Real Talk Politic

Hi, I'm a Tea-Partier

2011-05-30T17:52:00.001-04:00

Enjoy!

2012

2011-05-26T23:15:00.007-04:00

With the end of the world right around the corner (the real one, not the May 21st one), the United States of America will be gearing up for another presidential election year.

On the blue side, the cryp side, we have President Barack Obama stepping up to the plate in efforts to maintain another four years of his socialist tendencies, as many may say, but not I.

The number one reason to vote for President Obama: he's American. That right there is a huge advantage, no matter who he is running against. As a result of the efforts of The Great Donald Trump, President Obama already has that leg up in this upcoming election. After all, nobody knows if any of the GOP candidates were born in this country, and we won't know for sure until we see all of their birth certificates. Long form! We'll have to examine it, see if it's real, etc. etc. etc.

There are really some shining contenders coming out of the bloods this year. The most sparkling would definitely have to be Newt. I don't think Speaker Gingrich has much of a chance, but it was really something to see a demonstrator pour a box of glitter on him during a very stressful week for the poor "Dancing Queen."

The GOP have many other serious candidates. On the not so serious side are the likes of Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Gary Johnson--to name a few.

Obviously some of these candidates, like Rick Santorum for example, hold some water; but for all intensive purposes, this is a joke. Herman Cain?!?! He is the favorite of the Tea Party movement (or at least was) and he has never even held political office. This is what this country has come to, and it's sad. The Republicans have some viable contenders, don't get me wrong--Jon Huntsman would definitely be a viable contender, and brings a lot to the plate. He is somebody President Obama should be scared of.

Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are a very interesting match up, and bring some serious change and solutions to this countries problems, but the day they win an election against President Obama is the day hell freezes over. Fortunately, I heard hell usually freezes over after an Arab Spring and Summer, so they may have a shot.

Tim Pawlenty, whose 'pre-campaign launch video' can be found below, may be the most viable candidate the GOP has to offer, at least in my opinion. If I had any money, I would go to the casino, put it all on black, and then once I doubled-up I would bet it all that Pawlenty will be the GOP nominee--and if I were Barack Obama and his campaign staff I would be shvitzing.

America is definitely not in a good spot right now. Nether is the state of the world in general. It's a scary time. The truth is, however, we, the USA, are better off today than we were when President Obama stepped into office in 2008. Many people forget the sh*t storm he inherited from the previous administration. However, that being said, the Obama Administration has to do some serious fiscal belt tightening, as well as some serious kissing up to Israel, if they wish to hold another four years in office.

2012 promises to be an exciting election year as we gear up for the end of the world. Such an exciting time in apocalyptic politics!

Obama Selects New U.S. Ambassador to China

2011-03-08T00:09:00.009-05:00

President Barack Obama has selected Gary Locke to succeed Jon Huntsman as U.S. ambassador to China, senior administration officials have told POLITICO. He will make the announcement tomorrow.

Locke is the current United States Commerce Secretary, a position he assumed in March of 2009. Prior to that he was the 21'st Governor of Washington State, having served from 1997 to 2005. In the interim of his governorship and position as commerce secretary he joined a law firm that specializes in China governmental-relations. Throughout his political career he has much to be proud of, and is often noted for being the only Chinese American U.S. governor to date. Prior to his governorship, he has worked in Washington State congress dating back to 1983.

As U.S. Ambassador, Locke will take on a very important role in the Obama Administration, becoming the chief American diplomat to China. Our relationship with our lender, I mean, very close ally, is critical to say the least; and will only become more important over the years and decades to come.

In the mean time, there is a rager in Libya that we should be focussing our attention on, as the UN has aspired to do http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37695&Cr=Libya&Cr1=.

Not So Lame

2010-12-23T23:08:00.004-05:00

This lame duck session of congress was not so lame after all. After the 2010 midterm elections, political experts predicted that the next several months on Capital Hill would be unproductive, and almost pointless. Most political conscious Americans believed that partisanship between the GOP and Democrats would lead to nothing more than arguments and fillibusters.

This was not the case, however. To many people's pleasant surprise, or perhaps just surprise, several pieces of legislation were passed during this "not-so-lame" session of congress. This certainly helped make President Obama's holidays a bit merrier, as many key proponents of his agenda were met in some of the bills that were passed.

Bush-era tax cuts have been extended to everyone for two more years.

Unemployment benefits were extended for 13 more months.

The payroll tax was reduced by 2 percentage points for one year.

A major food safety bill was passed designed to increase government inspections of food supplies.

Most funding levels for the federal government will be maintained for another 10 weeks, through March 4th.

9/11 responders health bill passed, providing free medical treatment and compensation to first responders of the 9/11 attack.

A new nuclear arms control treaty with Russia was passed, known as New START. The treaty will resume inspections of each country's nuclear arsenal and limit both countries to 1,550 warheads and 700 launchers. The treaty still needs the Russian parliament's approval.

You're in the NO Spin Zone

2010-11-24T08:55:00.019-05:00

I do not have much in common with Bill O'Reilly when it comes to politics, or when it comes to just about anything for that matter. However, I still listen to what he has to say because I think it's important to hear differing points of view. O'Reilly and his colleagues at Fox News present the public with the opportunity to entertain the right wing ideologies of the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, and Republican politicans such as Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. To say the Fox News program doesn't have a right wing bias is to not live in reality. Unfortunately, people do live in this fantasy world, and are absorbing their information from Fox News as fact, when in fact much of it is biased information. The same can be said of MSNBC, with the likes of Kieth Olbermann and Rachel Maddow instilling a liberal bias into today's media. While this notion of news corporations essentially becoming propagandists for the Republican or Democratic Parties is extremely troublesome, it allows for people in a free society to hear "both sides of the story," if you will, and hopefully reach their own conclusion after careful study of the issues. The importance of receiving information from reliable sources is obviously imperative, but it is equally important to receive it from an assortment of sources, no matter how out of line they may be with your own political ideology. That being said, I leave you with an article from a man with whom I disagree on almost everything, Bill O'Reilly, entitled "Obama vs. Bush."

"America is a fascinating country, and if you don't believe me, consider this: In the space of just ten years, we have elected two men to the presidency who could not be more opposite. That fact was clarified for me last week when I spent some time with George W. Bush.

After disappearing for almost two years, Mr. Bush is back in the public arena with a book about his decision-making during the eight years he spent in the Oval Office. But the former president is not interested in commenting on Barack Obama, nor does he want to re-involve himself in the political process. He simply wants to sell some books and go back to the golf course. In a televised interview, he told me that he would most likely not campaign for Republicans in 2012 and will only offer private advice if it is sought.

Also, the former president feels no obligation to comment on his policy decisions (or lack thereof) that continue to this day—things like Iraq, Afghanistan and the brutal economy. Simply put, George W. Bush did his time and believes he has no further obligation to the public.

This was my fourth televised conversation with President Bush, and it is clear to me that he is a reactive guy, not a proactive person. His major decisions were all made after something happened. They were not foisted upon the country. The one exception is Social Security reform. He tried to change the system and got hammered. Aside from that, Mr. Bush basically watched events dictate which way his presidency turned.

Contrast that to Barack Obama's administration, and you have two different galaxies. President Obama is proactive to the max, seeing his mandate as reshaping the nation into a more just society. Mr. Obama has a huge agenda and is not shy about blaming the country's problems on his predecessor. It is hard to imagine President Obama going quietly into the night once his tenure is over. He sees himself as a reformer, a person who must fight for change he can believe in. I don't think that will stop when he returns to private life.

President Bush did not seek much social change because he believes it is not needed. He's a traditionalist, a man who thinks the country is noble and doesn't require an extensive overhaul. President Obama is the exact opposite, believing that United States policy is flawed both at home and abroad and a new set of rules must be instituted. Both men are sincere, but they could not be more opposed in their points-of-view.

But we the people elected both of them. What does that say about us? Well, it says we are open to suggestions and are willing to give different philosophies a chance. We remain, however, a performance-driven society. The folks want results from our elected leaders.

Both presidents have felt the sting of those expectations. That may be the only thing they have in common."

2010 Midterm Election Brings GOP Historic Victory, But Why?

2010-11-05T09:31:00.008-04:00

This past Tuesday's election stirred things up a bit on Capitol Hill. The election showed a stark contrast to the way the American public voted just two years ago in 2008, and spoke volumes about the way the public feels about the current job being done by all levels of U.S. government.

As if President Obama didn't have enough trouble pushing through his agenda over his first two years in office, his troubles are now compounded by the fact that Democrats no longer maintain majority in both chambers of congress.

Republicans needed 39 seats in the house to reclaim the majority they lost in 2006, and were able to claim an astounding 60 (a couple of races are still too close to call 72 hours later, so these numbers may change slightly). Their victory will go down in history, marking the biggest house gain by any major party since 1948.

Republicans also won 6 seats in the Senate, but Democrats will maintain control of that chamber. Republicans also did well in governor's races across the nation, and will be moving into at least 10 governor's mansions across the country that previously belonged to Democrats. In addition, at least 16 state legislative chambers that were Democratic went to Republicans.

So why did the Democrats perform so poorly this past election? After the Democratic Party cleaned up in the 2008 elections, many political strategists theorized that Democrats would reign in a significant length of stay. James Carville, political consultant and pundit most well known for being Bill Clinton's campaign manager during the 1992 presidential elections, even wrote a book based on precisely that theory entitled "40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation."

While there are dozens of possible arguments as to why Democrats performed so poorly and Republicans so well, I would like to briefly discuss two arguments that, in my own estimation, were the biggest influences. The first I would characterize simply as 'liberals losing hope in the Democratic Party,' and the second as 'conservatives gaining hope in the Republican party.'

So why have liberals lost hope in the Democratic Party? I would argue that during President Obama's campaign in 2008 he instilled an unrealistic measure of hope in the American people, a measure that could never be attained. President Obama's motivational rhetoric made people believe that they would see a much needed change after eight horrific years of President Bush.

Two years later I think that Obama supporters feel that they have once again been let down by their government, leading to low turnout at the polls in 2010. Lower turnout is always expected during a non-presidential election year, but turnout was so low this year that it was almost half of the turnout we saw in 2008. This shows the importance of campaign strategists to legitimize political platform claims during campaigns so that once in office elected officials can fulfill their promises. In the 2008 election, I would argue that President Obama's campaign managers let people's imaginations run rampant, and may have caused serious problems for him and the Democratic Party in the years to come.

Republicans, or more specifically the Tea Party movement, may face a similar problem over the next couple of years. They have promised a great deal of change to their constituents, and if they are unable to deliver they may face the same type of backlash come 2012. The Tea Party movement did a tremendous job of energizing the conservative right to get out to the polls, and really influenced voter turnout. Their endorsement of several candidates helped them win critical seats, most notably Rand Paul's Senate seat in Kentucky.

Both parties are faced with extremely hard challenges on the road ahead. Now that Republicans control the house will they remain the party of "just say no," or will they take action and push through pieces of legislation? Will Democrats and Republicans be able to come to agreements, or will we be faced with another two years of gridlock and politics as usual? These are some very scary times for this country, and the world as a whole. Only time will tell if America can rehabilitate itself.

Jon Stewart Interviews a Real President on a Fake News Program

2010-10-29T23:26:00.006-04:00

I don't usually upload video clips of interviews, but I found this weeks interview of President Obama by Jon Stewart (The Daily Show) to be worth watching, and worth sharing. The interview was much more serious than one might have expected coming from Stewart, who is truly a comedian and satirist at heart. Due to the nature of Stewart's show, the president received quite a bit of criticism from some pundits, who apparently deemed it inappropriate for a sitting president. I would argue, however, that the decision to go on Stewart's show was a strategic one. Aside from promoting and executing his agenda, one of the president's main focuses right now is to keep as many seats as possible come November 2nd. As such, by going on Stewart's show President Obama was attempting to mobilize his 18-29 year old liberal base, much of which is the same demographic of your average "Daily Show" viewer, or what Bill O'Reilly would refer to as the "stoner slacker."

Here is part 1 to the interview, if you wish to continue watching it just click the link to part 2 at the end.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Barack Obama Pt. 1

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Rally to Restore Sanity

"Don't Ask" Obama, because he can't make up his mind

2010-10-21T07:03:00.005-04:00

President Obama has continually ran on a platform of equal rights for gays. As such, he has stated openly numerous times that one of his goals concerning this issue is to repeal the armies "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Well, last week the Obama administration got their wish. A federal judge ordered the army to stop enforcing the policy. Since the judges ruling seven days ago, openly gay men and women have been allowed to enlist in the army. Just like that, President Obama had a huge accomplishment under his belt. At least it seemed that way.

On Wednesday, however, the Obama administration filed an emergency request with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the military from allowing openly gay troops from serving. In other words, the Obama administration wants to continue to bar gays from the military even though it ultimately favors repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Unfortunately Mr. President, you can't have it both ways. Either the policy is repealed and gays serve openly, or they don't. There is not much room for compromise in regards to this issue.

The administrations argument for the abrupt change in policy was quite insipid. They argued that it would "risk causing significant immediate harm to the military and its efforts to be prepared to implement an orderly repeal of the statute." In effect, what they are ultimately expressing is a sense of fear that allowing gays to serve openly in the military will be destructive to group cohesion and performance.

Hopefully the Obama administration can iron out this sense of doubt, and do what is best for the country. The administration says they remain hopeful that they can have the matter resolved through Congress instead of unilaterally through courts or the presidency. It remains a controversial issue that needs some resolve.

When the Circus Came to Town

2010-10-19T15:19:00.012-04:00

Last night was New York's gubernatorial debate, and boy did it live up to its expectation of being entertaining, to say the least. There was no heated debate between the Republican and Democratic hopefuls Carl Paladino and Andrew Cuomo, but there were some characters among the other five candidates.

Representing the Anti-Prohibition Party was Kristin Davis, otherwise known as the 'Manhattan Madam'. Davis served time on Riker's Island for her involvement with the Emperors Club VIP, the escort service that provided a prostitute for Eliot Spitzer (his show on CNN sucks by the way, no pun intended). Davis is running on the platform of legalizing prostitution and marijuana, which she believes will help improve the economy of this state. Surprisingly, this silicon tatted blonde was once the vice president of a hedge fund firm and knows a thing or two about business. When asked about Carl Paladino she said that if he is elected "business will leave this state faster than Carl Paladino at a gay bar."

