000-07:00

In response to Robert Erickson’s letter on January 27 regarding the reason that Barack Obama was elected president:
Obama was elected because of the failure of thirty years of Reagonomics, a war that we are in because George Bush and company lied, because our infrastructure is collapsing due to years of neglect, and because the American people are tired of nasty politics. We have been sitting on a house of cards that finally collapsed. The fact that he is an African American or whether or not there was press bias has nothing to do with McCain’s loss. McCain lost because he ran a bad campaign, and because he was on the wrong side this time around. As Obama said, we need to grow up and get some adult supervision in the White House.

Ellen Rowan Taylor

It Was A Big Deal. Really

2009-01-22T23:08:00.000-07:00

Rush Limbaugh declared that the sole reason Barack Obama’s inauguration was such a “big deal” could be attributed to the black skin of his father. Rush doesn’t get it.

For Americans of color, calling this inauguration a big deal is an understatement. Those who never endured their second class status could not understand their first class joy. But even so, millions did understand the greatness of the moment they witnessed.

They understood this was a big deal because they had gagged on an eight year diet of fear, distortion, and divisiveness. They had grieved over constitutional abuses and the loss of individual rights. They had been revolted by the sight of tortured, humiliated, and demeaned prisoners. They had cast votes that were never counted, cried for help that never came when hurricanes raged, and uttered eloquent words of reason that fell on defiantly deaf ears.

When Barack Obama decided to run, tens of millions again felt Hope and Faith. Determined to change the direction of our country for the sake of our children, our grandchildren, and ourselves, they marched, made phone calls, wrote letters, gave time, pledged dollars, listened, responded, and voted … in record numbers.

That’s why, in bitter cold, millions stood on the Mall in Washington and tens of millions more stopped what they were doing to watch and rejoice as Hope and Faith, alive again, put its hand on the Bible of Abraham Lincoln and took the oath of office. And that, indeed, was a very big deal.

OYM Comment 12/15/2008

2008-12-15T17:41:00.000-07:00

Before the recent election many people delighted in questioning Barack Obama's religion, education, and birth. Their attacks should have ended with the election itself. They didn't.

The facts regarding our President Elect's Christian faith, academic achievements, college credentials, and Hawaiian birth have been verified and widely published. In spite of this, some people persist in trying to make us believe lies and distortions about them. Their motivation must be either bigotry or stupidity. We will get the answer eventually: bigotry is curable; stupidity is terminal.

Time To Believe Truth Not Fear

2008-10-31T22:04:00.002-07:00

Printed in Sierra Vista Herald, November 6, 2008
Stephanie Koppenhafer

I'm growing old and weary. Old enough to know you plant the seeds of the crops you wish to harvest and weary of those individuals who have been sowing division, distrust, and animosity in the soil of this great land.

The election is over. To all who delighted in spreading messages based on smears, lies, distortions, unfounded accusations, racist remarks, ugly jokes, or outright venom, I have two requests. Stop the mean-spirited, poisonous rhetoric. Dig up the seeds of discord. They undermine our common loyalty. They destroy our common purpose.

This isn't your country or mine. It doesn’t belong to one party or another. There are no real and unreal Americans. We don't live in patriotic and unpatriotic cities and states.

We are one people. We are one country. We tolerate and respect any religion, political affiliation, skin color, ethnic background, and ideology. That is the law of this land and our greatest strength. It's time to believe that truth rather than fear it.

Irresponsible Hyperbole

2008-10-25T20:10:00.002-07:00

Sent to Philadelphia Inquirer by Marissa Bluestine

Sarah Palin and John McCain actually seem to believe that the country will become a communist or socialist haven if Barack Obama is elected president. I doubt that George Washington, John Dickinson, James Madison or the other 35 founders who gave Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes" in our Constitution would equate paying taxes with nationalization of industry and property. Such irresponsible hyperbole is vile and should be denounced in the loudest possible voice. Count this as mine.

The McCain Palin Ticket

2008-10-24T08:38:00.002-07:00

Marissa Bluestine

Out of sync with themselves. Out of touch with America. Unstable and Unable. That's McCain-Palin.

Newman is best ACC candidate

2008-10-21T12:38:00.000-07:00

Re: the Oct. 13 article "ACC candidate in 2004 pot incident."

I have known Arizona Corporation Commission candidate Paul Newman for more than 15 years, having worked for the Cochise County Board of Supervisors while he was employed as an attorney for the county and was running for the state Legislature.

Newman is an honest and caring individual deeply committed to the well-being of our state and its citizens. The 2004 incident has nothing to do with his ability to diligently fulfill Corporation Commission responsibilities.

He is absolutely the best candidate to protect the interests of the citizens of Arizona and I will proudly cast my vote for him in November.

Suzanne Kemerly

WHY I AM VOTING NO ON PROPOSITION 102

2008-10-21T03:02:00.004-07:00

Karl Hallsten

Proposition 102 is on the ballot as a “Proposed Amendment to the Constitution Relating to Marriage”. Because a vote yes or no has the same effect on marriage, it's clear the proposal is misnamed. At its core it is prejudicial vote against our gay and lesbian sons and daughters, brothers and sisters.

The Constitution tells how to run the government to protect all the citizens. It has been used to guarantee rights to all not to deny them to some. American law has progressively moved to include people as conscience and understanding change ... rights for women, racial equality and protections for the physically and emotionally challenged. Historically, the religious right has been at the forefront in opposing all of these extensions. Women’s Rights movement and racial equality deeply divided our nation. Churches broke up and denominations divided. That is being played out again with around gays and lesbians. Proposition 102 draws a line in the sand. Its purpose is to divide our nation. It will divide our nation and continue to deny rights to gays and lesbians, bi-sexual and transgender citizens.

Keep marriage out of the constitution and in the law books. No long-term committed relationship or marriage has ever been diminished, or made greater, by the success or failure of another. Several marriages have been damaged by our society setting up the expectation and social milieu in which even if you are homosexual by orientation, you are expected to marry someone of the opposite sex. The storyline of Brokeback Mountain is more than fiction---it is played out in families all across our state and nation. Gays and lesbians long for the social recognition of their life long committed relationships, and the benefits and protections that recognition brings.

Join me in voting No on Proposition 102 and in doing the slow, hard work toward respect of all our citizens and sharing the gifts of marriage with all of God’s children.

Message From 82 Year Old Woman

2008-10-18T20:40:00.001-07:00

John McCain thinks Americans are angry? Really? I think he needs to look beyond his rallies. Americans are not angry. Republicans are angry. Bush screwed ‘em over and now McCain is rubbing salt in the wound. It looks to me like The Straight Talk Express is stuck in traffic and its driver is experiencing a little road rage. The rest of us are hopeful and anxious, but certainly not angry. We want change and it is so close we can almost taste it. The next three weeks will be the longest of my 82years.

Folks, I’m tired and I don’t have another fight in me. It’s now or never. So to all of you I say this: Give your money. Give your time. Give your voice. Get up. Get out and do something. Anything. If America takes a chance on Maverick the Clown and his side kick, Clarabell, we will find ourselves so far down the crapper even Joe the Plumber can’t reach us. Get out there and vote!

What Is Happening To Us

2008-10-18T19:00:00.000-07:00

What has happened to us? Where in the hell are we and how did we get there? In the name of "patriotism," the flames of racism and intolerance are being stoked at political rallies in this country. Those attending react by calling for death. Smears are being embraced by a once honorable man who is willing to promote hatred and abandon decency in his quest for the presidency. A United States congresswoman calls for the investigation of "radical liberal" members of congress because they may be un-American.

It's time to reflect on those precious words, "all men are created equal" and "one nation under God". It's time to take our country back. We can no longer watch silently and think we are not responsible. We need to condemn these activities and challenge the dangerous rhetoric. And we need to do it now!

An apology To Obama

2008-10-18T12:59:00.001-07:00

I owe Senator Obama an apology.

As an early supporter, I was disheartened when he would not retaliate against the smears being used against him. I wondered why he didn’t use the religious endorsements McCain sought and later renounced to counter the Rev. Wright mess. I wanted him to pound McCain for “palling around" with the terrorist G. Gordon Liddy. I waited for him to question Sarah Palin’s patriotism by airing her ties to separatist movement supporters … like her husband. I wondered when he would pounce on her ethics and abuse of power violations and McCain's Keating Five entanglements.

Instead, Obama did just what he said he would do. He focused on issues and ran an honorable campaign. In other words, he did the right thing.

Yes, I owe him an apology. And my thanks and my gratitude. He has restored dignity to the office of president … even when it is just the office to which he aspires.

Risking Retirement Security and Health Care

2008-10-18T12:38:00.001-07:00

When it comes to retirement security and health care, John McCain’s plans are bafflingly out of touch. He wants to tie Social Security to the stock market. He opposes expanding health care for children and doesn’t want to let Medicare negotiate for lower drug prices. He proposes taxing employer provided medical insurance, a move which will surely push millions out of their benefits.

Senator McCain says he will give us a tax credit to buy our own insurance when we lose our current coverage. He fails to say that his so-called credit would cover less than half of what an average family premium would cost and will be funded by cutting $1.3 trillion from the Medicare and Medicaid. Trillion!