Then there was Jimmy McMillan of 'The Rent is too Damn High' Party. Yes, it's a real party. However, if you were to turn on the debate while he was speaking you may have mistaken it for a Saturday Night Live sketch. Let's start with the mysterious black gloves. You know what, words will not do justice so just watch the video below.

The three other candidates include Charles Barran of the Freedom Party, Warren Redlich of the Libertarian Party, and Howie Hawkins of the Green Party. Barran is a former Black Panther member who believes increasing taxes on the wealthy will solve our economic crisis. He is quoted as saying "we already cut to the bones, it's time for us to get the wealthy." Hawkins has a similar ideology, and he too would like to see taxes increased on the wealthy. Redlich believes that cutting big bureaucratic salaries will allow us to save about 3 billion dollars a year.

As with most political races in America, none of these minor party candidates stand a real chance to win in a two-party system, some of them for good reason. It is quite upsetting that these seven candidates are all that New York has to offer. Carl Paladino is a loose cannon who is not connected with reality, while Andrew Cuomo doesn't seem to have a solid plan to get this state back on track. With only 14 days to go until election day, Cuomo maintains a considerable lead in the race to become New York's 56th governor.

Paladino's Gyration

2010-10-13T17:01:00.006-04:00

This week Carl Paladino managed to claim headlines of all major news agencies once again. Unfortunately, all the press Mr. Paladino received appeared to be bad press. Last week Paladino made headlines for an altercation with a journalist. This week, after an upsurge in recent anti-gay hate crimes both locally and nationally, Paladino made headlines for “hating gays.”

On Sunday, during an address to a group of Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn, Paladino made some very provocative statements concerning homosexuality. For example, Paladino said that he didn’t want children “to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option,” compared to heterosexuality. Furthermore, a transcript of Paladino’s speech said, “there is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual. That’s not how God created us.”

Paladino also attacked his opponent, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, saying that it was in bad taste for him to bring his daughters to a recent gay pride parade in New York. Paladino went on to say, “That’s not the example that we should be showing the children, and certainly not in our schools."

It seems to me, however, that Mr. Paladino is the one who is not showing a good example to the youth of America. Ever since I was little I remember being taught to treat others as I would like to be treated. This principle of equality is a key tenant of this nation, and is vital for a democracy to function properly. Perhaps if we raise our children to be more accepting of others, as Mr. Cuomo's children seem to be, the Tyler Clementi's of tomorrow will be able to live a normal life. Until all homosexuals are treated equally in America, our nation will fall short of setting an example for human rights around the world.

Candidates on the Attack

2010-09-25T01:38:00.008-04:00

Things are heating up here in New York, and I'm not talking about the weather. New York's governor's race is getting hot, and the candidates are feeling the heat. While most polls have been showing the democratic candidate, Andrew Cuomo, in the lead by about 20 points, a recent poll put out by Quinnipiac University shows the republican candidate, Carl Paladino, only trailing by 6.

Coincidentally, at least according to the Cuomo campaign, the same week that these poll numbers came out the Cuomo campaign released its first direct attack ad on Paladino. The television ad, which can be viewed below, suggests that Paladino made several campaign contributions to elected officials in the past, which in turn earned him real estate deals.

The ad also says that one of Paladino's companies was granted $1.4 million worth of state tax breaks for a project intended to promote economic development and ended up creating only one job. Cuomo refers to Paladino as the "welfare king," and asserts that he is "part of the problem."

Paladino's campaign did not deny the allegations of the ad, but a Paladino spokesman believes it "illustrates Cuomo's misunderstanding of the business world." Attacking one's opponent is nothing new to the Paladino campaign. Paladino has openly called Cuomo "gutless," and his campaign is handing out "duck calls" to volunteers in efforts to get their supporters to attend Cuomo campaign events and disrupt them by "quacking."

October is shaping up to be a very interesting month for the governor's race in New York. Andrew Cuomo and Carl Paladino will spend the next month campaigning extremely hard. One can only hope that during that time New Yorkers will be exposed to information regarding where the candidates stand on the issues instead of being exposed to attack ads and horse race journalism.

FOX News on the War in Afghanistan

2010-02-14T03:41:00.010-05:00

FOX News has been known to push a very conservative agenda; some considering the Rupert Murdoch affiliate a 'wing of the Republican Party.' Many conservatives argue that there are dozens of news agencies that have a liberal bias, and consider FOX News to be one of the only televised news channels that have a conservative voice. I happen to agree with both. The FOX News agency does act as an extension of the Republican Party, but it also is one of the only conservative voices in televised journalism. Therefore my qualm with FOX News is not that they are biased, but that they mislead people by considering themselves "fair and balanced."

These claims are not new, and have been well known for some time. There have been several articles written and documentaries made about the FOX News bias. President Obama's administration even came out to "wage war" on the network. While there is nothing more that I admire than reputable journalism, I also respect the first amendment.

I have recently read several articles concerning the current situation in Afghanistan, and the effects that President Obama's recent troop increase has had on the war torn nation. More than 15,000 NATO troops swept into Marjah, a Taliban stronghold, earlier today as part of Operation Mashtarak, the largest attack since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. The recent attack has gone unexpectedly well. Major-General Gordon Messenger, a spokesman of the NATO forces, said that "the Taliban appeared confused and disorientated" and that "the key objectives have been secured and have been done so with minimal interference." However, he continued to say that the Taliban have a reputation for "sitting and watching" and that they could strike an attack at any time.

War is war. Taking over a single Taliban stronghold is certainly not a win, but it is a victory, and as we know victories under President Obama are not appreciated by FOX News. Like Rush Limbaugh, FOX News would like to see President Obama 'fail.' While BBC News put up headlines such as "NATO Hails Major Afghan Operation" FOX News put up headlines that read "U.S., Afghan Forces Face Bombs, Booby Traps in Push to Take Taliban Stronghold." In all fairness, something the FOX organization is incapable of being, the article did go on to mention that NATO forces were doing well, but not until about halfway through the article after mentioning all the "homemade bombs and mines" that slowed the advance.

These types of misleading headlines come all too often from FOX News. Although the article contained valid information, many people today simply get their news from reading headlines or get through half the article if their lucky. It shouldn't be shocking when FOX News puts out a negative headline about President Obama or the Democratic Party, but I was surprised that they had the audacity to disrespect young men and women that risk their lives to make this country safer for you and me. Our troops don't deserve the type of defamation that comes from FOX News headlines, not when we have a victory. Give their families and our citizens something to be proud of, and don't let the enemy believe that they are winning. Shame on you FOX News.

President Obama, bring our troops home.

If You Haven't Seen It Yet, Here It Is!

2010-02-04T03:05:00.004-05:00

Two days after President Obama gave his State of the Union address he did something no President has ever done before in American history. He stood in front of a Republican chamber, and allowed them to ask him a series of questions; no ifs, ands or buts. It was incredibly risky, and incredibly bold. It also seems to have paid off. Not only did it make President Obama look emphatically brilliant when he was able to seemingly answer all their questions without hesitation, but it also was good for Washington. President Obama took a giant step in the right direction towards healing the segregation between Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill. If you haven't seen it yet, here it is.

Time for us to Throw in the Towel on Obama?

2010-01-28T15:37:00.010-05:00

It's like getting an overcooked steak at a five star restaurant. It's like sitting through a horrible movie that received amazing reviews. It's like going on vacation to Hawaii only to have it rain the entire time you're there. These analogies are in reference to President Obama's first year in the Oval Office.

During the Presidential campaign back in 2008 the American public was promised a great deal of change if we were to elect, then, Senator Obama to the Presidency. The American Electorate, desperate for something new after eight years of nausea, took the bait and elected the first black president to the White House.

Now, one year later, the American public seems to be disillusioned by the thought that President Obama did not bring about the change that he had promised. We are still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, unemployment has risen to the double didgets, universal health care is no longer a reality, and the list goes on and on. As a result, the President's approval ratings have fallen dramatically. Worse than losing faith in President Obama, many have lost all hope in our political system. If things don't change with a democratic president and a large democratic majority in the house and senate, when will they ever change?

Last night President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address to a joint session of congress. It was a much needed transcendent speech by the suave American Presidential speaker. By stating that "jobs must be our number one focus in 2010" it showed that he is in step with the American people. He also insisted that congress not step away from health care reform, "not when we are this close." He also spent time talking about Iraq, Afghanistan, clean energy, climate change, education, bipartisanship, and a few other important issues.
In a vital part of President Obama's speech, he reminded the American people of what he HAS done since he has taken office. He insisted that the Recovery Act saved 2,000,000 jobs, a figure which has not been rebuked by FactCheck.org. He insisted that the Wall St. bailout, although "about as popular as a root canal," saved unemployment from going into Great Depression figures, saved homes from being lost, and saved businesses from closing. He also said that the government has recovered most of the tax payer money that they spent on the banks, and promises to recover the remaining sum. Furthermore, he talked about the important job he did rekindling Americas partnership and standing with the rest of the world, a relationship that was hindered during President Bush's 8 years in the circus, I mean White House.

Last night's State of the Union address once again proved how powerful of a speaker President Obama is. Just as I, and many other Americans were beginning to believe that we had another failed president on our hands, he lifts us up and restores our faith.

I, once a staunch Obama supporter, am willing to give President Obama more time to fulfill his promises. I must say that I am disappointed that I have not seen more change over this past year, but I also understand how hard change is, even while your party may hold the presidency and have majority in the house and senate. Our constitution does not allow for sweeping change overnight, and perhaps that is a good thing.

We have at least 3 more years to find out if President Obama will be successful in fixing this country, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. At the same time, I will continue to question his every action, and continue to be skeptical of his optimistic rhetoric. After all, actions speak louder than words. Let's see more action!

Politics As Usual

2009-11-29T23:09:00.003-05:00

When I heard about it I didn't believe it. When I found out that it was true I was in awe. As many by now know, congress has voted to open up debate on the healthcare bill, which is great. But the means by which they did so was not so great. In order to do so, all 60 Democratic votes in the Senate were needed in order to block a Republican filibuster, which they got from a price that will be paid by the American taxpayer.

One Democratic Senator, a Mrs. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, was originally opposed to voting with her Democratic colleagues to open up debate on the bill. In order to convince her otherwise, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, along with some other congressional Democrats, added a clause to the bill which promises to provide $300 million in aid to Landrieu's state of Louisiana in the form of a "Medicaid bonus."

Essentially, Landrieu's vote was bought by her colleagues. Is it just me, or is there something terribly wrong with this picture. Bribes are not the way voting on bills should be taking place. Unfortunately, there have been many instances on both sides of the aisle where congressional leaders were promised something in exchange for their vote, and it's perfectly legal.

During President Obama's campaign he promised to "clean up" Capital Hill. What happened to getting rid of "politics as usual." It is sickening that such a stunt can be pulled so openly in Washington D.C., with no shame what so ever. I am sure that Louisiana and the Katrina victims need the help, but this is certainly not the way to go about it. I am hopeful that President Obama has the courage to condemn his colleagues, and finally clean up Washington and put an end to this abomination.

Happy Thanksgiving

2009-11-26T15:41:00.004-05:00

Real Talk Politic wishes all a happy and healthy Thanksgiving. Hopefully you are all with close friends and family on this turkey filled day. Along with celebrating Thanksgiving, Real Talk Politic is also celebrating its 1 year anniversary. Happy Birthday Real Talk!

Here are a few video clips of some memorable political turkey filled moments for your entertainment, from Barack Obama to Sarah Palin to George W. Bush. Enjoy.

Sorry

2009-11-11T07:50:00.009-05:00

Why is it so hard for people to say that they are sorry? Perhaps it is because saying sorry draws attention to the fact that you made an error in judgement. It means that you have recognized that you made a mistake. Worst of all, it means that you have recognized that you were wrong.

We are all human, and as humans we all make mistakes. To deny that fact is to be out of out of touch with reality. It is hard enough to get family members or friends to say sorry to one another, and when talking about politicians, forget about it.

President Bush and The Bush Administration made a terrible mistake when they decided to invade Iraq in March of 2003. It has since cost hundreds of thousands of lives, well over 4,000 of which were American military men and women. Let's also not forget about the hundreds of thousands that have been injured and disabled for life as a result of the Iraq War.

The Bush Administration had originally invaded Iraq based on the primary belief that the Saddam Hussein regime had ties to al-Qaeda and were developing nuclear and biological weapons. We all remember the infamous address by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell at the United Nations where he pinpointed exactly where the production of weapons of mass destruction was taking place, or so he thought.

Fact of the matter is, as we clearly know today, is that Saddam Hussein's regime was not developing WMD's, nor did they have relations with al-Qaeda. Sure the Hussein regime was extremely evil and corrupt, but that is no reason to invade a country. If the U.S. was to invade every country with an evil and corrupt government we would be at war in South America, Africa, Asia, and, well, all over the world. The Bush Administration clearly made a mistake by invading Iraq and has never, to this day, apologized and admitted that they were wrong for doing so.

Admitting one's wrongs holds no political barriers. President Obama and the Obama Administration also seem to be guilty of being unable to say sorry to the American people. During his campaign and early on in office, President Obama promised the American people that if the gargantuan stimulus package was passed the unemployment rate of this country would not exceed 8%.

Well, when President Obama took office the American unemployment rate was at 7.2%. Almost a year down the road and hundreds of billions of dollars later the unemployment rate has jumped to 10.2%. Not only does the Obama Administration refuse to apologize to the American people, but they insist that the stimulus has been working. A jobless recovery is not what the Obama Administration had intended back in January of this year when President Obama told us that the stimulus package would stop the unemployment rate from growing over 8%.

As we all know, saying sorry is a very difficult thing to do. It takes vulnerability and admitting one's wrongs. The Bush apologetics and Obama apologetics are diluted, and in complete denial. Not being able to recognize that we all make mistakes is to be out of touch with reality, even if that mistake was at the expense of human lives or billions of dollars of debt for subsequent generations to come. We need more honest apologetics in Washing D.C.

Compromising Health Care Reform

2009-09-16T17:30:00.004-04:00

This week the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus introduced a health care reform plan that would not add to the federal deficit. The bill does not include a public option (AKA government funded health care), a key element of reforming health care according to President Obama and fellow democrats. At least it used to be a key element. Recently President Obama has said that the public option is not absolutely necessary to reach his goals for reform.

Many people have acknowledged that passing health care reform has a "make it or break it" stigma attached to the success or failure of President Obama's presidency. Is President Obama loosening his belt on his goals for health care reform simply so that he can say he was successful? Is he letting the main component of reform, a public option, slip under the table so that he can say he passed health care reform legislation? Is gaining a few Republican supporters worth erasing such a key element from the bill? Negotiating, compromising, and reaching a common solution is extremely important for passing partisan legislation, but is health care reform really something that can be compromised? These are all important questions we must ask ourselves.