No wonder he wants to talk about Joe the Plumber and William Ayers. He certainly can’t talk about his plans for seniors and working families.

It Ain't Broke

2008-10-18T12:36:00.001-07:00

Two years ago District 8 sent a freshman representative to congress. We knew that; she didn’t.

Gabrielle Giffords hit the road running in Washington. Her strong actions on border security, healthcare, and education have been impressive. Her determination to prevent cuts in Medicare, improve mental healthcare for our wounded veterans and increase funding for children’s treatment have given our most vulnerable a strong voice.

Giffords understands and supports small business, national energy independence and alternative energy development. This is the kind of respected and strong representation we need. As the old adage states, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Return Gabrielle Giffords to the United States Congress so she can continue her excellent efforts on our behalf.

Real Voter Fraud - Called to OYM by Leone Wilkerson

2008-10-17T15:41:00.001-07:00

Voter registration irregularities does not equal voter fraud.

What is voter fraud? Voter fraud is harassing voters, voting machines that do not work properly and Supreme Courts that give away elections.

That is what we should be afraid of.

OYM Comments by Ed Waters

2008-10-16T16:29:00.000-07:00

To the person who responded to Suzanne Kimberly’s recent submission to “On Your Mind”: Honor is defined as a good name or public esteem; a good reputation. As a Korean War veteran I know one does not necessarily acquire a good reputation solely by serving in the armed forces. However, one does acquire a good reputation by being a good person, one who has tries to do good things. One is not deemed by fair minded people to be dishonorable by sitting in a congregation where the preacher gets carried away or by meeting with a man who once did bad things 40 years ago. It is clear to me that for whatever reason you simply dislike Barack Obama. Fine. Why not just say so?

Obama/McCain Debate Summary

2008-10-15T22:22:00.001-07:00

Bob Bland
Obama was warming up for his inauguration speech and talking straight to the American people. McCain was a bitter person who is falling apart and destroying his legacy.

Stephanie Koppenhafer
Obama was running for president. McCain was running from Bush.

JUST THE FACTS - Suzanne Kemerly

2008-10-15T14:35:00.002-07:00

Many people contend that a McCain presidency would merely be an extension of the last eight years, so let's examine the Bush legacy. During his presidency our nation has experienced nearly doubled long-term unemployment and an overall unemployment increase of 21.4%.

Foreclosures are up 75% while the national debt has skyrocketed by $3 trillion. College costs have jumped 60%, but earnings for college graduates with four-year degrees have dropped 5.2%.

Expenses for all of us continue to increase, including a health care rise of 78% and nearly doubled gasoline prices, with more to come with winter heating costs.

Nearly all of the Bush agenda items which created these economic negatives were backed by John McCain, who voted to support the administration more than 90% of the time.

Now that the sky is falling, McCain is attempting to distance himself from disastrous Bush policies, but actions still speak louder than words. Our nation cannot endure another four years of economic inequity: tax breaks for big corporations, including oil complanies registering record profits; and more tax breaks for the most wealthy while the dwindling middle class and poor bear the burden.

We need real change, and Barack Obama is the leader to provide it. He has the intelligence, tenacity, and passion to work for what's best for all citizens of our nation.

BRADLEY LETTER - Suzanne Kemerly

2008-10-15T14:19:00.002-07:00

Recently the Herald / Review published candidate capsules for the County Sheriff’s race. Sheriff Larry Dever’s comments included a statement that there was “no comparison” between his qualifications and those of “other candidates.”

Certainly Sheriff Dever has numerous law enforcement credentials. Norm Bradley, his opponent, possesses quite a few, also. Mr. Bradley not only has local experience, serving as Cochise County Undersheriff for four years, but can claim state and national experience too.

Mr. Bradley has provided consulting services for homeland defense and security, served as director of the National Counter Drug Center, and been a consultant to foreign, federal, state, county, and city law enforcement agencies. For many years he functioned as staff director for the US Senate Select Committee on intelligence and has held various positions with the US Customs Service/Department of the Treasury, DPS, and other state law enforcement agencies.

Mr. Bradley’s experience provides insight into both local Cochise County issues and broader national and international concerns. In these days of global challenges, such a background is a definite advantage.

Norm Bradley is certainly more than qualified to serve as our County Sheriff.

Called Into OYM by Uda Gordon

2008-10-14T14:56:00.000-07:00

John McCain has turned his straight talk express into his trash talk disaster. Rather than address the most pressing issues, he chooses to hurl distasteful accusations against his opponent.

By now, all of us have heard his frenetic attempts to de-Americanize his opponent. We have watched him lace his rallies with references to a remote Ayres connection. We have seen him use rabble rousing “Barack Hussain Obama” rhetoric.

This is a calculated decision to appeal to the worst instincts of some. With a small segment of our population, that may work. But it is alienating those of us who care about this country. It is infuriating those who want to hear about issues. And it is sickening those of us who used to hold John McCain in high esteem.

Obama/McCain Debate Analysis:

2008-10-07T19:59:00.002-07:00

Obama was running for president, McCain was trying to keep up.

Submitted by Karen Beckers to On Your Mind 10-7-08

McCain Campaign

2008-10-05T22:34:00.002-07:00

Senator McCain's campaign has announced that they plan to “turn the page on the discussion about our economy” and personally attacking Barack Obama.

We don’t need to read and listen to McCain smear attacks. We need to know to how he plans to move our country forward, solve our economic problems, restore our values, create jobs, give us energy independence, reduce our debt, bring down the deficit, improve education for our children and grandchildren, make college affordable, and build international alliances that can reduce nuclear proliferation and lessen global conflict.

With all of these issues, McCain chooses to spend his words, time, and campaign dollars attacking his opponent. He believes he can enter the White House through the back door of dirty politics. I guess he knows he can’t get in by telling us where he stands.

We Already Know Our Next President

2008-10-05T20:20:00.003-07:00

I don’t know if John McCain or Barack Obama will be our next president. I don’t know the first crisis our new president will face. But I do know how he will respond.

Each of these men has faced a major crisis during his campaign. Barack Obama’s campaign almost unraveled when he bacame the target of malicious smears. He chose to face that problem head-on. He chose to address the American public and confront the underlying issue, race relations.

John McCain’s campaign is now suffering because the economy and his erratic response to it have become the issue. He is handling his crisis by trying to divert attention to Obama with speeches laced with personal attacks and ads built on distortion, lies, and fear.

Yes, these men have shown me how they approach crisis. And their actions tell me about their character. When Obama faced his worst campaign crisis he chose to speak to America’s better nature and engage us in a discussion long overdue. Now that McCain is going through his, he chooses to drive us down the lowest of political roads, the one paved with slime.

Why I'm Voting for Obama

2008-10-03T14:01:00.006-07:00

Printed in Sierra Vista Herald October 6, 2008

America is facing financial chaos. We have five million citizens living in poverty. Our pursuit of a unilateral foreign policy has alienated our friends. Our preoccupation with a war of choice has emboldened our enemies and weakened our security.

This election is the most important we have witnessed. Go beyond rhetoric and you are left with the fact that what most distinguishes Senators McCain and Obama is character, temperament, and judgment. This is precisely why the personality John McCain is showing us is so unnerving. He is running a campaign that panders, distorts and lies. He has become impulsive, impatient, and erratic. In short, the maverick has become the menace.

By contrast, what we see from Barack Obama is pragmatic calm. He does not waiver from his policy preferences, but consistently speaks to the vast array of people and problems he encounters. It is precisely this temperament, not that of John McCain, that is needed in volatile and dangerous times.

This country is deeply divided and deeply wounded. We need a president who is capable of lifting us up, changing the dangerous course we have been pursuing, and restoring America’s spirit, reputation, and greatness. It is time for each of us to put country before personal prejudices and partisan pandering. For too many years, racial and religious intolerance left some of our brightest and most capable outside while some of our least capable moved in. I believe we can rise above that. That's why I'm voting for Barack Obama.

New Yorker Editorial

2008-10-03T11:15:00.001-07:00

Never in living memory has an election been more critical than the one fast approaching—that’s the quadrennial cliché, as expected as the balloons and the bombast. And yet when has it ever felt so urgently true? When have so many Americans had so clear a sense that a Presidency has—at the levels of competence, vision, and integrity—undermined the country and its ideals?

The incumbent Administration has distinguished itself for the ages. The Presidency of George W. Bush is the worst since Reconstruction, so there is no mystery about why the Republican Party—which has held dominion over the executive branch of the federal government for the past eight years and the legislative branch for most of that time—has little desire to defend its record, domestic or foreign. The only speaker at the Convention in St. Paul who uttered more than a sentence or two in support of the President was his wife, Laura. Meanwhile, the nominee, John McCain, played the part of a vaudeville illusionist, asking to be regarded as an apostle of change after years of embracing the essentials of the Bush agenda with ever-increasing ardor.