Furthermore, another questionable aspect of Baucus' proposal is the idea of mandated health care coverage. In other words, if an individual is not insured they could receive a fine. The bill does create health care exchanges, non-profit health insurance cooperatives, and sets limits on out-of-pocket expenses, but should we really be fining people if they can't afford health care insurance.

The Baucus plan is definitely a step in the right direction, but much more work needs to be done if we are going to pass serious health care reform. This plan estimates to cover nearly 30 million uninsured Americans While nearly 50 million Americans remain uninsured. We can do better. America can do better.

Universal Health Care, Is It Time?

2009-08-05T20:05:00.029-04:00

During the Presidential campaign of 2008 Senator Barack Obama promised to reform the health care system in America. Now, more than halfway through the 2009 calendar year, President Obama is fighting hard to fix the health care problems that he talked about repeatedly during his campaign without adding to the nation's debt. This is no easy task. In fact, the last time any substantial reforms were made to our health care system was in 1965 under President Lyndon B. Johnson with the creation of medicaid and medicare.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle agree that health care reform is necessary. Their differences lie on their views of what kind of reform is needed and where the money will come from. Politicians who oppose Obama's plan have called it nothing more than pure socialism, a government take over of the nation's health care system. These are the same politicians who have drawn charts to represent the President's plan. Charts that can be described in one simple word. Confusing.

Just hearing the words socialist health care and looking at a chart that looks like a maze leading to nowhere has made many American's think twice about the President's health care initiatives. Hell, I don't like the sound of it either. Who wants the control over their own health taken away from them and put in the hands of the government? Who wants to be led on a long journey to nowhere? Not I.

In the mean time close to 50 million American's live every day of their lives with no health care insurance, millions of American's can barely afford the coverage plans they have, and millions of American's may think they have great health care coverage until they get sick or injured and learn that their health care provider won't pay for their treatment because of a pre-existing condition.

There is something wrong with this picture. There is something wrong when roughly 1/6 of the population of the "greatest nation on Earth" is uninsured and even more underinsured. There is something wrong when nearly every westernized country has universal health care with the exception of America. There is something wrong when we equate a persons health and well being with corporations making a profit. Yes, there is something wrong.

Universalizing the health care system in America is not going to be easy. It is a complex issue with extremely complex solutions that the majority of Americans, including myself, will not be able to grasp. It will not be easy to pass in congress nor will it be easy to figure out how the system will work and how it will be paid for. But one thing is for certain, health care reform in America is long overdue.

Sonia Sotomayor's Senate Hearings

2009-07-15T20:15:00.007-04:00

So far, so good. That is in reference to Judge Sotomayor's three days of Senate Hearings so far this week led by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy. She has been asked some very tough questions from Senators on both sides of the isle, and has answered them all diligently in a cool and calm voice. Even Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has been amongst those asking some of the toughest questions from the bunch, said to Sotomayor that "unless you have a complete meltdown, you will be confirmed. And I don't think you will."

Sotomayor has been questioned on everything from gun rights to abortion. She has also been questioned about some extremely controversial statements she has made in the past. Amongst these statements were one in which she said "I hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Sotomayor explained herself by saying that this statement was made during a speech especially for Latino women, and that it was meant to inspire them. She admitted that the statement "fell flat," and probably regrets ever saying it. In the hearings Senator Graham told her that "If I had said anything remotely like that, my career would have been over. And that's true of most people here." He is probably correct about that.

For such an important position in which you are appointed for life, it is necessary that such tough hearings be held, and that we learn absolutely everything there is to know about this woman. Tomorrow we will hear speeches from some of Sotomayor's biggest supporters and foes. However, even if her enemies make some great points, Republican Senator Graham is probably correct in saying that she will in all likelihood be accepted and become the first Latino women to be on the Supreme Court of America.

Health care in America

2009-05-15T22:45:00.021-04:00

For decades the choice to socialize health care has been debated in the United States. Those for socialized health care often argue that in a country like America we should not leave nearly 50 million Americans uninsured, and even more Americans underinsured. They argue that America is the only westernized country in the world that does not have free (taxed) public health care. They will argue that roughly 20 thousand Americans die every year simply because they do not have health insurance. They will argue that health insurance is a business that strives to make a profit, and that saving someone's life should not coincide with making money off of an ill person. They will argue that health insurance isn't a Republican issue or a Democratic issue, but rather a moral issue. They will argue that not only do countries with public health care spend less, but they actually do better with respect to quality and availability. They will argue that our mail, police, public schools, libraries, and many other things in America are all socialized, so why not socialize something that will save lives.

People against socialized health care will argue that many people who have health care are satisfied with their privatized health care system. They will argue that socialized health care means that people will start going to the doctor an unnecessary amount of times because it's free, and we will all have to pay for it out of our own pockets. They will argue that the government rarely does anything right, and health care is certainly something that they don't want in the government's hands. They will argue that socialized health care means waiting in long lines. They will argue that socialized health care means less attention from doctors. And perhaps most importantly they will argue that if health care becomes socialized the quality of our health care will decrease.

Both sides bring up great points. One thing that everybody should be able to agree on however is that now is certainly one of the best times to put this issue on the table, and have people with strong opinions from both sides dispute their views. Tell the American people the truth about the benefits and weaknesses of each system, let the public know the facts, and let them decide.

If the U.S. Government is going to hold conferences and committees to discuss the issue of health care in America it is only fair to discuss the issue with people who hold a variety of perspectives. This past week some doctors, nurses, and concerned citizens interrupted a Senate Committee hearing one after another (watch video below), raising their concerns that not one single person on the committee was in support of "Single Payer" health care, a health care system that many people believe to be the only solution for public health care in America (read up on Single Payer at http://singlepayernow.net/). Those who interrupted the hearing were escorted out of the committee by police and arrested. I urge everybody to get the facts on the issue, talk to your local politicians (http://www.house.gov/), and stand up for what you personally believe in, whether it be private health care, public health care, or something in between. If you support "Single Payer," support HR676.

Another day of Senate Committee hearings brings more protesters...perhaps it is time to put Single Payer on the table, at least for the purpose of debate and discussion. SINGLE PAYER ON THE TABLE NOW?

Democrats: almost unstoppable

2009-05-06T20:46:00.004-04:00

Senator Arien Specter has been the Senator of Pennsylvania for the past 29 years as a devout Republican. On April 28th, Specter decided to switch playing fields, taking a step towards the left, miraculously overnight turning himself into a Democrat. Specter was stated saying, "As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party." The reason this is such a big deal is due to the fact that the Democrats are extremely close to reaching the 60 necessary senators needed to create a "fillibuster proof majority" with which President Obama will be able to pass any piece of legislature he wishes; a truly dreadful thought for any right winger.

The other reason this move has been making such big news is because Specter, acting as Pennsylvania's Senator for the past 29 years, has been in charge of some major committees due to his seniority. While making the switch from right to left, Specter wanted to be assured that he would retain his seniority. To no surprise of the dirty game of politics, Specter was stripped of his seniority after he made his big move. Now Specter will have the last word on almost every committee on which he sits, going from first in line to back of the line behind some men who have been in the Senate for just four months. This was a very ugly vote in my opinion, which was cast by none other than his newfound fellow Democrats. We can all but hope that Specter is given back his seniority, and that 29 years is not stripped away because a difference in philosophies.

Can we spend our way out of this recession?

2009-04-07T11:06:00.003-04:00

People all across America are arguing about what steps need to be taken to solve our economic crisis. President Obama has taken a very unique approach to fix our economic problems, and that is to spend his way out of this recession. Many people are wondering why in the world we are spending ridiculous sums of money when our economy is going down the drain. If a family is having monetary troubles, shouldn't they be saving rather than spending? Shouldn't a country with monetary problems be saving rather than spending? This question could be debated by radicals on each side without ever coming to a conclusion of what the best way is to get out of the recession that we are currently in. It is clear where President Obama and his economic advisers stand on this issue. While many ask where the money is going to come from and what this will mean for future generations, President Obama has stressed the importance of acting now and acting fast. Aside from spending money to do things like create jobs and get our educational system back on track, and making long term investments in energy, what else do you propose be done about America's current economic crisis? It is easy to find blame, but hard to find solutions. Below is a summary of what/where President Obama is spending America's stimulus dollars.

The stimulus plan that is currently underway in the United States divides $789.2 billion dollars between spending (24%), aid (38%), and tax cuts (38%). Spending will go to modernizing our electric grid, energy efficiency, road and bridge construction/modernization, grants/loans for water infrastructure and food prevention, equipping schools with 21st century classrooms/labs/libraries, etc. Aid will come in the form of helping local school districts balance their educational budgets, temporary increase in federal funding for Medicaid to states, increases in student aid, extra grants for colleges work-study programs, extending jobless benefits, etc. And finally tax cuts will come in the form of helping workers who earn less than $75,000/year (married couples $150,000) get payroll tax credits, increasing tax credits to first time homeowners buying between April 2008 and June 2009, etc. (Wall Street Journal Friday, February 13 2009)

The launch heard around the world

2009-04-06T08:23:00.003-04:00

As if President Obama didn't have enough on his plate already, Kim Jong-il gave the President, along with the rest of the world, a larger plate to deal with. At 4:30 this morning North Korea launched a rocket in their attempt to thrust a satellite into outer space. According to Washington officials, the rocket failed to go into orbit but flew at least 2,000 miles. This is double the range of a rocket they tested in 1998, which raises fear across the world of a long-range missile attack. Although their rocket failed to reach space, the North Korean media was praising Kim Jong-il's actions and insisted that the satellite was not only successfully circling the Earth, but broadcasting North korean patriotic songs as well.

While the United Nations is not yet sure what actions they will take, President Obama has firmly condemned North Korea for their missile launch, calling it a "provocative act." China and Russia on the other hand are not yet convinced that North Korea has done anything wrong, but are still studying the matter.

What it comes down to, even if you believe that North Korea should have the right to pursue their nuclear and space program development, is that Kim Jong-il is depriving his citizens of a good life by actions such as these which will only further ruin any hope they have left at restoring a relationship with the western world. China remains one of the only countries that continues to import food, oil, and other aid to the ailing country. If Kim Jong-il wants to see his country prosper he needs to stop launching rockets such as the ones he launched today, and join the civilized world in their pursuit of a peace.

The return of stem cell research

2009-03-09T04:01:00.003-04:00

On Monday morning President Obama is scheduled to sign a reversal of President Bush's stem cell law. Bush's law banned any government aid to stem cell research back in 2001. President Obama believes that there should be a separation between science and politics, and the stem cell research has the potential to make some major medical breakthroughs.

Some on the right, like Representative Eric Cantor, believe that President Obama is doing this to distract the American public from what our real problems are at hand, and that of course is the economy. I don't know if Rep. Cantor got the memo, but President Obama signed into a law a close to 800 billion dollar stimulus plan called the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act", which is being implemented every day, and has already created several jobs.

So Rep. Cantor, if you are suggesting that President Obama should be worrying about the economy 24 hours a day, I've got news for you. The President is worrying about the economy, and it is his number one priority, but at the same time he has other jobs to do, like reversing hundreds of idiotic "Bush Laws" such as this one.

What to do about the banking crisis?

2009-03-09T03:37:00.002-04:00

Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers have been hard at work devising a plan to aid America's banking crises. They have been getting a lot of scrutiny from the media, especially when they announced that they needed more time to think of a better plan. Most people were stunned and distraught by the fact that these men need more time to figure out how to solve America's banking crises, but I for one appreciate the fact that they are taking their time to think over their options and do what's right. In the mean time, here is a letter to President Barack Obama from Rahm Emanuel that I thought some of you may find interesting.

To: The President

From: Rahm Emanuel

Re: A Second Opinion on the Banks

Mr. President:

I share your concerns both on the optics and on the substance of the plan not working. Basically there are three views of how to proceed with the banks. One is the Tim/Larry approach: Lend money to hedge funds and private equity speculators to get purchases of securities from banks flowing again, so that bank lending resumes. The problem is that this does not sop up existing toxic bonds. The Street seems to have no confidence in it. And, appearance-wise, it looks like rewarding the bad guys.

The second approach is the good bank/bad bank strategy, where the bad assets are taken off the books of the banks, and they can resume operations again with clean balance sheets. The problem is that the taxpayer pays, it costs more money than we have, and the same bad actors keep running the banks. Alan Blinder makes the case for this approach, in Sunday's Times, about as well as anyone. But he didn't convince me.

The third approach is "conservatorship" or "receivership" (let's keep avoiding the N-word) where a government agency--probably an expanded FDIC--takes temporary charge of the big banks (the top four hold more than half of all the deposits). That way, the government cleans up the balance sheets, existing management goes, and we can break them up into manageable parts where no bank is too big to fail. The taxpayer shares the loss with the bondholders. Bank stockholders lose, but they've already lost upwards of 95 percent of the value of the shares.

I'm no expert on this, but the third option seems more likely to actually work, more likely to head off a full blown depression, is less costly to the taxpayer, and is far better politics.

The middle option is flawed--more expensive for taxpayers, more windfalls to speculators--but it's better than the Tim/Larry plan.

But I definitely agree that we should hear from more outside experts. Here's what I recommend:

Some of the best sessions in the campaign were the times when you put fifteen people with different views around a table, let them argue it out, and then you decided. As long as Larry and Tim are heading the economic team, we can't very well exclude them, but we should bring in others--and you should hear this argument in the raw, and not filtered.

This should be a very small event, and participants should be emphatically asked to keep the meeting confidential. It should not be a media event like the recent White House summits on fiscal responsibility and on health reform, where we papered over vast ideological differences for the sake of the appearance of consensus.

If we are not absolutely certain that this won't leak, then let's do it as several one-on-one conversations with you, maybe with Summers arguing the other side. Leaks from Summers or Geithner spinning dissent inside would be just as damaging as leaks from one of the outsiders. But if we can keep it confidential, there is no substitute for hearing the arguments hashed out by both sides. As participants, I'd recommend:

From the Administration:

The President

Larry Summers

Tim Geithner

Rahm Emanuel

David Axelrod

Skeptics of the Geithner/Summers approach:

Joe Stiglitz, Columbia University

Paul Volcker, former Fed Chair, heads your outreach panel

Sheila Bair, heads FDIC

Nouriel Roubini, NYU

Elizabeth Warren, chair, Congressional Oversight Panel, Harvard Law

Damon Silvers, deputy chair, Congressional Oversight Panel, AFL-CIO

From the Fed:

Ben Bernanke, chair

Dan Tarullo, governor

Don Kohn, governor

As for others, Alan Greenspan is somewhat skeptical, but I'm not sure we need him in the meeting, and we certainly don't want self-interested people like Rubin. This is also not the time for bipartisanship; we can get Republican and Wall Street input at a separate meeting (in any case Geithner more or less speaks for Wall Street.) Paul Krugman has been very critical and ahead of the curve, if nasty to us, though his last column on the budget was kind to you (finally!) But he also plays a journalist role, and he might be tempted to use what he learned in a column, even indirectly. This also precludes people like Kuttner. He's very friendly to you, but he's been pretty hard on the economic team. I don't quite trust the guy.

Sincerely,

Rahm

Dean doesn't make the cut

2009-03-03T22:28:00.004-05:00

Howard Dean, the Former Democratic Party Chairman, or otherwise more important former Governor of the great and beautiful green mountain state, a little place I like to call Vermont, did not make the cut for the Obama Administration. Dean, who is most famous for his yelling of "byaaaaaa" during his 2004 run for president, was eagerly seeking the position of Health and Human Services Secretary. Dean was quoted as saying "I was pretty clear that I would have liked to have been Secretary of Health and Human Services but it is the president's choice and he decided to go in a different direction." Instead, President Obama gave the position to the more competent Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. Poor Dean, once again taking the walk of shame. Luckily, Dean is not too distressed because they chose him over Ben Stein to give a commencement speech for the class of 2009 at the University of Vermont.

It never gets old, so here it is ladies and gentlemen:

Shovels have hit the ground

2009-03-03T17:58:00.004-05:00

While many have been wondering when we will see President Obama's stimulus plan start to take effect, the answer is today. Obama has promised that the 787 billion dollar recovery plan will save or create more than 3 million jobs in America. Well just about a week after the bill was signed into law we are already seeing its affects. Today 60 people were hired to rebuild a highway in Maryland that hasn't been repaired for 17 years. Whle 60 people is miniscule, it is a promising start. It is projects like these that are going to rebuild our economy, one road at a time.

$819 billion stimulus package: coming to an economy near you

2009-02-04T06:28:00.007-05:00

President Obama's Administration's $819 billion stimulus is going through the Senate this week, after having been passed by the House of Representatives last week. Not one single Republican of the 177 in the House voted "yay" to the bill, but it still passed because the Democrat's majority lead.

This bill will be President Obama's first major piece of legislation since he became president just 15 days ago. Yes Obama has already dealt with several other major issues such as Guantanamo, but for all intensive purposes this is the first bill that is going to have real effects on the country, whether they be good or bad. President Obama was hopeful that the bill would be laying on his desk in mid-february ready to be signed into law. It does not look like his deadline, which is less than two weeks away, is going to be met. Obama would like this thing to become law as quickly as possible because he says that every day and every week that it is not passed, the economy continues to fall and thousands upon hundred of thousands of hard working Americans are losing their jobs.

Frankly, if $819 billion is going to be pumped into this country, I would feel much better if Congress took their time and made sure that all 600+ odd pages of the bill were carefully looked over. After all, this is something that will have profound effects on our country that will effect our grand children and great grand children, and future generations beyond that.

If you would care to peruse through the lengthy bill that was passed in the House last week, take a look here.. I would recommend just picking one random section from the table of contents, and skimming through it to see how the Obama Administration and the Democrats would like to spend our tax dollars to stimulate our economy and create jobs. For example, I looked over how $5.5 billion would be used towards education in title 9 which can be found on page 157 of the bill.

Below is a list of questionable things that the Republicans took out from the bill, and would like to see either eradicated or changed. I must admit, there are several items in the bill that appear to be wasting our tax dollars. For example, why should Hollywood movie producers get a $246 million tax cut to buy motion picture film? Take a look at the list, I think you will find it quite interesting where some of this $819 billion may be spent.

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.

• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.

• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.

• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.

• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.

• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.

• $500 million for state and local fire stations.

• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.

• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.

• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.

• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.

• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.

• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

• $850 million for Amtrak.

• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.

• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.

• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

$819 trillion is a lot of money, $819 billion is chump change

2009-01-29T02:07:00.006-05:00

If you thought that the $700 billion stimulus package that was passed by congress a few months ago was a big chunk of change, just wait until you hear what President Obama has cooking up. President Obama's "stimulus package number 2" is going to cost the country about $819 billion.

Today the US House of Representatives passed Obama's $819 billion economic stimulus package, and it is going to be voted upon in the senate next week. All 177 Republicans in the House voted against the stimulus package in addition to 11 Democrats, while 244 Democrats voted in favor of the bill to get it passed. President Obama is hopeful that by mid-February the bill will be sitting on his desk ready to be signed into law.

It is without doubt that before the bill is sitting on the President's desk it will go through some major tweaks, especially made by Congressional Republicans. Republicans feel that the bill does not concentrate enough on tax cuts, and is spending way too much for a risk that may not be worth the reward. Republican Representative Roscoe Bartlett from Maryland challenged President Obama's stimulus package, saying "Mr. President, I think our obsessive borrowing has fully mortgaged my kids and my grandkids, now we're working on mortgaging my two great-grandkids". He went on to say "I think it's more than a little bit selfish to try to solve our economic problems which we created by burdening future generations yet to be born".

Obama and the majority of Democrats are trying to assure the American people that this stimulus package will be well worth the money, every cent of it. They say that the stimulus package will not only boost our economy, but it will also create 3 million new jobs. The majority of the $819 billion is going to domestic issues such as rebuilding our schools, fixing our roads, bridges, and highways, providing health care for people who can't afford it, alternative energy production, as well as tax cuts.

President Obama, his administration, and the 111th Congress have some major work ahead of them, challenging work. I am hopeful that this chunk of change will help get our economy back on track and put Americans back to work. Let's hope and pray that both of these challenges can be met.

Top 5 awkward moments at the 2009 presidential inauguration

2009-01-22T04:36:00.006-05:00

5) Pastor Rick Warren mentions Malia and Sasha Obama in the invocation as if they were prophets, similar to how he mentions Yeshua, Isa, and Jesus.

4) Cheney rolls out on 22 inch rims

3) Bush and Cheney are "boo'd", followed by the singing of "na-na-na-na, hey-hey-hey, goodbye"

2) Reverend Joseph Lowery spits some rhymes during the benediction

1) Barack Obama fouls up the oath of office.......twice

Bonus awkward moment at the 2009 presidential inauguration: President Obama actually took the "oaf of office"

Welcome to a new era

2009-01-22T03:56:00.007-05:00

Welcome to a new era ladies and gentlemen. In 1795 african american slaves helped build the white house. Twelve of our earlier presidents at one point in time owned slaves, eight of whom owned them while in office. In 1954 the supreme court ruled that segregation in schools was unconstitutional. In 1964 President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act which prohibited discrimination of all kinds. 45 years later, Barack Obama stood upon a building that was once built by slaves, and was sworn in as the President of the United States. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to a new era.

Although we have come a long way from 1795 to 2009, the election of 2009 was not about race, but about change. Not change in the sense that after 43 white men our 44th is black, although that is change, but change in the direction that this country is headed. We once again want to be a country of peace, a country that helps other nations, a country that helps our citizens, a country that leads and sets an example for the rest of the world in technology, energy, education, etc.. As Obama said in his inauguration speech, we want to be a country of hope instead of fear. Welcome to a new era.

January 20th, 2009 will be a day that we will never forget.

OBAMANATION

2009-01-20T14:13:00.003-05:00

Sorry

2009-01-18T12:17:00.004-05:00

We are sorry that we haven't written any posts this past week. There has been so much going on in the news, but unfortunately our writers have been very busy (and very lazy). We promise to get up and running again after inauguration day, so come back soon for more "real talk".

Tomorrow we will celebrate the birthday of one of the greatest black civil rights leaders, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. By mere coincidence, the following day we will be swearing in our first african american president, Barack Obama. The swearing in of a United States President does not always happen the day after MLK Day, but this year it does, and it is very significant. Dr. King's dream finally became reality in 2008, in an America where the people can elect an african american to the highest political position in the country. God bless America, and let's all hope that the future will be brighter than the past.

Bush: 7 days left

2009-01-12T23:40:00.004-05:00

One week left people.

Obama to be in Spiderman!

2009-01-08T14:20:00.002-05:00

We're not kidding. Real Talk Politic has discovered that Marvel comics has awarded Barack Obama, and avid Spiderman reader as a child, with an appearance in an upcoming Spiderman issue on inauguration day. This guy just can't stop raising the bar. The first black president to be in Spiderman!

Burris brings circus to Capital Hill

2009-01-06T11:09:00.005-05:00

Roland Burris showed up to Capital Hill this morning expecting to take the senate seach which used to belong to President-elect Barack Obama. The appointment of Burris has been tainted ever since Rod Blagojevich, the Governor of Illinois whom appointed Burris, was accused of selling this very senate seat to the highest bidder. Burris was swarmed by reporters and security as he walked to join the other senators on the first day of the new congress. Upon reaching the Senate House, he was turned away! The Secretary of the Senate would not seat him because Burris' senate "access card" was missing the signature of Illinois' Secretary of State. The event was a circus media frenzy to say the least.

This issue may very likely end up in the Supreme Court. On one hand Blagojevich is still technically the Governor of Illinois until he is found guilty of the charges against him, and therefore technically still has the right to appoint Burris. On the other hand, the idea of Blagojevich having the authority to appoint a man to a senate seat which he is accused of selling does not sit well with most Americans.

Do you think Burris should be allowed to take the Illinois Senate Seat, or do you think there should be a special election under these circumstances?

Franken Wins!

2009-01-05T19:38:00.006-05:00

It makes sense that the first comedian to make it to the Senate would reveal so much hilarity. Here are some bits and pieces of irony that have come out of the democracy toilet clog that was the 2008 Minnesota Senate Race.

1. Republicans are actually now complaining about voter fraud!

A republican fretting about voter fraud is a little like a NBA player complaining about layups. Since republicans got the better side of the mother of all election thefts in 2000, they're lucky they still even get to have conventions.

2. Wellstone Wins After All!

You may remember that the reason Norm Coleman won the tightly contested race of 2002 was that the conservative media outlets hijacked the the memorial of his Democratic opponent, Paul Wellstone.

Wellstone had died in a plane crash just two weeks before the election. During the four hour ceremony, one man made a comment about how everyone should rally together and vote in the demcratic replacement "for Paul!"

Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Peggy Noonan, the Wall Street Journal and others took this comment and ran with it to make it look like the democrats were trying to revel in the death of their peer and would desecrate any gathering no matter how sacred just to increase power. The Coleman campaign ran with this fallacy and ended up winning.

This was the reason that Franken ended up running, to vindicate his personal friend, Paul Wellstone. It seems that the Republican attack on the Wellstone memorial just cost them that very senate seat. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!

3. This guy is a senator now.

That is all. Minnesota is definitely in the house (and Senate)!

Peace.

Counting ends in Minnesota, or does it?

2009-01-04T21:52:00.005-05:00

There has finally been a winner declared in the Minnesota senate race between Al Franken and Norm Coleman. After exactly two months of counting ballots, Franken has been declared the winner by a mere 225 votes. It is rediculous that in 2009, with all the technology we have, we still have problems when it comes to electing our political figures. After the disaster in Florida during the presidential election of 2000, I thought we would never see this again. But sure enough the old motto stands true, that history repeats itself. Coleman's campaign will probably challenge the decision, considering they beleive that 650 rejected absentee ballots should have counted. When will we have an electoral system in this country that does not fail us?

Could Hamas be seeing its last days?

2009-01-03T17:17:00.005-05:00

After about a week of Israeli air attacks on Gaza, the Israeli army has now began its ground operation. Hundreds of armed vehicles and tanks have crossed into Gaza, manned by thousands of Israeli soldiers. Despite worldwide protests against Israel's actions, the Israeli government has insisted that it will continue with their attacks so long as Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel. Not only has Hamas continued firing rockets to show Israel that they will not stop, but they have even threatened, in an almost daring manner, for Israel to launch its ground invasion by having their officials say that if Isreal goes ahead with it, "Palestinian children would be picking over the ruins of Israeli tanks and the body parts of Israeli soldiers". This is a full out war, and neither side is backing down, that is for sure.

Although it is horrifying to see a country like Israel with such a powerful military kill hundreds of Palestinians, many of whom are civilians, I still do not feel that Israel is doing anything wrong. Hamas, the group its people elected to political power in Gaza, is the one calling the shots. When they stop attacks on Israel, Israel will stop the attacks on them. Until then, Hamas is asking for more destruction to its people and its land.

Defence Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, had this to say about the ground campaign against Hamas, "our aim is to force Hamas to stop its hostile activities against Israel and Israelis from Gaza, and to bring about a significant change in the situation in the southern part of Israel". In other words, Israel is defending its people, and it has the right to do so. President-elect Barack Obama, while visiting Israel during his campaign, said "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. I would expect Israelis to do the same things. This is what the Israelis are doing." If Hamas does not stop launching rockets, I believe there is a chance that in 2009 we might be seeing the end of Hamas.

Counting continues in Minnesota

2008-12-31T00:28:00.004-05:00

Counting of ballots continues in Minnesota from the senate elections that took place on November 4th, almost two months ago. The senate race is between republican Norm Coleman and democrat Al Franken, both of whom are famous entertainment figures. Coleman won the initial count by 215 votes, but after the Franken campaign found out that some 12,000 absentee ballots were disregarded, they demanded a recount. In the recount Franken is maintaining an approximate 50 vote lead.

Both Coleman's and Franken's campaign are arguing that certain ballots shouldn't be counted for a variety of reasons. No matter who wins, the other side will be forced to take it in stride, but deep down will feel that the win was illegitimate. I thought that we had this voting ballot thing fixed after what went down in Florida during the 2000 presidential election. We sent people into space about 50 years ago, but in 2009 we are still having issues with our voting system. We can do better.

Rod Blagojevich, defiant to say the least

2008-12-30T23:16:00.007-05:00

What has Rod Blagojevich been drinking? Everybody from Democrats to Republicans, citizens to Senators, reporters to President-elect Barack Obama has been asking that Blagojevich resign from his position as Illinois Governor in order for there to be a fair and just way to select a Senator to fill Barack Obama's vacant senate seat. Blagojevich, who was arrested less than a month ago for trying to sell this very senate seat, not only disregarded the calls to resign by all 50 democratic Senators and officials throughout Illinois, but even had the nerve to appoint Roland Burris to the senate seat.