The Republican disaster begins at home. Even before taking into account whatever fantastically expensive plan eventually emerges to help rescue the financial system from Wall Street’s long-running pyramid schemes, the economic and fiscal picture is bleak. During the Bush Administration, the national debt, now approaching ten trillion dollars, has nearly doubled. Next year’s federal budget is projected to run a half-trillion-dollar deficit, a precipitous fall from the seven-hundred-billion-dollar surplus that was projected when Bill Clinton left office. Private-sector job creation has been a sixth of what it was under President Clinton. Five million people have fallen into poverty. The number of Americans without health insurance has grown by seven million, while average premiums have nearly doubled. Meanwhile, the principal domestic achievement of the Bush Administration has been to shift the relative burden of taxation from the rich to the rest. For the top one per cent of us, the Bush tax cuts are worth, on average, about a thousand dollars a week; for the bottom fifth, about a dollar and a half. The unfairness will only increase if the painful, yet necessary, effort to rescue the credit markets ends up preventing the rescue of our health-care system, our environment, and our physical, educational, and industrial infrastructure.

At the same time, a hundred and fifty thousand American troops are in Iraq and thirty-three thousand are in Afghanistan. There is still disagreement about the wisdom of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and his horrific regime, but there is no longer the slightest doubt that the Bush Administration manipulated, bullied, and lied the American public into this war and then mismanaged its prosecution in nearly every aspect. The direct costs, besides an expenditure of more than six hundred billion dollars, have included the loss of more than four thousand Americans, the wounding of thirty thousand, the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and the displacement of four and a half million men, women, and children. Only now, after American forces have been fighting for a year longer than they did in the Second World War, is there a glimmer of hope that the conflict in Iraq has entered a stage of fragile stability.

The indirect costs, both of the war in particular and of the Administration’s unilateralist approach to foreign policy in general, have also been immense. The torture of prisoners, authorized at the highest level, has been an ethical and a public-diplomacy catastrophe. At a moment when the global environment, the global economy, and global stability all demand a transition to new sources of energy, the United States has been a global retrograde, wasteful in its consumption and heedless in its policy. Strategically and morally, the Bush Administration has squandered the American capacity to counter the example and the swagger of its rivals. China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other illiberal states have concluded, each in its own way, that democratic principles and human rights need not be components of a stable, prosperous future. At recent meetings of the United Nations, emboldened despots like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran came to town sneering at our predicament and hailing the “end of the American era.”

The election of 2008 is the first in more than half a century in which no incumbent President or Vice-President is on the ballot. There is, however, an incumbent party, and that party has been lucky enough to find itself, apparently against the wishes of its “base,” with a nominee who evidently disliked George W. Bush before it became fashionable to do so. In South Carolina in 2000, Bush crushed John McCain with a sub-rosa primary campaign of such viciousness that McCain lashed out memorably against Bush’s Christian-right allies. So profound was McCain’s anger that in 2004 he flirted with the possibility of joining the Democratic ticket under John Kerry. Bush, who took office as a “compassionate conservative,” governed immediately as a rightist ideologue. During that first term, McCain bolstered his reputation, sometimes deserved, as a “maverick” willing to work with Democrats on such issues as normalizing relations with Vietnam, campaign-finance reform, and immigration reform. He co-sponsored, with John Edwards and Edward Kennedy, a patients’ bill of rights. In 2001 and 2003, he voted against the Bush tax cuts. With John Kerry, he co-sponsored a bill raising auto-fuel efficiency standards and, with Joseph Lieberman, a cap-and-trade regime on carbon emissions. He was one of a minority of Republicans opposed to unlimited drilling for oil and gas off America’s shores.

Since the 2004 election, however, McCain has moved remorselessly rightward in his quest for the Republican nomination. He paid obeisance to Jerry Falwell and preachers of his ilk. He abandoned immigration reform, eventually coming out against his own bill. Most shocking, McCain, who had repeatedly denounced torture under all circumstances, voted in February against a ban on the very techniques of “enhanced interrogation” that he himself once endured in Vietnam—as long as the torturers were civilians employed by the C.I.A.

On almost every issue, McCain and the Democratic Party’s nominee, Barack Obama, speak the generalized language of “reform,” but only Obama has provided a convincing, rational, and fully developed vision. McCain has abandoned his opposition to the Bush-era tax cuts and has taken up the demagogic call—in the midst of recession and Wall Street calamity, with looming crises in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—for more tax cuts. Bush’s expire in 2011. If McCain, as he has proposed, cuts taxes for corporations and estates, the benefits once more would go disproportionately to the wealthy.

In Washington, the craze for pure market triumphalism is over. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson arrived in town (via Goldman Sachs) a Republican, but it seems that he will leave a Democrat. In other words, he has come to see that the abuses that led to the current financial crisis––not least, excessive speculation on borrowed capital––can be fixed only with government regulation and oversight. McCain, who has never evinced much interest in, or knowledge of, economic questions, has had little of substance to say about the crisis. His most notable gesture of concern—a melodramatic call last month to suspend his campaign and postpone the first Presidential debate until the government bailout plan was ready—soon revealed itself as an empty diversionary tactic.

By contrast, Obama has made a serious study of the mechanics and the history of this economic disaster and of the possibilities of stimulating a recovery. Last March, in New York, in a speech notable for its depth, balance, and foresight, he said, “A complete disdain for pay-as-you-go budgeting, coupled with a generally scornful attitude towards oversight and enforcement, allowed far too many to put short-term gain ahead of long-term consequences.” Obama is committed to reforms that value not only the restoration of stability but also the protection of the vast majority of the population, which did not partake of the fruits of the binge years. He has called for greater and more programmatic regulation of the financial system; the creation of a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank, which would help reverse the decay of our roads, bridges, and mass-transit systems, and create millions of jobs; and a major investment in the green-energy sector.

On energy and global warming, Obama offers a set of forceful proposals. He supports a cap-and-trade program to reduce America’s carbon emissions by eighty per cent by 2050—an enormously ambitious goal, but one that many climate scientists say must be met if atmospheric carbon dioxide is to be kept below disastrous levels. Large emitters, like utilities, would acquire carbon allowances, and those which emit less carbon dioxide than their allotment could sell the resulting credits to those which emit more; over time, the available allowances would decline. Significantly, Obama wants to auction off the allowances; this would provide fifteen billion dollars a year for developing alternative-energy sources and creating job-training programs in green technologies. He also wants to raise federal fuel-economy standards and to require that ten per cent of America’s electricity be generated from renewable sources by 2012. Taken together, his proposals represent the most coherent and far-sighted strategy ever offered by a Presidential candidate for reducing the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels.

There was once reason to hope that McCain and Obama would have a sensible debate about energy and climate policy. McCain was one of the first Republicans in the Senate to support federal limits on carbon dioxide, and he has touted his own support for a less ambitious cap-and-trade program as evidence of his independence from the White House. But, as polls showed Americans growing jittery about gasoline prices, McCain apparently found it expedient in this area, too, to shift course. He took a dubious idea—lifting the federal moratorium on offshore oil drilling—and placed it at the very center of his campaign. Opening up America’s coastal waters to drilling would have no impact on gasoline prices in the short term, and, even over the long term, the effect, according to a recent analysis by the Department of Energy, would be “insignificant.” Such inconvenient facts, however, are waved away by a campaign that finally found its voice with the slogan “Drill, baby, drill!”

The contrast between the candidates is even sharper with respect to the third branch of government. A tense equipoise currently prevails among the Justices of the Supreme Court, where four hard-core conservatives face off against four moderate liberals. Anthony M. Kennedy is the swing vote, determining the outcome of case after case.

McCain cites Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two reliable conservatives, as models for his own prospective appointments. If he means what he says, and if he replaces even one moderate on the current Supreme Court, then Roe v. Wade will be reversed, and states will again be allowed to impose absolute bans on abortion. McCain’s views have hardened on this issue. In 1999, he said he opposed overturning Roe; by 2006, he was saying that its demise “wouldn’t bother me any”; by 2008, he no longer supported adding rape and incest as exceptions to his party’s platform opposing abortion.

But scrapping Roe—which, after all, would leave states as free to permit abortion as to criminalize it—would be just the beginning. Given the ideological agenda that the existing conservative bloc has pursued, it’s safe to predict that affirmative action of all kinds would likely be outlawed by a McCain Court. Efforts to expand executive power, which, in recent years, certain Justices have nobly tried to resist, would likely increase. Barriers between church and state would fall; executions would soar; legal checks on corporate power would wither—all with just one new conservative nominee on the Court. And the next President is likely to make three appointments.

Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, voted against confirming not only Roberts and Alito but also several unqualified lower-court nominees. As an Illinois state senator, he won the support of prosecutors and police organizations for new protections against convicting the innocent in capital cases. While McCain voted to continue to deny habeas-corpus rights to detainees, perpetuating the Bush Administration’s regime of state-sponsored extra-legal detention, Obama took the opposite side, pushing to restore the right of all U.S.-held prisoners to a hearing. The judicial future would be safe in his care.