I am not doubting that Burris, former Attorney General of Illinois, will not do a fine job as a Governor of Illinois, nor am I doubting that he has absolutely no connection to the Blagojevich scandal. What bothers me however is that Blagojevich has some very serious allegations against him, and it is very unlikely that his choice to appoint Burris to the senate seat will have any bearing when this is all said and done. Blagojevich insisted that "this is about Roland Burris as a U.S. senator, not about the governor who made the appointment". Unfortunately Mr. Blagojevich, it is about you. See, if you are found guilty of the allegations against you, your appointment will have lost all value. The circus that went on in Illinois today went as far as to bring the issue of race to the table when it was said that people "should not hang and lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer".

It is obvious that Blagojevich is in complete denial. Even if he is found innocent when this is all said and done, he will still not have the trust from the people who once elected him fit to be governor of their state. Blagojevich is in his own little world, not even able to take the word from his lawyer who recently said that there would be no point in the governor naming someone to the Senate because leaders there would reject his appointment. My advice to you Mr. Blagojevich, resign so that your name is not tarnished more than it already is, thus allowing for a more just way to select a senator to fill Obama's seat. In the mean time enjoy this video of today's press conference, in which Blagojevich gets some much deserved heat from reporters.

Blagojevich Nominates Roland Burris to Senate Seat

2008-12-30T16:12:00.003-05:00

Despite looming threats from Senate Democrats to block Blagojevich's pick, the corrupt Illinois Governor has gone ahead and done so anyway.

"The people of Illinois are entitled to have two U.S. Senators," said Blagojevich, whose arrest on corruption charges earlier this month places Burris' appointment under a cloud. "If I don't make this appointment then the people of Illinois will be deprived."

Man, this guy's got balls. Everyosne knows he's blatantly guilty but he just goes on and puts his man out there anyway. He's the Suge Knight of Politics.
So far, this Burris guy seems to be clean. No prostitutes, mattress money, or evidence of Chicago thuggery yet; impressive for an Illinois politician.

By the way, is it me or is Caroline Kennedy seeming like more of a bitch lately?

2008-12-30T16:05:00.002-05:00

Israel-Hamas at war again

2008-12-29T14:49:00.009-05:00

It looks like President-elect Barack Obama has another major issue to deal with when he takes office in less than a month. A full out war has once again ensued between Israel and the terrorist group Hamas, based in Gaza. There is no way this fighting will come to an end without a powerful nation, such as the United States, stepping in with some kind of diplomatic solutions.

The six month Egyption-brokered cease fire between Hamas and Israel ended when Hamas began to launch missiles into Israel just a few days ago. Since then Israel has fought back very aggressively, killing more than 350 Palestinians. The White House has spoken out against Hamas, saying that "Hamas has once again shown its true colors as a terrorist organization that has refused to recognize Israel's right to exist...in order for the violence to stop, Hamas must stop firing rockets into Israel and agree to respect a sustainable and durable ceasefire." This did not stop Hamas from launching another 100-some missiles on Sunday and Monday.

President Bush did not condemn Israel for their attacks against Gaza, he just asked Isreael to avoid civilian casualties. There have been at least 50 civilian deaths in Gaza over the past 3 days, but the vast majority of deaths have been Hamas militants. The problem is that Hamas bases much of their strongholds near populated civilian towns, as well as near universities and mosques. In order to help the civilians that have been killed and wounded, Israel allowed more than 50 trucks carrying relief aid into Gaza on Monday, in addition to 40 on Sunday.

United Nations Secretary Ban Ki-moon condemned the rocket attacks by Hamas, but also spoke out against Israel. He had this to say, "While recognizing Israel's right to defend itself, I have also condemned the excessive use of force by Israel in Gaza. The suffering caused to civilian populations as a result of the large-scale violence and destruction that have taken place over the past few days has saddened me profoundly".

To make things worse, several other anti-Israeli leaders are calling on Arabs across the middle east to "get involved". For example, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's religious leader, condemned the silence of some Arab countries.

In both Syria and Beirut protesters flocked to the streets burning Israeli and American flags while waving Hamas banners and Palestinian flags. Violent protests have also been taking place in Britain, Greece, and Turkey.

In addition, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebonese Shiite militant group "Hezbollah", expressed his support for Hamas and told his followers that he beleives Israel may wage a two-front war against them as well, something that Israel did in 2006. He also spoke out against Egypt for helping Israel by closing its borders to Gaza, telling them that “If you don’t open your borders, you are accomplices in the killing".

Things in the middle east are bound to get worse before they get any better. Obama, as if he didn't have enough on his plate already, will have some major work to do in the middle east when he takes office on January 20th, 2009. A cease fire can only last for so long, some real progress needs to be made in the war torn land. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton will be key figures in trying to broker a solution to the middle eastern dilemna that has been going on for decades.

Auto Bailout

2008-12-26T15:38:00.004-05:00

I hope by now you are all familiar with the problems that have been facing the American auto industry, most notably GM, Ford, and Chrysler. I have spent a great deal of time talking about the American auto issue because this sole industry alone could have drastic effects on our economy, which is already in the ruts. If you are not that familiar with the problem, please read the articles on this blog entitled "To bail or not to bail, that is the question" from November 24th, "Bail the big three?" from December 2nd, and "Bailout right around the corner" from December 8th.

The American auto industry is in very bad shape. If the American auto industry goes, so do at least 3 million American jobs. The CEO's of Ford, GM, and Chrysler have been asking for a 35 billion dollar loan from congress in order to help their companies stay afloat. Recently, congress apporved of a 17.4 billion dollar loan, almost 20 billion smaller than what they were asking for. Unfortunately, this money is slowly dissapearing with absolutely nothing to show for it. The companies have continued to go on with their old ways, and have not figured out a way to become competitive with foreign auto comapanies like Toyota, Nissan, Honda, etc. Congress handed over this loan with almost zero conditions, just asking that the auto companies get their wage structure in line with foreign carmakers.

I think that congress and the Bush administration did a horrible job with the auto bailout situation. I think that congress should have told GM, Chrysler, and Ford that if we (government) are going to give you (auto industry) this loan, you (auto industry) must completely change your way of doing business, which has obviously not been working. Instead, government asked the auto industry to cut wages, making the middle class poorer, and aside from that the auto industry has been going on with business as usual. Michael Moore wrote a letter to the American public in which he was also very critical of how congress and the Bush Administration handled the auto bailout situation, please take a minute to read it. (Note that Moore was very critical of the republicans in his letter, blaming them for the cut in autoworker wages that congress voted upon. I disagree with Moore in this regard, because the Democrats have the majority in congress, and the bill would not have passed if it were not for a majority vote.)

Friends,

They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers start building only cars and mass transit that reduce our dependency on oil.

They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers build cars that reduce global warming.

They could have given the loan on the condition that the automakers withdraw their many lawsuits against state governments in their attempts to not comply with our environmental laws.

They could have given the loan on the condition that the management team which drove these once-great manufacturers into the ground resign and be replaced with a team who understands the transportation needs of the 21st century.

Yes, they could have given the loan for any of these reasons because, in the end, to lose our manufacturing infrastructure and throw 3 million people out of work would be a catastrophe.

But instead, the Senate said, we'll give you the loan only if the factory workers take a $20 an hour cut in wages, pension and health care. That's right. After giving BILLIONS to Wall Street hucksters and criminal investment bankers -- billions with no strings attached and, as we have since learned, no oversight whatsoever -- the Senate decided it is more important to break a union, more important to throw middle class wage earners into the ranks of the working poor than to prevent the total collapse of industrial America.

We have a little more than a month to go of this madness. As I sit here in Michigan today, tens of thousands of hard working, honest, decent Americans do not believe they can make it to January 20th. The malaise here is astounding. Why must they suffer because of the mistakes of every CEO from Roger Smith to Rick Wagoner? Make management and the boards of directors and the shareholders pay for this.

Of course that is heresy to the 31 Republicans who decided to blame the poor, miserable autoworkers for this mess. And our wonderful media complied with their spin on the morning news shows: "UAW Refuses to Give Concessions Killing Auto Bailout Bill." In fact the UAW has given concession after concession, reduced their benefits, agreed to get rid of the Jobs Bank and agreed to make it harder for their retirees to live from week to week. Yes! That's what we need to do! It's the Jobs Bank and the old people who have led the nation to economic ruin!

But even doing all that wasn't enough to satisfy the bastard Republicans. These Senate vampires wanted blood. Blue collar blood. You see, they weren't opposed to the bailout because they believed in the free market or capitalism. No, they were opposed to the bailout because they're opposed to workers making a decent wage. In their rage, they were driven to destroy the backbone of this country, not because the UAW hadn't given back enough, but because the UAW hadn't given up.

It appears that the sitting President has been looking for a way to end his reign by one magnanimous act, just like a warlord on his feast day. He will put his finger in the dyke, and the fragile mess of an auto industry will eke through the next few months.

That will give the Senate enough time to demand that the bankers and investment sharks who've already swiped nearly half of the $700 billion gift a chance to make the offer of cutting their pay.

Fat chance.

Yours,
Michael Moore

American Economy: Good or Bad?

2008-12-24T13:43:00.006-05:00

A recent poll conducted by CNN shows that more than 9 out of every 10 American citizens believe that the economic conditions in this country are very poor. With the economy being the number one issue for Americans today, it was not surprising that 93% of those polled thought that the state of our economy is absolutely horrible. What was surprising was that there were 7% who believe the economy is in good shape. These 7% must also be the same people that made up the 1% who said Dick Cheney was the best vice-president in American history, in another recent CNN poll (see article below). Here are some facts about the economic conditions America is facing today:

1. Energy costs have gone way up. Rising costs of gasoline, electricity, and natural gas are hurting everybody in America.
2. Housing market is horrible. American's are being kicked out of their homes, the property value of their homes have dropped, and people are unable to attain home loans.
3. Incomes have declined dramatically. From 2000 to 2007 the average household income decreased by $2,0000. It has gotten much worse with the recession we have found ourselves in over the past year.
4. Unemployment has gone way up. About 2 million Americans have lost their jobs in 2008 alone. If nothing is done unemployment is expected to jump to a national average of 9% over the next year.
5. There have been record deficits and debt. Our national debt has increased by over $3 trillion under President Bush.
6. College education costs have risen. Over the past 8 years college tuition has gone up by an average of 60%.
7. Healthcare costs have risen. Over the past 8 years healthcare costs have increased by an average of 78%.
8. Hard working people aren't able to retire. Retirement savings accounts have lost $2 trillion.
9. The stock market has gone way down. Markets have fallen 40% in less than a year. About 3 months ago, on September 29th, the Dow Jones Industrial fell 777 points. It was the biggest single day drop in history.

Make your own assumptions about the American economy, do you think it's good or bad?

Dick Cheney reveals the truth in interviews

2008-12-22T16:45:00.015-05:00

This past week Dick Cheney was interviewed by Fox News and ABC News. With less than 30 days left in office, Cheney talked about his past eight years working with the Bush administration, in which he said he had no regrets or apologies. Cheney, who Joe Biden called the "most dangerous" vice-president in US history, said several things that troubled me during the interviews.

1. He suggested that the Bush administration would have gone to war with Iraq even without intelligence proving that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction.

2. He said that he approves of coercive interrogation tactics, including waterboarding.

3. He said that in the event of a nuclear attack, the president should not need any permission to launch a nuclear weapon back, and start a nuclear war. He was quoted as saying (on the topic of launching a nuclear weapon) “The president doesn’t have to check with anybody. He doesn’t have to call the Congress. He doesn’t have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in".

4. Although we are still at war in Iraq, and our economy is going down the drain, and we have not caught Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind 9/11 and whole reason we started the "war on terror", Cheney still said "I'm very comfortable with where we are and what we've achieved".

5. He did not regret or apologize for saying "fuck off" on the senate floor to Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

6. He doesn't believe politicians should follow polls, and shouldn't use them as a measure of how good, or in his case bad, of a job they are doing. He was quoted as saying "Frankly I would not want to be one of those guys who spends all his time reading the polls. I think people like that shouldn’t serve in these jobs".

Is it just me, or is there a serious problem with Dick Cheney? The majority of Americans agree with me that Cheney was a horrible vice president. In a recent poll conducted by CNN, 1 out of every 5 US citizens said that Cheney was the worst VP in American history. In addition, 64% of those polled said that Cheney was either the worst VP or a poor VP. However, there were still 34% that said Cheney was a good VP, and an entire 1% that thought he was the best VP in American history.

After further study, the poll showed that 100% of the 1% who said Cheney was the best VP have a mental illness. And that is some real talk.

What Will Continue?

2008-12-21T23:55:00.005-05:00

Condolezza Rice recently commented that she expects Barack Obama to continue to follow on with Bush's foreign policy. While this may not exactly be the "change" we've been waiting for, I am curious to see how, or even if Barack Obama will strip the country of Bush initiatives.

Here are some questions I have about the upcoming Obama administration:

1. Will he repeal No Child Left Behind?
2. Will he allow the releasing of photos of dead soldiers returning in coffins?
3. Will he gut the Patriot Act?
4. Will NSA wiretapping be absolved?
5. Will he actually pull out of Iraq?

The rhetoric was great, but when he's actually in power, will he have the balls to follow through, or will the Bush Doctrine just be modified?

More bail

2008-12-20T23:15:00.006-05:00

A little over 2 months ago the United State's government borrowed 350 billion dollars from China to stimulate our failing economy. Unfortunately, it did not do much, and has apparently gone to waste. The stock market is still falling, unemployment is still rising, families continue to be kicked out of their homes, and not much else is looking good. In fact, Obama's economic team predicts that next year as many as 4 million jobs could be lost, raising unemployment to 9%. Although many are saying that we could be headed into another great depression, which is very possible, unemployment during the great depression reached 25% at its worst.

Obama and his economic team are currently working on another bailout package that will make our previous bail out package of 350 billion look like peanuts. The package that Obama and his staff are working on is looking like a minimum of 600 billion, and could easily reach one trillion. Yes, this is a lot of money, but we have a serious problem on our hands and nobody else is offering a better solution. Hopefully this money will not go to waste, and not be squandered by companies like GM and Chrysler. I have faith in Obama, and believe that he will not hand the money over to irresponsible companies like the ones mentioned, and instead give it to companies that are creating jobs here in America, and use it to help families stay in their homes. In addition to another stimulus package, Obama also has plans to create as many as 3 million jobs in efforts to lower our unemployment rate. Will the Obama administration be able to save us, only time will tell.