In the shorthand of political commentary, the Iraq war seems to leave McCain and Obama roughly even. Opposing it before the invasion, Obama had the prescience to warn of a costly and indefinite occupation and rising anti-American radicalism around the world; supporting it, McCain foresaw none of this. More recently, in early 2007 McCain risked his Presidential prospects on the proposition that five additional combat brigades could salvage a war that by then appeared hopeless. Obama, along with most of the country, had decided that it was time to cut American losses. Neither candidate’s calculations on Iraq have been as cheaply political as McCain’s repeated assertion that Obama values his career over his country; both men based their positions, right or wrong, on judgment and principle.

President Bush’s successor will inherit two wars and the realities of limited resources, flagging popular will, and the dwindling possibilities of what can be achieved by American power. McCain’s views on these subjects range from the simplistic to the unknown. In Iraq, he seeks “victory”—a word that General David Petraeus refuses to use, and one that fundamentally misrepresents the messy, open-ended nature of the conflict. As for Afghanistan, on the rare occasions when McCain mentions it he implies that the surge can be transferred directly from Iraq, which suggests that his grasp of counterinsurgency is not as firm as he insisted it was during the first Presidential debate. McCain always displays more faith in force than interest in its strategic consequences. Unlike Obama, McCain has no political strategy for either war, only the dubious hope that greater security will allow things to work out. Obama has long warned of deterioration along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and has a considered grasp of its vital importance. His strategy for both Afghanistan and Iraq shows an understanding of the role that internal politics, economics, corruption, and regional diplomacy play in wars where there is no battlefield victory.

Unimaginably painful personal experience taught McCain that war is above all a test of honor: maintain the will to fight on, be prepared to risk everything, and you will prevail. Asked during the first debate to outline “the lessons of Iraq,” McCain said, “I think the lessons of Iraq are very clear: that you cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict.” A soldier’s answer––but a statesman must have a broader view of war and peace. The years ahead will demand not only determination but also diplomacy, flexibility, patience, judiciousness, and intellectual engagement. These are no more McCain’s strong suit than the current President’s. Obama, for his part, seems to know that more will be required than willpower and force to extract some advantage from the wreckage of the Bush years.

Obama is also better suited for the task of renewing the bedrock foundations of American influence. An American restoration in foreign affairs will require a commitment not only to international coöperation but also to international institutions that can address global warming, the dislocations of what will likely be a deepening global economic crisis, disease epidemics, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and other, more traditional security challenges. Many of the Cold War-era vehicles for engagement and negotiation—the United Nations, the World Bank, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization—are moribund, tattered, or outdated. Obama has the generational outlook that will be required to revive or reinvent these compacts. He would be the first postwar American President unencumbered by the legacies of either Munich or Vietnam.

The next President must also restore American moral credibility. Closing Guantánamo, banning all torture, and ending the Iraq war as responsibly as possible will provide a start, but only that. The modern Presidency is as much a vehicle for communication as for decision-making, and the relevant audiences are global. Obama has inspired many Americans in part because he holds up a mirror to their own idealism. His election would do no less—and likely more—overseas.

What most distinguishes the candidates, however, is character—and here, contrary to conventional wisdom, Obama is clearly the stronger of the two. Not long ago, Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager, said, “This election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.” The view that this election is about personalities leaves out policy, complexity, and accountability. Even so, there’s some truth in what Davis said––but it hardly points to the conclusion that he intended.

Echoing Obama, McCain has made “change” one of his campaign mantras. But the change he has actually provided has been in himself, and it is not just a matter of altering his positions. A willingness to pander and even lie has come to define his Presidential campaign and its televised advertisements. A contemptuous duplicity, a meanness, has entered his talk on the stump—so much so that it seems obvious that, in the drive for victory, he is willing to replicate some of the same underhanded methods that defeated him eight years ago in South Carolina.

Perhaps nothing revealed McCain’s cynicism more than his choice of Sarah Palin, the former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, who had been governor of that state for twenty-one months, as the Republican nominee for Vice-President. In the interviews she has given since her nomination, she has had difficulty uttering coherent unscripted responses about the most basic issues of the day. We are watching a candidate for Vice-President cram for her ongoing exam in elementary domestic and foreign policy. This is funny as a Tina Fey routine on “Saturday Night Live,” but as a vision of the political future it’s deeply unsettling. Palin has no business being the backup to a President of any age, much less to one who is seventy-two and in imperfect health. In choosing her, McCain committed an act of breathtaking heedlessness and irresponsibility. Obama’s choice, Joe Biden, is not without imperfections. His tongue sometimes runs in advance of his mind, providing his own fodder for late-night comedians, but there is no comparison with Palin. His deep experience in foreign affairs, the judiciary, and social policy makes him an assuring and complementary partner for Obama.

The longer the campaign goes on, the more the issues of personality and character have reflected badly on McCain. Unless appearances are very deceiving, he is impulsive, impatient, self-dramatizing, erratic, and a compulsive risk-taker. These qualities may have contributed to his usefulness as a “maverick” senator. But in a President they would be a menace.

By contrast, Obama’s transformative message is accompanied by a sense of pragmatic calm. A tropism for unity is an essential part of his character and of his campaign. It is part of what allowed him to overcome a Democratic opponent who entered the race with tremendous advantages. It is what helped him forge a political career relying both on the liberals of Hyde Park and on the political regulars of downtown Chicago. His policy preferences are distinctly liberal, but he is determined to speak to a broad range of Americans who do not necessarily share his every value or opinion. For some who oppose him, his equanimity even under the ugliest attack seems like hauteur; for some who support him, his reluctance to counterattack in the same vein seems like self-defeating detachment. Yet it is Obama’s temperament—and not McCain’s—that seems appropriate for the office both men seek and for the volatile and dangerous era in which we live. Those who dismiss his centeredness as self-centeredness or his composure as indifference are as wrong as those who mistook Eisenhower’s stolidity for denseness or Lincoln’s humor for lack of seriousness.

Nowadays, almost every politician who thinks about running for President arranges to become an author. Obama’s books are different: he wrote them. “The Audacity of Hope” (2006) is a set of policy disquisitions loosely structured around an account of his freshman year in the United States Senate. Though a campaign manifesto of sorts, it is superior to that genre’s usual blowsy pastiche of ghostwritten speeches. But it is Obama’s first book, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance” (1995), that offers an unprecedented glimpse into the mind and heart of a potential President. Obama began writing it in his early thirties, before he was a candidate for anything. Not since Theodore Roosevelt has an American politician this close to the pinnacle of power produced such a sustained, highly personal work of literary merit before being definitively swept up by the tides of political ambition.

A Presidential election is not the awarding of a Pulitzer Prize: we elect a politician and, we hope, a statesman, not an author. But Obama’s first book is valuable in the way that it reveals his fundamental attitudes of mind and spirit. “Dreams from My Father” is an illuminating memoir not only in the substance of Obama’s own peculiarly American story but also in the qualities he brings to the telling: a formidable intelligence, emotional empathy, self-reflection, balance, and a remarkable ability to see life and the world through the eyes of people very different from himself. In common with nearly all other senators and governors of his generation, Obama does not count military service as part of his biography. But his life has been full of tests—personal, spiritual, racial, political—that bear on his preparation for great responsibility.

It is perfectly legitimate to call attention, as McCain has done, to Obama’s lack of conventional national and international policymaking experience. We, too, wish he had more of it. But office-holding is not the only kind of experience relevant to the task of leading a wildly variegated nation. Obama’s immersion in diverse human environments (Hawaii’s racial rainbow, Chicago’s racial cauldron, countercultural New York, middle-class Kansas, predominantly Muslim Indonesia), his years of organizing among the poor, his taste of corporate law and his grounding in public-interest and constitutional law—these, too, are experiences. And his books show that he has wrung from them every drop of insight and breadth of perspective they contained.

The exhaustingly, sometimes infuriatingly long campaign of 2008 (and 2007) has had at least one virtue: it has demonstrated that Obama’s intelligence and steady temperament are not just figments of the writer’s craft. He has made mistakes, to be sure. (His failure to accept McCain’s imaginative proposal for a series of unmediated joint appearances was among them.) But, on the whole, his campaign has been marked by patience, planning, discipline, organization, technological proficiency, and strategic astuteness. Obama has often looked two or three moves ahead, relatively impervious to the permanent hysteria of the hourly news cycle and the cable-news shouters. And when crisis has struck, as it did when the divisive antics of his ex-pastor threatened to bring down his campaign, he has proved equal to the moment, rescuing himself with a speech that not only drew the poison but also demonstrated a profound respect for the electorate. Although his opponents have tried to attack him as a man of “mere” words, Obama has returned eloquence to its essential place in American politics. The choice between experience and eloquence is a false one––something that Lincoln, out of office after a single term in Congress, proved in his own campaign of political and national renewal. Obama’s “mere” speeches on everything from the economy and foreign affairs to race have been at the center of his campaign and its success; if he wins, his eloquence will be central to his ability to govern.

We cannot expect one man to heal every wound, to solve every major crisis of policy. So much of the Presidency, as they say, is a matter of waking up in the morning and trying to drink from a fire hydrant. In the quiet of the Oval Office, the noise of immediate demands can be deafening. And yet Obama has precisely the temperament to shut out the noise when necessary and concentrate on the essential. The election of Obama—a man of mixed ethnicity, at once comfortable in the world and utterly representative of twenty-first-century America—would, at a stroke, reverse our country’s image abroad and refresh its spirit at home. His ascendance to the Presidency would be a symbolic culmination of the civil- and voting-rights acts of the nineteen-sixties and the century-long struggles for equality that preceded them. It could not help but say something encouraging, even exhilarating, about the country, about its dedication to tolerance and inclusiveness, about its fidelity, after all, to the values it proclaims in its textbooks. At a moment of economic calamity, international perplexity, political failure, and battered morale, America needs both uplift and realism, both change and steadiness. It needs a leader temperamentally, intellectually, and emotionally attuned to the complexities of our troubled globe. That leader’s name is Barack Obama.

I Miss John McCain

2008-09-30T13:44:00.000-07:00

I miss John McCain, the guy who stood on his own in opposition to anyone he perceived was heading in the wrong direction. Whether against Democrat, Independent, or his own Republican party, he seemed to present as a man of principle. Even while I frequently disagreed with him, I could generally muster up a grudging respect.

No more. I don’t even recognize this entity currently identifying himself as John McCain. He seems to have abandoned everything in his quest to become President of the United States. I am aghast to see that after being a victim of Karl Rove’s hateful tactics in 2000, he now so willingly uses them against his own opponent. I cringe when I hear the word “maverick,” once a title of honor but now an empty claim from the past. How is it that he now so readily condemns the current administration, after voting with President Bush more than 90% of the time?

The old McCain may well have taken his current economic stance, asking for more regulation and oversight of Wall Street, but he would have been honest enough to admit his own errors. He practically personified deregulation and trust in the economy’s ability to prosper if “the market” were simply allowed to work its magic. Just trust a free market to take care of everything. It was only days ago that he assured us our economy was basically sound. Now he has joined the urgent call from the Bush administration that something must be done yesterday.

Did he learn anything from the savings and loan debacle of 1989? Can we truly expect any kind of diligent oversight while the fox is minding the henhouse? Certainly, we can blame the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street for our current financial straits, but what about those in charge who allowed it to happen? Both Bush and McCain have been the poster boys for deregulation and “the market rules” for years. Yet neither appears willing to accept any responsibility for the current situation.

So I must reluctantly toss my former respect for John McCain into the file 13 reserved for disappointing and untrustworthy politicians. I will be voting for Barack Obama, a thoughtful man of honor I can believe will truly work on behalf of the best for all Americans.

Suzanne Kemerly

Sent to Herald by Leone Wilkerson

2008-09-28T18:46:00.000-07:00

Lest we forget ,John McCain was deeply involved in a financial crisis and scandals which cost many Americans their life savings, homes and pensions. The Keating Five, John McCain and Senator Glenn were censored by the Senate. Now he is in Washington involved in the current situation involving our financial systems. Is he helping those same people he helped in the past? Perhaps we should take the words of Maya Angelou to heart” When people show you who they are believe them”.

Wall Street Bailout: A Local Perspective

2008-09-28T09:57:00.001-07:00

Submitted to Herald by Suzanne Kemerly

By now we should all have heard the pros and cons of the Bush administration’s proposed $700 billion Wall Street plan. How will it affect us here in Cochise County? No one appears to have a clue.

The same folks who assured us days ago that all was well are now pushing for an immediate response with few, if any, safeguards in place. It was no big deal before, but now it must happen by the end of the week. They admit they don’t know that throwing a huge amount of money at Wall Street will even work, but are certain any alternative would be worse.

I’m no economist, but like many, I find rewarding greed and failure unappealing, if not unethical. Months ago when a homeowner mortgage bailout was suggested, Senator McCain expressed opposition to rewarding people for their own poor choices. Yes, this is different, because it would be done on a massive scale. Rather than assisting individual homeowners who took the opportunity to purchase a single home while perhaps not recognizing possible pitfalls, we would be aiding huge corporations that have paid CEOs exorbitant salaries and apparently made greed their credo. In fact, the FBI has begun an investigation into possible fraud within some companies that have already received federal “rescue” funds.

The very people who got us into this mess are those we propose to pay to get us out of it. This is the opposite of even the simplest form of fiscal responsibility, e.g., “you broke the window so now you must pay to replace it.” The companies creating this debacle should be punished, not rewarded. If they receive taxpayer funds, they must return control, shares, or other collateral to ensure that we can regain at least some portion of our investment.

While I recognize that something must be done, I am not willing to entrust the financial future of my country to a few “experts” who promise to figure it all out eventually. They’re the same folks who kept insisting there was no real problem, that the market would correct itself. I can’t imagine any individual or group that I would trust to administer and disburse $700 billion without specific rules, guidelines, and oversight from an appropriately diverse group – members of Congress, a special commission including economists, or another entity authorized by Congress. Guarantees must be in place to directly assist individual taxpayers, not simple trust that the benefits will somehow “trickle down.”

Yes, once again we face the old “trickle down” economic theory. These companies must be kept in business so they can continue to borrow and lend money, and therefore we must pay for it. Exactly how is this supposed to assist the individual homeowner facing foreclosure or the millions of us having difficulty paying bills and keeping our heads above water? We taxpayers seem to be less than an afterthought to many of the “powers that be” in this situation.

Published in Herald on Sept. 27, 2008

2008-09-24T18:20:00.002-07:00

John McCain must think we are all really stupid! He wants to postpone the debate and suspend campaigning so that he can rush off to Washington to solve the financial crisis. Really? This from the man who couldn’t make up his mind whether our economy was strong one day and headed for another great depression the next day. (Don’t forget his commercials blaming Barack Obama for the crisis)

This morning the Obama campaign contacted his campaign suggesting that they send a joint, bipartisan message out concerning the crises. Six hours later, McCain was wanting to rush off to Washington, and cancel everything.

What is his real reason for wanting to cancel? Because his nasty commercials and the rest of his campaign plans are not working? Or does he need time out to regroup? Or maybe, McCain has no idea what to do about this financial mess, and is panicking because Obama is now ahead and seen as the candidate the American people see as most competent on the economy. Or is it that he not ready to debate, and just needs some time to change his campaign tactics. Too late, John. We will be voting on November 4, 39 days from now.

Senator McCain, this is the real world. We the people are looking for real leadership, not cheap political stunts, especially when they involve really critical problems.

Ellen Rowan Taylor

We can't Afford McCain

2008-09-21T12:01:00.001-07:00

America is going through the worst financial crisis in modern times. Runaway greed, deregulation of financial institutions, and egregious mismanagement of the housing market have given us a skyrocketing number of home foreclosures and a financial meltdown that is going to cost taxpayers at least a trillion dollars. Talk about tax increases!

Now, John McCain, the one who helped create the conditions that led to this disaster, tells us we should elect him to fix it.

For 26 years, McCain supported the deregulation of the financial sector that allowed these abuses to occur. The day the stock market plunged 504 points he told us the fundamentals of the economy were strong. He has said he doesn’t know much about the economy. One can hardly imagine a presidential candidate less prepared to solve the mess we are in. America simply cannot afford to elect this man.

On Your Mind

2008-09-18T21:46:00.002-07:00

Let’s ignore the petty distractions. Who actually cares about the lipstick? The real issues revolve around the economy, and the war in Iraq where we are still spending 10 billion dollars every month. The recent financial disasters and the stunning drop in the stock market are not just a string of bad luck. They are the result of years of bad decisions made in favor of big corporate special interests . We have to end that brand of governance!

Published in OYM Sept. 26

McCain Campaign Tactics

2008-09-11T13:42:00.005-07:00

sent to Herald by Karen Beckers September 11, 2007

While in the Illinois state legislature, Senator Obama supported a bill - along with a coalition of education and public health organizations, including the Illinois Parent Teacher Association, the Illinois State Medical Society, the Illinois Public Health Association and the Illinois Education Association - that called for "age and developmentally appropriate" eduction about sex and allowed parents to withdraw their children with no questions asked. This bill would have allowed Kindergarten teachers to teach their wards about inappropriate touching, and what to do if a stranger touched them. In other words, to combat sexual molestation of children.

John McCain approved an ad which perversely distorted this widely supported program as "learning about sex before learning to read." This ad has been widely and universally denounced as repulsive and a blatant lie. Incredibly, still the McCain campaign soldiers on by claiming that the Obama campaign "did not and cannot dispute a shred of the content in the ad." It is inconceivable how this campaign can repeat lie after lie even after exposure to the light of truth; if they just keep saying it and denying it, it will be okay. Shame on us if we reward such ignorance and manipulative behavior with the greatest prize there is.

To The Editor

2008-09-11T07:41:00.001-07:00

The theme of the Republican convention echoed Pogo’s statement, “We have met the enemy and he is us”. Never has so much energy been expended to distance a political party from itself. Or at least to give lip-service to doing so. It makes sense for Obama to demand change, but for McCain to call for change is a clear indictment of his party. A sitting president did not appear at the convention of his own party! Just think what this means. Because our president is so terribly unpopular, McCain could not risk having Bush appear.