Dick Cheney: War Criminal

2008-12-18T14:07:00.004-05:00

Recently in an interview with ABC's Martha Raddatz, Vice President Cheney said he, as well as other top officials in the Bush Administration personally approved the CIA's use of torture techniques like waterboarding. For those who don't know what waterboarding is, here's a little description.

Waterboarding: a form of torture in which the prisoner is immobilized on their back with the head inclined downward while having water poured over the face into the breathing passages. The person being tortured essentially experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent.

Well Dick, you've out done yourself this time. Openly admitting to America's use of torture in the War on Terror on national television. You are essentially challenging the public to bring legal action against you and others in the Bush-Torture Administration. But Im sure you're not worried. On January 20th, you won't take responsibility for the atrocious things that went down under your watch. After all, isn't that what a pardon is for?

Obama: Time Magazine's Person Of The Year

2008-12-17T20:35:00.003-05:00

Who didn't see this coming? Other contenders were Sarah Palin and the Chinese guy who directed the frightening Olympics opening ceremony. The first ever black president of the greatest nation in the world will do.

For Many Environmentalist's Obama's Choice's for Energy and Environment positions a Breath of Fresh Air

2008-12-17T14:19:00.003-05:00

One of the biggest questions surrounding the incoming Obama Administration is how seriously it will approach our energy and environmental issues. After 8 years of Bush environmental and energy policy, any step in the right direction is more than welcome. During the long and drawn out campaign season, President-Elect Obama stated several times his commitment to clean-energy solutions to help battle climate change and reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil. With this weeks announcement of the top Energy and Environmental executive positions, it is clear the President-Elect intends to stay true to his word.

Secretary of Energy- Dr. Steven Chu

Dr. Chu is a Professor of Physics as well as Molecular and Cellular Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a strongly committed to researching technology that will reduce green-house gases like, Alternative and clean sources of energy. Physicists and other scientists are praising Mr. Obama's selection Chu, as he represents the first scientist of his kind to head a major U.S. department that spends over 15 Billion a year on physic's research.

'Energy Czar'- Carol Browner

Served as EPA Administrator during both terms of Clinton's presidency. She has a lot experience in environmental-policy making. Her role as Energy Coordinator will serve as an overseer of the various departments throughout the Administration working on energy and climate-change issues.

Obama and the team he has assembled understand that climate-change and energy are crucial pieces to the larger puzzle of fixing our broken economy and our nations national security. Environmental groups such as the NRDC and the Environmental Defense Fund have praised the picks of Obama. Read more here

"Sweet Caroline, good times never seemed so good..."

2008-12-15T15:53:00.007-05:00

Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of President John F. Kennedy, is seeking the senate seat of New York. The seat will need to be filled when current New York Senator Hillary Clinton becomes Secretary of State under President-elect Barack Obama. New York's Governor, David Paterson, holds the authority to appoint the next new senator of New York until the seat is up for re-election in 2010. Paterson confirmed that kennedy has been in contact with him in reference to the vacant senate seat. Her uncle, Robert F. Kennedy, was a senator of New York from 1965 until his assassination in 1968. Tragic deaths were not uncommon in her family, as you are probably well aware. For example, she had an older sister and younger brother who both died at child birth, her younger brother John Jr. was killed in a plane crash in 1999, and of course there was her father's assasination in 1963. Tragedy almost struck Caroline in 1975 when she was just 18 years old. She was visiting London when a car bomb went off in a car she was about to get into. Luckily for her she was running late, and only an innocent bystander was killed in the blast. The car belonged to Hugh Fraser, a London conservative politician, whom was hosting Caroline during her stay in London.

Other Democrats that have been mentioned for the appointment of New York's senate seat include New York's Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, U.S. House of Representative members Kirstin Gillibrand, Carolyn Maloney, Brian Higgins, and Steve Israel, as well as Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown and Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi.

Absolutely Priceless!

2008-12-15T14:31:00.003-05:00

Yesterday President George W. Bush made a surprise visit to Iraq. It will be his last visit to the war torn country before he steps out of office on January 20th, 2009. During a news conference in Baghdad, an Iraqi television reporter took off his shoes and hurled them at the president (watch video below). Hitting someone with a shoe is a traditional insult in the Arab world, signifying that the person being hit with the shoe is as scummy as the dirt on the bottom of it. The Iraqi television reporter also screamed to President Bush "this is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog". A dog is considered to be a very filthy animal in Arab culture. Bush made light of the situation, laughing while security tackled the man to the ground, and joked with reporters, saying that it was a "size 10 shoe". Bush continued with the news conference, saying that this Iraqi reporter does not reflect how the Iraqi people feel as a whole. Surprisingly enough however, thousands of Iraqis soon flooded the streets and marched in the man's defense. As much as President Bush defends his position on the invasion of Iraq, it is clear that the majority of the world does not want us there, including our own citizens here in America. It is about time that we packed up our bags and left. Enjoy the video.

Bush in Iraq

2008-12-14T12:25:00.006-05:00

Today President George W. Bush made a surprise visit to Iraq. The visit comes 37 days before Bush steps out of office and hands the war over to President-elect Barack Obama. During Bush's two hour meeting with the Iraqi government, he defended his decision to invade the country nearly 6 years ago. "The work hasn't been easy, but it has been necessary for American security, Iraqi hope and world peace," the president said. "I'm just so grateful I had the chance to come back to Iraq before my presidency ends."

Bush's presidential legacy will forever be linked with his unpopular war. A war that has cost the lives of 4,209 U.S. troops, thousands more of Iraqi civilian lives, has injured thousands of troops and civilians, hundreds who will sit in wheelchairs for the remainder of their lives, and has put a burden on U.S. taxpayers of over $575 billion. Perhaps if we didn't get ourselves into this mess we wouldn't be in a recession, and wouldn't have needed to borrow $700 billion from China in order to stimulate our economy. But it is not fair, nor worth while to speculate on what could have been. We must deal with the present situation at hand. The fact is that we got ourselves into a huge, unnecessary mess and we still have close to 150,000 troops in the war torn country today. Bush insists that we are safer today than we were with Saddam Hussein in power, but was it all really worth it?

Recently the Iraqi and US government's have signed an agreement to withdraw all of our troops by 2011. The question is, is it worth staying in Iraq for another 2 years? Will 2 more years do more positive or negative to the 6 year impact we have already had on Iraq? If 2011 rolls around and the situation in Iraq does not improve, do we stay for another 2 years so that our 4,209 U.S. troops did not die in vain? Has the Vietnam War taught us nothing? Obama has vouched throughout his campaign that he will end the war within 16 months of his presidency. Either way, it appears that we are finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, it just may not be the brightest light. Enjoy the cartoons, and may God bless our troops.

Fill em' up

2008-12-14T11:55:00.005-05:00

We all knew that it couldn't last forever. With our economy in the recession that it's in, prices of goods have dropped in nearly every industry, including the gasoline industry. For the past few months, 86 days to be exact, gas prices have been on the decline. Prices went from an all time national average high of $4.114 a gallon to $1.656 as of last friday according to AAA. However, over the past two consecutive days gas prices have been on the rise. Today the national average of a gallon went up to $1.663. Although this change is miniscule, prices may continue to rise until they are back up to where they were this past summer. So fill up those tanks while gas is still relatively low, because before we know it we will once again be paying over 4 bucks a gallon.

Obama's cabinet almost complete

2008-12-14T02:18:00.018-05:00

President-elect Barack Obama is very close to filling all of his cabinet positions. On Saturday morning Obama announced Shaun Donovan to be the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Donavan is the housing commissioner of New York City, and has done an astounding job since he took the position in 2004. Prior to that he was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Multifamily Housing under the Bill Clinton Administration. Yes, thats right, Obama chose a cabinet member that worked for Bill Clinton. I'm as surprised as you are. You can read more about Obama's latest cabinet appointment here. Below is a list of cabinet positions that have been filled by Obama, important positions that remain to be filled include Secretary of Energy, Education, Transportation, and several others.

Chief of Staff- Rahm Emanuel
Attorney General- Eric Holder Jr.
Secretary of Commerce- Bill Richardson
Press Secretary- Robert Gibbs
Secretary of Homeland Security- Janet Napolitano
US Ambassador to the United States- Susan Rice
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development- Shaun Donovan
National Security Advisor- Jim Jones
Secretary of State- Hillary Clinton
Secretary of Veterans Affairs- Eric Shinseki
Secretary of the Treasury- Timothy Geithner
National Economic Council Director- Lawrence Summers
Director of the Office of Management and Budget-Peter Orszag
Secretary of Defense- Robert Gates

Corruption hits Capital Hill...again

2008-12-10T00:04:00.005-05:00

Rob Blagojevich is the Governor of Illinois. As Governor he has the authority to fill the Illinois senate seat which used to belong to President-elect Barack Obama. Blagojevich was arrested yesterday morning for attempting to sell the senate seat to the highest bidder in an attempt to enrich himself, as well as for several other illegal schemes. He is being charged with a count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and a count of solicitation of bribery. The Governor was released after putting up a 4,500 dollar bail and forfeiting his passport.

At least a month ago, the FBI tapped the Governor's phone and bugged his office. In the FBI affidavit, Blagojevich is alleged for saying things like "the senate seat is a valuable thing" and that he "would not give it away for nothing". In addition to attempting to sell the senate seat, Blagojevich is accused of committing several other corrupt acts. Among the sleaziest was withholding funding for a children's hospital until its CEO made donations to his campaign.

Here's the kicker. Blagojevich retains the right to appoint Obama's successor until he is out of office. This wont happen unless he resigns or is impeached, which could take a while. Illinois Senator Dick Durbin has said that the Illinois Legislature needs to act quickly and pass a law that will allow for a special election to fill Obama's seat. Otherwise Blagojevich's appointment would be illegitimate, or there would be a vacancy in the Senate until this whole thing is resolved. You can read more about this scandal here.

I'm sick and tired of hearing about all of these corruption scandals on Capital Hill. It needs to stop. I am glad the FBI have been working to stop these politicans from abusing their power. Hopefully people like Ted Stevens and Rob Blagojevich have set an example to people with authority, teaching them that they, like every other American, will be held accountable for their actions.

The Economy Affects That Too?

2008-12-08T22:37:00.004-05:00

The only way to tell if something in the news is important is if it affects something you wouldn't expect. In the past few days, we have found, and will continue to find, just how much the current failing economy literally affects everything.

What started out a couple banks coming up short is now spreading even further then we may have imagined.

Who would have thought that during the season of The Office where Pam and Jim finally get engaged would be the season that NBC posts its worst quarters in years? NBC Chief Executive Jeff Zucker has even announced plans to scale back programming and start Leno at 10:00 PM so they don't have to be on as long each day.

Much of this is due to a great decrease in advertising revenue, particularly from the (surprise surprise) auto sector.

Yes the economy is affecting more and more every day, from the New York Times to Czechoslovakian whores. Big Sister, Prague's world famous internet brothel, has experienced a 15% drop in sales from sex tourism as has Artemis, the largest whorehouse in Germany.

"An Austrian farmer from a remote area who is not married will still cross the border to the Czech Republic looking for sex," Halana Malinova, director of a prostitute outreach program, said. "On the other hand, the recession is helping to keep husbands at home who might otherwise be cheating on their wives."

Good god. If Jay Leno and hookers aren't safe, who is?

Bailout right around the corner

2008-12-08T20:46:00.004-05:00

Congress and the White House said that they are very close to agreeing on a deal to bail out the auto industry. The bailout is not exactly what the "big 3" have been asking for, but it is a start. Last week the CEO's of Ford, GM, and Chrysler went to Capital Hill asking for 34 billion dollars collectively in order to save their failing companies, some of which could go bankrupt as soon as the end of the month. Congress has agreed on a smaller bailout package of 15 billion dollars in order to give some short-term relief to GM and Chrysler. Ford is not in as bad of shape as GM and Chrysler, and have said that they do not need to take part in this bailout for the time being.

The 15 billion dollar bailout that Congress and the White House are working on would have several guidelines. For example, if GM and Chrysler get the loan, they would be forced to drop the lawsuits they have against states that have passed laws on emissions standards, such as California. Most importantly this bailout would appoint a "car czar" who would be in charge of monitoring the loan. This czar would have until March 31st to decide if GM and Chrysler have made enough progress, and if not, would have the authority to take back the loan. The "car czar" would also be able to meet with several stakeholders in the companies such as the auto unions, creditors, suppliers, dealers, and shareholders. The bill could be passed as early as the end of this week.

Some Congressmen, along with President-elect Barack Obama, have suggested that some of the "big 3" CEOs should step down from their positions, especially GM CEO Richard Wagoner. Obama said that these CEOs have been using a "head in the sand approach" to problems that have been years in the making. Obama has stated his support for giving a short-term bailout to the automakers, and said that Congress is doing a good job of "holding the auto industry's feet to the fire".

I personally do not think that this 15 billion dollar bailout is a good idea. It's like putting a bandaid over a cut that needs stitches. These 3 auto companies have serious problems that $15B won't solve, it will just "kick the can down the road". The "big 3" have been losing billions of dollars over the past few months because they have a failing business strategy, and they won't be successful until they understand the problems within them. On top of not being able to compete with foreign auto companies, the "big 3" are forced to give their unionized workers benefits that they cannot afford. Until these serious problems are solved, a mesely $15B is just a waste of tax payer's money. Perhaps it is time that two, or even all three of America's largest auto companies merge into one that is able to compete with Honda, Toyota, and other successful foreign auto companies.

Obama announces another cabinet member

2008-12-07T20:10:00.002-05:00

Today President-elect Barack Obama announced General Eric Shinseki as his choice to be United States Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Rahm Emanuel

2008-12-05T11:20:00.006-05:00

Rahm Emanuel will soon be the highest ranking member of the Executive Office of President Barack Obama on January 20th, 2009 when he becomes the White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel has lived a very successful and interesting career as a politician. Here are some of the highlights of his life in an attempt to get to know "Rahm-bo" a little better.