Why should Americans believe that McCain would be any different as president than Bush has been? Nothing! McCain has, in all but about 1 out of 10 cases, voted the party position. Additionally, McCain voted against SCHIP (a crucial children's health care proposal), didn't vote on immigration legislation and didn't vote on benchmarks and timetable on Iraq. He only cast any vote at all about a third of the time. He didn't care enough to be there. McCain is saying and doing anything that he thinks will help get him elected, regardless of the truth or the prudence of the position. The fact is, McCain is Bush. Pogo was right.

McPain Care

2008-09-11T07:40:00.000-07:00

Republican presidential nominee John McCain proposes ending tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance and replacing them with a refundable tax credit of $2,500 per person, or $5,000 per family.

Those credits don’t come close to covering the average cost of health care.

In 2007, the annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged $12,100 while single coverage averaged over $4,400.

Those costs have increased to $13,400 and $4,800 this year. So if McCain wins the election and gets his way, employees will be forced to pay an additional $2,300 per year for single coverage and a whopping $8,300 for family protection … after using the proposed tax credit.

McCain promises to put country first. His health care plan puts its working families last.

Being wrong isn't the experience we need

2008-09-05T09:43:00.001-07:00

Published on Friday, September 05, 2008

To the Editor:Experience in being wrong is not the kind of experience we need in Washington. Our deficits are higher than ever, and our reputation overseas is at rock bottom. We have lost our way when we torture and imprison without trial and when we have given up our constitutional liberties in order for some to have the illusion of feeling safer.

We don’t so much need a new way but a return to our old way. We need to remember who we are: a country proud of our values, proud that we take care of the sick and infirm among us, proud that we educate our young and offer real opportunities for our working people.Twenty years of reducing taxes on the wealthy, and of giving our corporations what amounts to welfare, has not benefited the working people. We are further behind today than we were 28 years ago when Reagan began this great experiment. It has not worked. I’m voting Democratic.

Bobbie Toliver
Sierra Vista

Sierra Vista Herald 8/31

2008-08-31T08:54:00.001-07:00

John McCain tells us that we can’t trust Barack Obama because he wants to end a war that we had no business starting, just because he wants to be president.

On the other hand, why in the world would we want to trust John McCain who apparently wants to keep us at war so he can be president?

There is not a bit of daylight between George Bush and John McCain as far as what they are doing or will do. Our diplomacy now seems to based on a “shoot first”, talk later, take over any country that has something we want, mostly oil, and ignore poor countries, where there is genocide, or ethnic cleansing, and any other country that will not enrich us in some way. Will John McCain change anything? Not likely

This country is in big trouble economically. George Bush/John McCain’s solution is to lower the taxes on big corporations and rich folks. They seem to be telling the rest of us, who are struggling to make ends meet, to quit whining, that things will be better once the rich folks start spending that money that they saved because of the tax breaks they get.

Where are the better jobs out there, that could save us all from foreclosure and bankruptcy and provide healthcare? Oh yes, they have all gone to India and China and any place else where sweat shops and slave wages are ok. They have done nothing about healthcare, and don’t plan to do anything, because I guess only rich people deserve good healthcare.

I am a mother and a grandmother. I am worried, I want my children and grandchildren to have at least what I have had if not better. I want them to have cleaner air and water. I want them to know where there next meal is coming from. I don’t want them to face bankruptcy if they have a serious illness.

If we continue with the failed policies of the last eight years, my family has no chance to enjoy a comfortable life and a comfortable old age. In fact a vote for John McCain probably puts my old age in jeopardy.

Ellen Rowan Taylor

2008-08-27T20:17:00.000-07:00

Neil Barrett’s bashing of Bob Bland’s Point-Counterpoint stunned me. What blind venom bled through Barrett’s remarks! Bland’s reflection of what Obama must and will do to get this country back on track was clear and inspirational. We should all be thankful to have Obama in line for the presidency. His world view is intelligent and will put the U.S. back into the leadership role it should have, not the bully role it has had.

Karen Beckers
803-7506

Sent To OYM 8/4/08

2008-08-05T07:19:00.004-07:00

John McCain’s rhetoric and actions seem to be in direct opposition to each other. He assails the democrats for allowing congress to go on vacation, but has the highest absentee record in the senate.

He promises a positive, respectable campaign, but FactCheck.org has cited 13 of his ads for false or misleading information.

He proclaims to support veterans, but doesn’t vote for the new G.I Bill, has a D rating from the Iraq/Afghan Vets Association, and gets only 20% support from the DAV.

There are a number of possible explanations for all of this. He might be mentally impaired and can’t remember what he has done or said. He may have mistaken running for president with running for hypocrite of the year. In either case, the only way to know what McCain really stands for is to reverse what he says he stands for.

Published on Wednesday, July 30, 2008

2008-07-30T17:19:00.001-07:00

To the Editor:

There are so many inaccuracies, fallacies and untruths in a July 1 letter on the Herald/Review editorial page (“Obama is a lot of things that JFK was not”) that it is difficult to know where to begin.

This country is facing real problems. There are real differences between the candidates who will be on the presidential ballot. These are the things we should be discussing.Instead, the author of “Obama is a lot of things that JFK was not” tosses out one blatant and malicious lie after another. Obama has not tried “to appease or … curry favor from a bunch of religious fanatics who have sworn to destroy us.” He has not vowed to change any of us. He has not kowtowed to Europe.

To distort a comment made by the nominee’s wife into a statement that the candidate does not even like this country is offensive. There are a lot of descriptive words for the statements in Kurt Obermeier’s letter. The simplest one is “lies.”

Great letter from Fred, bartender at Cafe Roka (not an LLL)

2008-07-28T12:37:00.001-07:00

Published on Monday, July 28, 2008

To the Editor:

The Invisible Mr. Bee.
President Bush came to Tucson and raised $600,000 for Tim Bee, but Mr. Bee refused to be seen in public with him. Karl Rove came to Tucson and Mr. Bee was not seen in public with him.Shortly thereafter, Bee proposes a Rove speciality, an anti-gay marriage initiative for Arizona. Then he opposes the groups that support the initiative. Then he casts the deciding vote for it in the Legislature, thereby losing his honorary campaign chairman, the respected Jim Kolbe. Then Mr. Bee refuses to say how he will vote in the booth on the initiative that he wanted on the ballot.As Senate president, he disappeared during crucial state budget discussions in order to further his own congressional campaign with the honchos in Washington, D.C. Are those unseen people in D.C. now running his campaign?The invisible Tim Bee, profile in courage.I like Gabrielle Giffords. She is a straight talker who has done productive work for our district improving lives. She’s not invisible, either.

Fred Miller
Bisbee

Carol Hanrahan, SV Herald

2008-07-28T12:32:00.000-07:00

We should applaud Bush, McCain for hearing Obama
Published on Sunday, July 27, 2008

To the Editor:
Both President Bush and candidate John McCain deserve thanks and appreciation for acting on three Obama proposals.
The president’s decision to send someone to the Iranian nuclear talks is certainly a step in the right direction.Recognizing the importance of the war in Afghanistan gets us closer to again fighting the war on terror rather than this war of distraction.Finally, considering timelines for withdrawing troops for Iraq is the only logical way to get us out of this bottomless quagmire.It took some courage for these gentlemen to embrace Senator Obama’s positions on these issues, and they should be applauded.
Carol Hanrahan
Sierra Vista

From Bob Bland - SV Herald

2008-07-28T12:29:00.001-07:00

Letter reminds that time for change is now
Published on Saturday, July 26, 2008

To the Editor:It is rather unusual for an official to support a suit filed against his own agency, but that was the case with Mike Gleason’s letter to the Herald/Review today. In essence, he is arguing, along with the Goldwater Institute, that the agency that regulates energy policy in Arizona, the Corporation Commission, does not have the authority to do that regulation.

Democratic candidates for the ACC dispute this view.Bisbee’s Paul Newman says, “I totally disagree with the Goldwater Institute’s position that it’s unconstitutional. I do believe that there needs to be that incentive to make the public utility companies implement the beginning of Arizona becoming a net export solar state.”And Flagstaff’s Kara Kelty says “the problem with allowing clean energy to be determined by the free market is that we don’t put a price tag on tangibles like clean air or clean water; there’s no cost that’s figured in for how many air pollution days there are in Phoenix.”Their views are bolstered by that of Sandra Kennedy, who says “I don’t believe that the providers would actually [move to renewables] on their own. I think cases have proven that if they wanted to do it, they could have done it long before now. So I’m absolutely for government intervention, with setting rules, because, sadly, it had to be done that way.”We here in Arizona are blessed with the potential for generating so much solar energy that we could declare independence from OPEC forever. Mike Gleason and the Bush-Cheney administration want our state and nation to continue our subservience to big oil and their Saudi friends. The time for change has come.Bob BlandChair, Cochise County Democratic Party

2008-07-24T11:26:00.000-07:00

Sent to On Your Mind 7-24-08

What on Earth was Tim Bee thinking of – identifying one of his children as an adopted foster child? Anyone with an ounce of sensitivity knows that an adopted child is as much a part of the family as any other child. Why single him/her out?
What a cheap and inappropriate campaign ploy. I suspect it backfired in a big way.

submitted by Karen Beckers

Bush v Constitution --- Sent to Herald 8/21/2008

2008-07-21T14:03:00.001-07:00

Secretly spying on Americans, suspending habeas corpus, monitoring library records, and breaking treaties without consent of congress are not measures designed to keep us safe; they are egregious attacks on our laws and our rights.