Born November 29th, 1959

Went to a Jewish private school as a younger child. Being raised as a Jew, he feels very strongly about Israel. In hebrew his first name "Rahm" means "high" or "lofty" and his last name "Emanuel" means "God is with us"

Received B.A. from Sarah Lawrence College in 1981

Received Masters in Speech and Communication from Northwestern University in 1985

Worked on several political campaigns right out of college

Acted as director of the campaign finance committe during Bill Clintons campaign for president in the early 90's

Appointed as Senior Advisor to the Clinton White House from 1993-1998

Became known for his "bitterness" towards those who disagreed with him. For example, he mailed a rotten fish to a former coworker that he had his differences with. He also stood up at a celebratory dinner for President Clinton with a steak knife in hand, shouting off a list of "betrayers", and after each name shouted "dead" and stabbed the knife into the table. Since then his close friends say that he has "mellowed out" and has not since had an outburst of this magnitude.

After leaving the Clinton White House in 1998 he became an investment banker at Wasserstein Perella until 2002, reportedly making over 16 million dollars during his 2 1/2 year career there.

In 2002 he pursued the United Stated House Seat as a representative to Illinois' 5th congressional district and won with ease. He is the 4th ranking democrat in the house.

On November 6th, 2008, just two days after Obama took the presidency, he accepted Obama's offer to become his White House Chief of Staff, and will take office on January 20th, 2009.

Feel it?

2008-12-05T10:43:00.004-05:00

Many people have not yet felt the impact of the economic recession we are in. For those of you who don't understand how Wall Street is affecting Main Street, just look at the how unemployment has sky rocketed over the past month. In November of 2008 alone the United States has lost about 533,000 jobs, over half a million. This brings the total job loss of this year to 1.9 million. Unemployment has jumped to about 6.7% on a nation wide average, with some states doing much worse than others. Jobs have been cut in a variety of industries ranging from manufacturing to leisure and hospitality to construction.

This is one reason why President-Elect Barack Obama beleives this country may need another economic stimulous package in addition to the 700 billion dollar package that Congress passed a couple months ago. With Obama's plan he aims to create and save about 2.5 million jobs in America over the next two years, a job well worth doing. Obama is optimistic, yet at the same time realistic, recently being quoted as saying that "there are no quick and easy fixes to this crisis, which has been many years in the making, and is likely to get worse before it gets better".

They're Back

2008-12-04T21:13:00.005-05:00

A couple weeks ago the three CEO’s of GM Ford and Chrysler went to Washington D.C. in efforts argue for their share of the 700 billion dollars that Congress has set aside to help our failing financial institutions during this economic recession. Although GM, Ford, and Chrysler are not financial institutions, they are some of America’s largest corporations that will have profound effects on our economy if they fail. Today, the three CEO’s of GM, Ford, and Chrysler (Richard Wagoner, Alan Mullay, and Robert Nardelli respectively) were back on Capital Hill, only this time a few things were different.

1. The way in which they traveled from Detroit to Washington D.C. was different. Two weeks ago Wagoner, Mullay, and Nardelli each flew to Washington three separate company private jets. There is something wrong when you step off of a private jet begging for money. Since then the companies have made efforts to cut their costs by selling these jets, Ford stating that it had sold 5 of their 7. Today the three CEO’s drove from Detroit to Washington in company Hybrid cars. They were finally getting the message that they cannot go on with “business as usual” when their companies are around the corner from bankruptcy. The three companies have made several budget cuts, and all three CEOs have even agreed that, if Congress gives them this bailout money, they will lower their salaries to $1 per year.

2. The amount of money that they were asking for changed. Two weeks ago Wagoner, Mullay, and Nardelli were asking Congress for 25 billion dollars in bailout money. At the time, they had no explanation for why that was the amount of money they needed, it was just a number that was put on the table. When asked how they were planning to split it up between the three of them Wagoner answered, “we are asking for 10 to 12 billion”, Nardelli answered, “about 8 billion”, and Mullay stated, “whatever is left”. Is it just me, or is there something seriously wrong with so loosely asking for billions of dollars from tax-payers. Today the three CEO’s were asking congress for 34 billion dollars, 9 million more than two weeks ago. This time however they knew exactly how they were going to split it up. GM said they will need 18 billion, Ford will need 9 billion, and Chrysler will need 7 billion in order to survive. If the government fails to help them, GM and Chrysler could go bankrupt by the end of the month, while Ford would follow in early to mid 2009.

3. Their way of doing business has changed. Two weeks ago Wagoner, Mullay, and Nardelli came to Washington with absolutely no plan, and absolutely no indication of how they were going to turn their companies around to be competitive with foreign automakers. GM, Ford, and Chrysler were losing billions of dollars every month, yet they believed that if Congress gave them 10 billion dollars they could magically become successful. Today the three CEOs showed up to Capital Hill with business plan in hand. The plans indicated what they were going to do with their bailout money, how they were going become competitive and successful, and how they were going to ensure that the taxpayers get their money back. For example, they will put billions of dollars into building fuel-efficient cars and invest in the technology to build cars of the future. They also said exactly when they would have the taxpayers paid back, GM stating that they will fully repay their loans by 2012.

There is a consensus among Republicans and Democrats that losing these companies will be catastrophic for America and our economy. However, there is a disagreement on how we can help these companies and ensure that they do not fail. Chris Dodd, Senator from Connecticut and chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said that “failure for Congress to act would be playing Russian roulette with the entire economy of the United States”. Others, like Mitt Romney, Governor from Massachusetts, has said that we should let these companies go into bankruptcy and allow investors with a new vision for the company buy them out, and restructure them from the ground up. Many believe that throwing money at the problem will in effect just be “kicking the can down the road”. Some, like economist Mark Zandi, has said that 34 billion dollars is not even close to enough to save these companies, and that if given this bailout they will likely go bankrupt within the next two years. Zandi said that in order to save these companies they would need a much larger bailout around 75 to 125 billion dollars. Other people have also suggested a merger of at least two of the companies so that they can combine their assets, intuition, technology, skill, etc. and able them to not only save their companies, but to grow them, create jobs, and boost our economy. It is only a matter of days before we find out the fate of these companies, in the mean time they lie in the hands of our government.

Bail the "Big 3"?

2008-12-02T18:06:00.011-05:00

As many of you already know, last month the CEO's from the largest three automakers in America, Ford, GM, and Chrysler, went to Congress amidst our current financial crisis asking for 25 billion dollars collectively in bailout money (see article "To bail or not to bail, that is the question" from November 24th). The CEO's claimed that each of their respective companies were lying on their death beds, and said if they went down that over 3 million American jobs would go down with them. Congress told the "Big 3" to go back to Detroit, whip up some business plans that indicate how they will use the tax payer money to turn around and save their companies, and to come back to Washington to present their plans on December 4th and 5th.

Losing the auto-industry in America, expecially during the economic recession we are in, would have profound impacts on unemployment and would be absolutely devastating to our economy. Not only would jobs be flushed down the drain, but employers who worked their entire lives for these auto corporations would also see their benefits dissapear. For example, CNN recently wrote an article about the Emery family. The parents of this family worked for GM for over 30 years, the mother as a welder and the father as a company electrician and supervisor. Today this couple is retired because they are too old to work. They live off of GM's retirement package which gives them a monthly income to live on, as well as some benefits such as health insurance for the immediate family. The Emery couple worked over 30 years to earn their benefits, but they could all be stripped away from them if GM goes under.

GM, along with Ford and Chrysler, have already started throwing away many of the companies benefits. For example, all three used to offer dependent scholarship programs under which dependent children of the employees received scholarships to help them pay tuition. These programs are being thrown away in an effor to cut costs for the companies.

Ford has recently sold 5 of their corporate aircrafts in other efforts to cut costs. Last month the "Big 3" CEO's received criticism from Congress for each flying in on their own private jet asking for 25 billion dollars, drawing comparisons to "the guy in high hat and tuxedo that showed up to the soup kitchen". This week the CEO's from Ford and GM drove in company cars from Detroit to Washington in efforts to show Congress, as well as the general public, that they understand the changes that need to be made within their companies. The CEO's of GM and Ford have also said that if Congress gives them a bridge loan that they will each work for $1 for a single year.

The "big 3" have come to realize that, even with budget cuts, they will realistically need much more than 25 billion dollars from Congress. GM alone has raised their $12 billion figure from a month ago to $18 billion, Ford from $8 billion to $13 billion, and Chrysler maintains that they will need about $8 billion to save their respective companies.

The automakers are also making some changes to their business strategies. For example, GM is planning on reducing their dealers from 6,450 to 4,700, and is cutting their workforce by at least 30,000 employees. GM has also stated that 22 of their 24 new vehicle launches that will come out over the next couple years will be fuel-efficient cars. Ford has promised to build a "family" of hybrids, plug-ins, and battery electric vehicles.

These are all some steps in the right direction for the "big 3", but is it enough to save their dying companies? On Thursday and Friday Congress will be faced with making the tough decision of if they should give over 25 billion dollars to the three automakers. Although the consequences of not bailing them out are devestating, Congress must ask themselves if 25 billion dollars is enough money to take these companies off life support and make them competitive with companies like Honda and Toyota, because nobody wants to see more of our tax dollars flushed down the toilet.

All Star Team

2008-12-01T21:28:00.003-05:00

Many people have criticized President-Elect Barack Obama for his choice in his cabinet selections. They claim that he is already falling through on his promise to bring change to Washington by appointing several individuals who served under former President Bill Clinton. They question how change is coming to Washington by recycling all of these "old faces" back into the White House. Obama has responded to these allegations, stating that he wants people who "know their way around Washington", and don't need any "on the job training". It is essential, especially during these tough economic times, that Obama and his administration have the ability to "hit the ground running" when they step into office.

Today Obama nominated several more key figures to his cabinet. Most notable is Obama's choice for Secretary of State, former "arch nemesis" Senator Hillary Clinton. Clinton has extensive experience with foreign affairs. As former first lady, Clinton had the opportunity to meet with important figures all over the world. She is well respected by many world leaders, is a powerful woman, and certainly has what it takes to fill the position.

Obama has also announced Susan Rice as the US permanent representative to the United Nations, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security, and Eric Holder as Attorney General. All three of these individuals served under the Bill Clinton administration in some capacity.

For those of you who think that Obama is only choosing liberal, former "Clintonites", think again. Obama has asked that Robert Gates, Defense Secretary under the current Bush administration, continue with his position. Gate's has served in many national security roles under several Republican presidents. Gates has the unique opportunity of being one of the only Republicans in Obama's cabinet, a promise of "cabinet diversity" Obama guaranteed during his campaign. Obama has said that while Gate's will provide some "continuity" from the Bush administration to the Obama administration, he will have a new mission of "responsibly ending the war in Iraq through a successful transition to Iraqi control".

Obama has also nominated General James Jones as National Security Adviser. Jones is another individual Obama wants on his team that served under the Bush administration, having served as a Middle East adviser. Jones is a former top commander of NATO, as well as former commander of US forces in Europe.

Obama has stated that he is a believer in "strong personalities and strong opinions", and that these factors helped influence his cabinet selections. Obama also stated that in Washington it is easy to "get wrapped up in groupthink, everybody agrees with everything, there's no discussion, and there are no dissenting views". This is why Obama has brought some diversity to his cabinet by selecting conservatives and liberals, women and men, black and white, young and old. Hopefully Obama and his cabinet will bring some "fresh thinking" to Washington, and challenge each other to create some real, long-term solutions to the problems we face here in America, and across the globe.

Lamest Duck Ever?

2008-11-30T19:04:00.003-05:00

How many lame ducks does it take to screw in a light bulb? Trick question, lame ducks can't do jack. Or can they? Many people are calling George W. Bush the lamest duck ever, seemingly trying to hide from this economic crisis that we have found ourselves in. Perhaps W forgot that President-Elect Barack Obama doesn't take office until January 20th, and that until then there can only be one President of the United States.

So what exactly is Bush doing during these last couple months of his presidency? He is not as lame as one may think. Although he has appeared to be hiding from important issues such as our economic crisis, the Bush White House has managed to approve of over 60 new regulations over the past month, and there will be many more to come before Obama takes office on January 20th.

These "last minute" regulations that Bush has approved of deal with environmental, security, social, and commercial matters, and will add an estimated 2 billion dollar stress on our economy. Many of these new rules are nonsensical, a waste of money, and do more harm than good. For example, many of these new regulations help corporations that have had a hard time abiding pollution-control laws as well as wilderness-protection laws simply by easing the restrictions that were previously placed on these companies.

There are several other regulations that the Bush Administration has passed over the past month that are very odd. Most notably they have set standards for what kinds of records must be kept by sexually explicit performers and publications. They have also expanded the collection of DNA samples from federal prisoners, have passed a law that allows truck companies to force their drivers to stay on the road for 11 hours without any breaks, and have also forced the Environmental Protection Agency to remove a law that requires truck manufacturers to install a piece of equipment that monitors the vehicle's pollution. Is it just me, or is it completely irresponsible to be passing all of these silly laws while people are losing their jobs, are being kicked out of their homes, and while our economy remains very fragile?

During Obama's campaign he said that he would reverse many of Bush's policies, most notably dealing with stem cell research, oil drilling, and abortion. These last few months of Bush's lame duck session has only created more unnecessary, tedious work for the Obama Administration. Once Bush's new rules take the form of law, they can only be undone through three complicated means. 1) Through a new regulatory rule-making that would probably take years, 2) through congressional amendments to underlying laws, or 3) through special resolutions of disapproval that must be approved by the House and Senate within a few months after the start of the new congressional session on January 6th, 2009. So until W gets out of the White House he will be as lame as he wants to be, and nobody is going to stop him.

Happy Thanksgiving folks!!!

2008-11-27T12:53:00.004-05:00

Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers

2008-11-26T18:37:00.005-05:00

William Ayers is a former member of the radical terrorist group called the “Weather Underground”, which has claimed responsibility for several bombings during the early seventies including bombings to the Pentagon, US Capital building, and the NY City Police Headquarters. All of this was done to protest the unnecessary war that America started in Vietnam. The FBI labeled them a “domestic terrorist group”, and although nobody was ever killed in these attacks, several were injured.

Since then Ayers has become a distinguished professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago, has publicly apologized for his acts, and has even written letters of apology to the individuals who were injured as a result of his violence. A lot of controversy arose in 2001 when, in a NY Times interview, Ayers said, “I don’t regret setting bombs” and “I feel we didn’t do enough”. Although on the surface this sounds like more terrorist rhetoric, Ayers corrected the way in which his words were interpreted after the interview was publicized. Ayers said that by “not doing enough” he was speaking in reference to not having done enough to stop the American government from waging an unethical war in Vietnam, and did not mean to imply that he wished he had set more bombs.