When one brave aide told President Bush his demands for these things undermined the Constitution of the United States, his response, verified by three West Wing sources, was, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

What is just a “goddamned piece of paper” to George Bush is the defining document of our democracy to other Americans. It is so revered that we insist all presidents solemnly swear to uphold it when they assume office. Past presidents have taken that oath seriously.

George Bush twice repeated those words: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

No qualifiers. No demeaning references.

Of all the disasters this administration has given us - Iraq, the economy, Katrina, tainted food, lead-laced toys, record deficits, rampant cronyism, $4 a gallon gasoline, the outing of a CIA agent, Abu Grab indecencies, and too many others to cite here - Bush’s total disdain for our Constitution, the fact that he willfully ignores it, and his cavalier and defiling references to it are the most offensive.

Obama's Positions Being Adopted By GOP - Carol Hanrahan - Printed July 27, 2008

2008-07-20T16:09:00.002-07:00

Both President Bush and candidate John McCain deserve thanks and appreciation for acting on three Obama proposals.

The president’s decision to send someone to the Iranian nuclear talks is certainly a step in the right direction.

Recognizing the importance of the war in Afghanistan gets us closer to again fighting the war on terror rather than the war of distraction.

Finally, considering timelines for withdrawing troops from Iraq is the only logical way to get us out of this bottomless quagmire.

It took some courage for these gentlemen to embrace Senator Obama’s positions on these issues and they should be applauded.

Response to President’s charge that dems are to blame for high gas prices

2008-07-20T15:31:00.001-07:00

Bush consistently opposed putting pressure on Detroit to improve mileage standards, he did nothing to encourage conservation, and he neutered the Environmental Protection Agency. Worst of all, he failed to broker passage of legislation that could actually impact America’s energy profile right now and create good tech jobs to boot.

The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 (H.R. 6049) would have provided eight years for investment tax credit for installing solar energy, one year production tax credit for producing wind power, and three years of credits for geothermal, wave energy and other renewables.

Wind and solar power are here, they work, and they can go on your roof tomorrow. Their currently high price reflects a lack of competition and the refusal of this government to provide incentives to install them. The more these technologies move down the learning curve, the cheaper they become and the more able they are to compete directly with coal, oil and nuclear.

That seems to be exactly what the Republican Party is trying to block, since the Senate Republicans, with the help of John McCain, have now managed to defeat the renewal of these tax credits six different times.

The GOP Is AWOL

2008-07-20T15:23:00.004-07:00

When it comes to actually fighting terrorism, the GOP is AWOL. Almost seven years after 9/11, this country is startlingly vulnerable to another major attack.

Currently, less than 5 percent of the cargo that enters the U.S. is physically inspected. A few years ago, two teams of government investigators, using fake documents, were able to enter the country with enough radioactive sources to make two dirty bombs.

The nation's hazardous chemical plants remain unsecured, despite the fact that a terror attack on these facilities could lead to tens of thousands of deaths. The vast majority of airliner passengers' carry-on bags are still not being screened for explosives. Air marshals remain absent from the majority of flights.

Iraq has been a titanic catastrophe that has seriously distracted America during a crucial time and has degraded our ability to fight an effective war on terrorism. Despite this, the GOP is brazenly working to transform the Iraq fiasco into a positive asset for the upcoming elections. Thinking Americans will not let them get away with it.

McCain Calls For Leash Laws While Releasing Hounds

2008-07-20T15:23:00.002-07:00

McCain says he will conduct his campaign “in an honorable fashion.” He doesn’t say he has hired the producers of the infamous swift boat attacks. He doesn’t reel in his attack dogs when they accused Obama of being weak on terror, say an attack on the United States would be good for McCain, play the race card, or proclaim Hamas endorses Obama.

These are tactics the GOP dirt digger army has used before. Their weapons of choice are rumor, innuendo and flat-out lies. They fill our inboxes with venomous fabrications about Obama’s religion, schooling and patriotism.

If McCain wants to run an honorable campaign he should muzzle his dogs and denounce their statements. He should fire his swift boat crew. He should help revive the Fairness Doctrine, the abolishment of which (by Ronald Reagan) gave a free pass to those who delight in throwing partisan slime at the American public.

Surge Response

2008-07-18T18:14:00.001-07:00

The OYM contributor who thinks the Iraq surge is a “stunning success with a promising resurgence of stability in Iraq” should open both eyes and mind. While it has reduced violence, it may have made a viable Iraq state less likely by stoking the fantasies of Sunni tribes and pitting them against the central government.

The surge has done nothing to foster political reconciliation. Because its primary focus has been Baghdad and the surrounding areas, there are unintended results that the contributor does not wish to mention: the more remote parts of Iraq -- including some that had been secure -- have become more violent as insurgents are driven from the capital.

The recent short-term gains are unquestionably there in Baghdad and surrounds. The problem is that they have come at the expense of the long-term goal of a stable, unitary Iraq.

Printed In Tucson Citizen

2008-07-18T18:12:00.002-07:00

We now have proof that George W. Bush took this nation to war based on at least one lie and mountains of cherry-picked and manipulated facts. He managed to turn a balanced budget into the most massive deficit in our history and transform faith in government into suspicion. His policies and actions fostered corporate greed on such a scale that we have grown immune to Enron tragedies, housing market meltdowns, and Haliburton/KBR no-bid contracts that electrocute our troops and the squander our treasury.

George Bush vacationed for 280 days, ignored warnings of an impending El Queida disaster, and sat immobilized in an elementary school when that disaster happened. His administration failed to function when we needed it to save a major city from hurricane Katrina. It continues to be incapable of stemming an unprecedented loss of American jobs. It will not take the steps needed to stop the decline of our dollar and cannot restore our reputation in the world community. Our president has willfully suspended the Geneva Convention, terminated treaties, restricted the rights of American citizens and ignored legislation he does not like. For these things he should be impeached.

George W. Bush will escape that impeachment but the American people cannot escape the effects of his bungling and arrogance. His legacy is one of being incapable of running the country but masterful at imposing his will and personal agenda on it. We need to rebuild this great nation and he needs to atone for harming it so deeply.

Maverick Or Mirror Image

2008-07-18T18:12:00.001-07:00

John McCain says he is a maverick, not a Bush look-alike. But on issue after issue it is hard to tell the two apart.

McCain agrees with the Bush approach to the economy, health care, and the war in Iraq. They are allied on Iran and North Korea. The positions of both men on abortion and the type of judges that should be appointed are virtually identical.

Both believe warrantless wiretaps, monitoring Americans’ international phone calls, and reading their e-mail is just fine.

Both support repealing Roe v. Wade. Both want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

McCain has missed 373 votes (62%) during the current congress, but when he did vote, he was lock-step with Bush and the republicans more than 88 percent of the time.

His words say a maverick. His actions say mimic.

Karen Beckers Gun Control Letter - Published on Wednesday, July 02, 2008

2008-07-18T18:11:00.001-07:00

Americans have the right to bear arms, even though I don’t think our founding fathers exactly had in mind what gun ownership has become. My friend’s nine year old grandson was accidentally shot to death by his best friend. Had there been no gun in the home, Mark would still be alive. No gun, no death. There are all kinds of controls – like keeping the bullets and gun locked up in different places, gun locks, guns hidden behind the paint cans – I don’t care. This is something we can prevent. I don’t want any more kids to die accidental deaths by guns. But they will, because there are lots of guns in lots of homes for no good reason at all.

Ellen Taylor Letter

2008-07-18T18:09:00.000-07:00

Why does the Sierra Vista Herald continue to publish the “On Your Mind” column?

Who is responsible for the libelous, scurrilous, inaccurate and just plain mean comments?

Certainly not the anonymous writers.Is the Herald/Review responsible for vetting the comments before they are published?

I have noticed, that when some writer complains about a local business, the name of the business is removed. Politicians, though, are fair game, apparently, and truth is not important.

It’s easy to understand why people feel free to use this format. They don’t have to take any responsibility for what they say. What they say does not have to be accurate. It allows them the freedom to libel anyone without having to justify what they say.

Lately, there have been a few more left leaning comments, signed and published on the editorial side of the paper. Where are the responses? In “On Your Mind,” of course. Why is that? Is it because they can’t really argue with the original letter writer or justify their own comments?

Or is it because it takes more courage to sign your name to what you write?

I hope the Herald/Review will take a long look at the “On Your Mind” column. Let people who feel the need to comment anonymously start their own blogs somewhere else.

“The Pillars Of Good Journalism: Thoroughness, Accuracy, Fairness and Transparency”

OYM Comment

2008-07-18T18:08:00.001-07:00

As President George Bush left his last G8 summit, he flaunted his refusal to accept global climate change targets with the words, "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."