Ayers became the center of attention for much of the 2008 political campaign after news came out that President-Elect Barack Obama and Ayers were friends. Vice Presidential republican nominee Sarah Palin went as far to say that Obama “pals around with terrorists” in an interview a couple months prior to the 2008 Presidential Election. All of this talk about Obama being connected to a terrorist arose because between 1999 and 2002 Obama and Ayers were both members on the board of an anti-poverty group called the Woods Fund of Chicago. Obama also received and accepted a 200-dollar campaign contribution from Ayers.

I can understand the concern here with Obama’s judgment with whom he “pals around with” but let’s be serious folks. Obama was 8 years old when the Weathermen were active. Obama has also come out and condemned the acts taken by the Weatherman Underground. It’s not like the two go golfing on the weekends, they simply served on a board together over 15 years ago. Connecting Obama with events that occurred almost forty years ago was a far stretch, and a desperate attempt for the John Mccain-Sarah Palin campaign, and boy am I glad it didn’t work.

Please enjoy a video short made by my friend and fellow Real Talk Politic blogger, Louis Armistead. The video is called “The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers”, and is set to Will Smiths legendary “The Fresh Prince of Bell Airs”. It gives a great interpretation of the Obama-Ayers connection that Mccain-Palin brought to the spotlight. Enjoy!

Obama tries to bring fresh ideas to Washington

2008-11-26T12:33:00.009-05:00

In a speech given today, President-Elect Barack Obama has restated the point that the old way of thinking and acting in Washington will not work anymore, and that "we need fresh thinking and bold new ideas from the leading minds all across America". Today Obama announced a new institution to help his economic team through these hard times by forming the Presidents Economic Advisory Board. This board will be comprised of individuals that are not politicians, but rather people of business and professors of economics. Obama said that they will bring some "fresh thinking" to Washington, which is much needed in our country. Obama announced that this board will be chaired by former chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker, who has previously served under both Republicans and Democrats and will be a key figure who will work across the isle over the next four years. Obama has also announced that Austin Goolsby will serve as staff director and chief economist of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board. These are just two of the many fresh faces that we will see help Obama guide us through these hard economic times, and slowly but surely we are seeing some real change brought to Washington.

Paul Volcker, chair of Obama's Economic Advisory Board, sits to the right of President-Elect Barack Obama

Iraq war: six years later

2008-11-25T22:26:00.008-05:00

This coming March will be the six year anniversary of the Iraq war, and some are talking about continuing it until 2012. You will hear people on the far right like Sean Hannity talk about how much we have changed Iraq for the better and how we haven't seen a terrorist attack in eight years. Keep in mind that while these people on the right say that we have been successful in Iraq, this November there have been 16 U.S. troop murders, bringing the total deaths of American soldiers to 4,206. Thousands of more civilians have been murdered and thousands more wounded. We have also spent roughly 600 billion dollars on this war thus far, all of which could have been used to bail out our economy instead of borrowing 700 billion dollars from China. It is about time we bring our troops home, or at least send them over to Afghanistan so that we can go over the real people who attacked our nation on September, 11th 2001. It's been 6 years and there is still no bright light at the end of the tunnel.

Sons and daughters, fathers and mothers are pictured here being brought back from Iraq in caskets

3 more years in Iraq?

2008-11-25T22:07:00.000-05:00

Many people in America, one being President-elect Barack Obama, disagreed with the Iraq war from the very start. Most of those that did not oppose the war back in 2003 oppose it today, and why shouldn’t they. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the war, thousands of lives, thousands of severe injuries, and we still have a long way to go before Iraq can be the peaceful, prosperous democracy we want it to be.

Last year Congress created 18 benchmarks that had to be met until they reach what they believe is a “mission accomplished” in Iraq. This past summer the White House declared that 15 out of the 18 benchmarks were “satisfactory”.

Tomorrow there will be a vote amongst the Iraqi government, which will decide the fate of U.S. troop presence in Iraq. If passed, this piece of legislation would remove all U.S. troops from cities and towns by mid 2009, and would remove all troops by the January 2012.

Even if this Iraqi vote does pass, President-elect Barack Obama is truly the one who will decide the fate of American presence in Iraq. Throughout Obama’s campaign he stated that if he became president he would remove all U.S. troops within 16 months of him taking office. So far Obama insists that he will keep his word.

Over the past few months the Iraq war has taken the back seat on many people’s minds, while the economy has become the number one issue. Americans are more concerned with what is going on here at home with our stock market dropping and our economy falling apart right before our eyes. Yet close to 6 years after starting the Iraq war we are still spending 10 billion dollars a week in Iraq and people are still being killed and deformed every day.

There is a consensus between liberals and conservatives that we need to stop this war, but how we stop it and when we stop it is up for interpretation. Some say we must stay there until all 18 criteria are met, while others say we should pull out today. Must we really make sure all 18 criteria are met, or shall we finally say enough is enough with a war that should have never been started, and finally give some independence to the Iraqi people?

List of the 18 benchmarks that Congress says Iraq needs to meet (courtesy Fox News):

• Perform a Constitutional review;
• Enact and implement de-Ba-athification reform legislation;
• Ensure equal distribution of hydrocarbon resources to Iraqis;
• Form semi-autonomous regions;
• Hold provincial elections;
• Enact and implement legislation addressing amnesty;
• Disarm militias;
• Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan;
• Ensure minority rights in Iraqi legislature;
• Keep Iraqi Security Forces free from partisan interference;
• Provide military support in Baghdad;
• Empower Iraqi Security Forces;
• Ensure Iraqi Security Forces provide impartial law enforcement;
• Reduce sectarian violence;
• Establish neighborhood security in Baghdad;
• Increase the number of independent Iraqi security forces;
• Allocate and spend $10 billion in Iraq revenues equally;
• Ensure that Iraq's political authorities do not undermine or make false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Obama's plan for our economy

2008-11-25T17:37:00.005-05:00

While President Bush and treasury secretary Henry Paulson remain fairly quiet about the economic crisis we are in, President-elect Barack Obama has started to give us some hope for the future. He has recently announced part of his economic team, and is slowly revealing details of his economic plan that will ensue immediately after he takes office. Obama’s economic plan is made up of four main criteria.

First he wants immediate action to create jobs here in America. He aims to create an estimated 2.5 million jobs by 2010 rebuilding our roads, reshaping our schools, and creating the next generation of green jobs. Obama will also be giving a tax break for each individual that a company hires here in America, and will raise taxes for companies that send jobs overseas.

Obama has also stressed the point that in order to have a strong economy and a thriving Wall Street that we must first have a strong Main Street. This is why Obama will give immediate relief for struggling families. One way in which Obama will give this relief is by cutting taxes for the majority of families in America. In a recent speech, Obama has said that today’s American families that are making millions of dollars can afford to pay a little more in taxes in order to help the struggling families of the middle and lower class. He added that it’s about time there was some fairness restored to our tax policies.

Obama also wants to see immediate assistance for homeowners. All across the country Americans are losing their homes because they cannot afford to pay their mortgages. Our 700 billion dollars that we have borrowed from China was partially used to bail out the mortgage lenders and banks, but they have not proven to be responsible with the money that Government gives them. Obama will try to modify the terms of mortgages, reform the bankruptcy code, and will provide an estimated 25 billion dollars in state fiscal relief to help states pay for their services without raising taxes.

Last, but certainly not least, Obama wants to see a very aggressive response to our financial crisis. America needs to see a sign of assurance in our financial market. Obama is determined to give this assurance, and has slowly taken steps in the right direction by announcing a strong financial team. In order to overcome this financial crisis Obama said we must create jobs, invest in science and schools, help small business, and most importantly make sure that our 700 billion dollar rescue package is used wisely and does not go to waste. Obama has assured us that he will go through the federal budget “page by page, line by line” and destroy the programs in America that don’t work, and reinvest in the ones that do. Obama has said, “that budget reform is not an option. It’s a necessity.”

In addition to announcing four key players to the Obama economic team yesterday, Obama has also recently chosen Peter Orszag as the director of the Office of Management and Budget. Orszag is the head of the congressional Budget Office, and worked under Bill Clinton as an economic adviser. He is another great addition to the Obama team, and we await more economic announcements from Obama tomorrow.

To bail or not to bail, that is the question

2008-11-24T15:39:00.009-05:00

Amidst our current financial crisis the CEO’s of GM, Ford, and Chrysler flew into Washington D.C. last week asking for 25 billion dollars collectively in a desperate attempt to save their dying companies. All three of the largest auto companies in America have been losing billions of dollars over the past several fiscal quarters. For years these companies have been making big gas guzzling cars, and as a result the American people have stopped buying them. They started buying foreign cars like Nissans and Hondas that may be safer, more economical, or better for the environment. Yet they came to Congress practically begging for a 25 billion dollar bailout to split between the three of them without any kind of plan of how they aim to change their failing business strategies. Why should the American taxpayers be putting up 25 billion dollars if GM, Ford, and Chrysler are not going to change the cars they create. After all, these companies have been losing billions of dollars over the past several months, yet they think that for some magical reason if the Government gives them 25 billion dollars to split three ways it will somehow save their companies without them changing a thing to their business plans.

From left to right are automaker CEO's Richard Wagoner of GM, Robert Nardelli of of Chrysler, and Alan Mullay of Ford infront of Congress last week asking for 25 billion dollars

On the other side of things these corporations employ about 3 million Americans who will lose their jobs if these companies go under. There will also be a ripple effect to other industries that make their sound systems, their tires, leather for their interiors, etc. that will create further job loss. For this very reason it is important that we help these automakers as much as we possibly can. Losing all of those jobs would be catastrophic to our country, especially during the economic downfall that we are currently in.

Congress did not go easy on the three CEO’s. Several Senators and Governors asked some critical questions of the “Big 3”. Some, like Mitt Romney, suggested we let these companies go into bankruptcy and then restructure their business models and build up from there. Congress was also certainly not impressed that each CEO arrived on their own personal jet instead of flying commercial. The CEO’s argued that they were literally counting their last blessings, yet they had the audacity to “show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo” as Congressman from New York, Gary Ackerman, said it best. After two days in Washington Congress told the “Big 3” to go back to Detroit and to draft up a plan that describes in detail how they are going to use this money, how they are going to become more competitive in the market, and how they are going to ensure that American tax payers get their money back. Hmmm….a plan, that’s not a bad idea. Why didn’t anybody think of this before the automakers flew into Washington with tin cups in their hands?

President-elect Barack Obama has stated that if America’s auto industry is not bailed out before he takes office on January 20th, 2009, he will make it his first priority of business to do so. President-elect Obama understands the profound impact losing these companies could have on our economy, and is not going to have another administration that sits back and does nothing, letting the free market do its thing. Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore shared some interesting thoughts on this matter on Larry King Live the other day. Moore’s father worked for GM for several years, and in the late 1980’s Moore made a film called “Roger and me” that was about the harm that GM has done to America, using his hometown of Flint, Michigan as an example. While being interviewed by Larry King, Moore stated that Obama should “do what FDR did during WWII”. During WWII President Roosevelt told the automakers that they were no longer going to make cars. Government ordered them to make armaments, such as tanks, to help its country through the war. They did just that, and they were successful. Moore suggested that Obama needs to do just as FDR did during the hard times we are in today. Government needs to tell these automakers that if we are going to give you this kind of money, we (Government) are going to tell you what you are making and how it’s made. We need to tell them to make us busses, trains, more fuel-efficient cars, more environmental/economical cars, a mass transit system for our country, etc. Not only would we be putting people to work and creating jobs, we would also be saving the backbone of this country and ensure that we do not hurt our fragile economy any further. This would be a big solution to a big problem. 25 billion dollars is not a big solution, it’s just a lot of money.

Obama's economic team takes shape

2008-11-24T14:20:00.009-05:00

President-elect Barack Obama has remained relatively quiet about what he plans to do about our struggling economy when he takes office. Last week he stated that the US only has one President at a time, and until January 20th 2009 that President is George W. Bush. Today Barack Obama gave some insight into his economic agenda by announcing four individuals who will play key roles as his economic team. Obama stated that in order to overcome the economic problems we face “we must bring together the best minds in America to guide us”. We are all hopeful that Obama has formed the right team to help us through this economic crisis we are in.

President-Elect Barack Obama pictured with his newly announced economic team standing behind him, along with Vice President-Elect Joe Biden

First Obama announced Timothy Geithner as his treasury secretary. Geithner was the President of the New York Federal Reserve. Obama stated that he has chosen Geithner because he has a strong understanding of the economic problems we face and shares similar core beliefs about what needs to be done to revitalize both Wall Street and Main Street.

Geithner’s mentor, Lawrence Summers, was announced as chief of the National Economic Council. Obama stated that Summers brings “skill and experience” to the table. Summers was part of the Department of Treasury under Bill Clinton. Obama assured the American people that Summers “has helped guide us threw many economic problems in the past” and will be a key figure in guiding us threw the economic problems of today.

Obama also announced Christina Romer to chair the Council of Economic Advisers. Romer won the Berkley Distinguished Teaching Award as an economics professor at UC Berkley and was also former vice-president to the American Economic Association.

Lastly, Obama announced Melody Barnes as the director of the Domestic Policy Council. Obama said that Barnes will “work hand in hand with the economic policy team”. After all, our economy is not only affected by what happens here at home, but also by what happens in China, Japan, Russia, and other countries that we are dependent on for a successful economy.

During Obama’s short speech he stated over and over that the “key to a strong economy is a strong middle class” and that “we can not have a strong Wall Street without a strong Main Street”. Obama said that we as Americans are all in this together, and that we stand and fall as one nation. For this reason it is important that we not only help Wall Street, but also give help to the struggling families on Main Street.

Obama said there is “a clear consensus” between Republicans and Democrats that we need a large stimulus package to help get this country back on track. Obama was not yet willing to say just how big of a stimulus package we would need to get our economy going again, but some economists have given a figure of over a trillion dollars. Although Obama did not go into full detail about what he plans on doing to revitalize our economy, he did give some insight into what he plans to do during his first couple years in office. For example, he has recently stated that he plans to create 2.5 million more jobs by 2010, putting people to work through repairing roads and bridges, restoring our schools, and creating green jobs for our future. This is certainly a glimpse of hope that Obama promised throughout his campaign; hope that we should believe in.

REAL TALK POLITIC: COMING SOON

2008-11-23T00:27:00.006-05:00