You have to hand it to our president. We have had eight years to grow accustomed to his boorish behavior, bad policy making, and inept management. Still, he is still able to shock us by dumping yet another mess of his political manure on a watching world.

Rebuttal to Sen. Kyl - Mountain View News 07/24/08

2008-07-18T18:05:00.001-07:00

In the June 19th issue of this paper, Senator Kyl stated that claims of distorted facts to initiate the Iraq war are “charges (that) have no empirical support.”

If the Senator believes this, he has ignored government investigations, congressional committee reports, sworn testimony of administration officials, and first-hand evidence gathered in Iraq. The complete list of false administration pronouncements used in the lead-up to the war is massive. Here are a few, all of which have been proven to be absolute lies:

· Iraq was responsible for the 11 September attacks
· Iraq and al-Qa'ida were working together
· Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a "reconstituted" nuclear weapons program
· Iraq was trying to import aluminum tubes to develop nuclear weapons
· Iraq still had vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons from the first Gulf War
· Iraq retained up to 20 missiles which could carry chemical or biological warheads, with a range which would threaten British forces in Cyprus
· U.S. claims about Iraq weapons were supported by the inspectors
· Previous weapons inspections had failed
· Iraq was obstructing the inspectors
· Iraq could deploy its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes

Those who tried to warn the administration about the folly of an Iraq invasion received harsh treatment. When General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career came to an end. When then OMB Director Larry Lindsay suggested the cost of this war would approach $200 billion, his career in the Administration came to an end.

When U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix challenged conclusions about Saddam’s WMD capabilities, the Administration pulled out his inspectors. When IAEA head Mohammed el-Baridei raised questions about the Administration’s claims of Saddam’s nuclear capabilities, the Administration attempted to remove him from his post.

When Joe Wilson stated that there was no attempt by Saddam to acquire uranium from Niger, the Administration launched a vicious campaign to demean and discredit him, and revealed the identity of his wife, a CIA agent.

It is difficult to believe Senator Kyl does not know these things. It is more likely that he thinks his constituents are so uninformed and gullible that they will believe his falsehoods. This one does not.

Foreign policy? John McCain must have been absent that day.

2008-07-18T13:07:00.000-07:00

The presumptive Republican nominee for president tells us that foreign policy is his strong suit.

This from a man who has advocated setting up a missile defense system in Czechoslovakia, a country that no longer exists.

This from a man who repeatedly claims that Iran has trained and supplied al-Qaida in Iraq even though it is the Shiite faction Iran has aided, not the largely Sunni al-Qaida.

This from a man who confuses Somalia with Sudan and then says, “Sudan. Somalia. I don’t know the difference and I don’t care …”

Still, John McCain says his greatest qualification for the presidency is his understanding of foreign policy. Worst of all, he is probably correct.

Karen Beckers" Letter July 8, 2008

2008-07-18T13:06:00.000-07:00

How much do we know about the presumptive presidential candidates?

John McCain has been in the Senate for close to two decades. We know quite a bit about him. We know he is touting tax cuts that will be enjoyed only by the wealthiest Americans. We know he feels strongly about the war in Iraq, even if it means that our young people might be there, in harm’s way, for a long time to come. He supports privatization of Social Security, which could so easily spell disaster for much of the middle class.We know he has been involved with wealthy, influential people such as one of his benefactors, Charles Keating, who was responsible for some of the greatest financial scams in history.John McCain, who appreciates the beauty of his estate in Sedona, fails to take the broader ecological view. He has repeatedly voted against renewable energy incentives even though he gives lip service to supporting the environment.Yes, we know quite a bit about John McCain.

On the other hand, we are now learning more and more about Barack Obama, relative newcomer on the national front. What we’re hearing is fresh, honest and encouraging.He does not and never has supported the war in Iraq.He understands the importance of building a strong middle class in the United States. He is smart and diplomatic. He has none of the baggage often carried by long-time political hacks.Obama’s record on ethics reform is brilliant.After these last years of embarrassingly inept leadership from the White House, the next president will have a difficult job rebuilding. Same old same old isn’t good enough.

McCain Is A Threat To Social Security

2008-07-18T13:05:00.001-07:00

John McCain told a recent New Hampshire town hall meeting that he is not, and never has been, in favor of privatizing Social Security.

Really? Four years ago he said we needed privitazation – that it was the only way to make sure young Americans would get Social Securiy. Three years ago he and President Bush were doing their road show to promote the President's private accounts proposal. Earlier this year he told the Wall Street Journal how much he supports such a plan.

The stock market just finished its worst month since the Great Depression. This would have spelled financial ruin for retiring Americans under a privatized system.

Our seniors and seniors-to-be deserve some security in their Social Security. All of us deserve a president who doesn’t lie about his position.

Where To Begin

2008-07-18T13:04:00.001-07:00

There are so many inaccuracies, fallacies, and untruths in a recent Herald editorial that it is difficult to know where to begin.

This country is facing real problems. There are real differences between the candidates who will be on the presidential ballot. These are the things we should be discussing.

Instead, the author of “Obama is a lot of things that JFK was not” tosses out one blatant and malicious lie after another. Obama has not tried “to appease or … curry favor from a bunch of religious fanatics who have sworn to destroy us”. He has not vowed to change any of us. He has not kowtowed to Europe.

To distort a comment made by the nominee’s wife into a statement that the candidate does not even like this country is offensive.
There are a lot of descriptive words for the statements in Mr. Obermeier’s editorial. The simplest one is “lies

Leone Wilkerson Letter July 3, 2008

2008-07-18T13:02:00.000-07:00

There are those who never worry about paying a bill, the price of groceries or what it costs for a fill up at the pump. The majority of Americans are not that fortunate, they are struggling everyday to find enough money to buy gas, put food on the table, and pay bills. They are the victims of the lack of leadership by this Republican administration. The failed policies have touched every facet of American life and liberties.

John McCain being a member of the majority in the Senate failed to exhibit leadership on energy conservation and to demand we have an energy policy that would help the people not the oil interests.

We cannot continue this old way of thinking , we cannot tolerate this abuse of power and this lack of interest in the quality of life for the American people.

The policies of this administration voted for and supported by Senator McCain has made us less secure; not only from terrorist but financially insecure. Our debt has been increased by 9 trillion dollars causing a lowering of the American dollar, not to mention our standard of living. This administration with the help of Senator McCain has done all it can to destroy the American working class.

OYM 7/18/2008

2008-07-18T13:01:00.000-07:00

The person who wanted to ask Stephanie Koppenafer some questions about Iraq needs answers. No, I don’t propose immediate troop withdrawal. No one does. Can I live with civil war and sectarian genocide when we leave? I’m living with it since we created it when we went in. Yes, Iranian influence may dominate when we pull out. After all, we removed their worst enemy and gave them free reign to enter the country. There was no al-Qaida in Iraq. Al-Qaida was in Afghanistan and Pakistan where they still are and where we should be fighting them. My familiarity with Hamas and Hezbollah does not help further legitimate U.S. interests, prevent the deaths of U.S. citizens or return the $138 per month this war is taking out of every American pocket. And finally, I don’t believe al-Qaida is as strong as it was when it first attacked us. I believe, as does our government, that it is stronger.

OYM 7/19/2008

2008-07-18T13:00:00.000-07:00

Don’t let the two oil barons in the White House and their money hungry cronies suck you in. They have purposely created a supply shortage just to be able to increase the price of gasoline and make as much money as they can before the Democrats take control of the White House. Their other ploy, is to make the public so angry that they will demand Congress grant them more off shore drilling areas. They are not satisfied with all the areas in the Gulf of Mexico and other areas where they are permitted to drill. Why aren’t they drilling in these areas right now? If they had, maybe we would not be in the situation we are in today. Since oil is such a huge factor in our economy and national security, maybe, the oil companies need to be regulated and be treated as a monoply.

War On Science

2008-07-18T12:59:00.000-07:00

Our president waged war in Iraq based on information that was distorted, altered, or simply fabricated. The other war he has waged, using the same tactics, is not as well known ... his systematic war against science.

In this war, his policies have been so extreme that more than sixty scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates and medical experts, have accused his administration of deliberately distorting scientific fact "for partisan political ends." They documented case after case of using these distortions to justify policy decisions on climate change, the energy issue, health care, mercury emissions, reproductive health, lead poisoning in children, workplace safety and nuclear weapons.

When distorting or suppressing scientific facts was not good enough, they simply order up their own.

The result is that this country, once the recognized leader in both science and technology, no longer holds either of those distinctions.

Meanwhile, other nations have forged ahead. Japan now sets the pace for the world in the areas of electronics, telecommunications, supercomputers, aerospace, nuclear power, alternative energies, micro-engineering, advanced chemicals and more.

The Bush war on science produces its own casualties. But, unlike those in Iraq, these casualties are not volunteers. They are not paid. They do not know when they are being sent into harm’s way. Their injuries are not always immediate. These casualties are average, unsuspecting, and trusting American citizens.