Remember

And a couple photos from my brother's trip to Normandy:

GI Bill Blues

McCain and Obama have argued for two different proposed bills to expand the GI Bill education benefit for veterans of the armed services.

In what was generally reported as McCain attacking Obama for his lack of service during a dispute over the two different proposals, the first punch was thrown out by Obama on the Senate floor:

Obama threw the first punch in a speech on the Senate floor, questioning McCain's opposition to the education measure, which would increase the amount of money available to veterans who pursue a college degree.

Obama said it was the Senate's "moral duty" to pass the legislation and suggested that McCain's opposition was motivated by partisanship. He painted McCain as a puppet of President Bush.

"I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI Bill," he said. "I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the president more on this issue."

An angry McCain answered in a statement released by his campaign.

That press release is here in full, and the most relevant parts below:

"Senators Graham, Burr and I have offered legislation that would provide veterans with a substantial increase in educational benefits. The bill we have sponsored would increase monthly education benefits to $1500; eliminate the $1200 enrollment fee; and offer a $1000 annually for books and supplies. Importantly, we would allow veterans to transfer those benefits to their spouses or dependent children or use a part of them to pay down existing student loans. We also increase benefits to the Guard and Reserve, and even more generously to those who serve in the Selected Reserve.

"I know that my friend and fellow veteran, Senator Jim Webb, an honorable man who takes his responsibility to veterans very seriously, has offered legislation with very generous benefits. I respect and admire his position, and I would never suggest that he has anything other than the best of intentions to honor the service of deserving veterans. Both Senator Webb and I are united in our deep appreciation for the men and women who risk their lives so that the rest of us may be secure in our freedom. And I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.

"The most important difference between our two approaches is that Senator Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times. Our bill has a sliding scale that offers generous benefits to all veterans, but increases those benefits according to the veteran's length of service. I think it is important to do that because, otherwise, we will encourage more people to leave the military after they have completed one enlistment. At a time when the United States military is fighting in two wars, and as we finally are beginning the long overdue and very urgent necessity of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, one study estimates that Senator Webb's bill will reduce retention rates by 16%.

"Most worrying to me, is that by hurting retention we will reduce the numbers of men and women who we train to become the backbone of all the services, the noncommissioned officer. In my life, I have learned more from noncommissioned officers I have known and served with than anyone else outside my family. And in combat, no one is more important to their soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, and to the officers who command them, than the sergeant and petty officer. They are very hard to replace. Encouraging people not to choose to become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly. As I said, the office of President, which I am seeking, is a great honor, indeed, but it imposes serious responsibilities. How faithfully the President discharges those responsibilities will determine whether he or she deserves the honor. I can only tell you I intend to deserve the honor if I am fortunate to receive it, even if it means I must take politically unpopular positions at times and disagree with people for whom I have the highest respect and affection."

Obama responded by dismissing the press release as "schoolyard taunts" and yet another distraction from the issues facing the American people. I couldn't find where Obama actually responded to McCain's argument... perhaps someone else can find it?

Or perhaps the media generally took Obama's side on the matter, as CBS News did so blatantly here. They not only left out what McCain was responding to (Obama's Senate floor statements accusing McCain of putting partisanship ahead of the needs of our veterans) but went further to paint McCain as relentlessly attacking Obama's character by ripping quotes out of that context and painting Obama as having been nothing but respectful and full of admiration for McCain. It's a pretty nauseating read given the context.

Apparently some media outlets feel it is entirely proper or just not worth mentioning when a young non-veteran politician makes baseless accusations against a decorated war veteran as being part of some partisan conspiracy to screw over the troops? And then they feel justified in distorting that decorated war veteran's comments to say that non-veterans can't criticize him on policy issues when he was actually arguing that he wouldn't accept disparaging criticism of his regard for veterans?

Such blatant and obvious sucking up to their favored candidate would almost be understandable in an opinion piece, but when they go as far distorting the facts and misleading their audience, it would still be hard to justify it either way. The fact that this was reported as objective news is just repulsive.

You can compare for yourself the two different bills. From Senator Webb's Senate website is the fact sheet on his proposal which is supported by Obama. McCain backs Senator Graham's proposal, a summary of which is detailed on his Senate website as well.

While I'd argue that both bills are an improvement, the Graham proposal seems more feasible and realistic to me. The retention issue seems particularly relevant these days and worth considering by supporters of the Webb proposal. A legitimate debate can be had on these differences of opinion without resorting to spurious attacks on McCain's devotion to veterans causes.

VA Travel Pay Update

A couple months back I noted the increase in VA travel pay rates:

VA Watchdog.org was pointing out that the VA has upgraded the travel compensation pay for disabled veterans who qualify. Unfortunately the deductible is going up as well per law, so if you're 54 miles or closer according to the VA there is still no compensation even for those who otherwise qualify for travel compensation.

I made a quick 'n dirty excel chart showing the old versus new rates and compared for gas costs (assuming $3 per gallon and a car averaging 30mpg).




One important thing to point out here is that the mileage for gas costs is based on actual miles whereas the mileage assigned by the VA is often under actual mileage. For example, many people here in Champaign have been assigned a VA mileage of 66 miles in spite of the shortest round trip distance from the closest Champaign exit to the Danville VA hospital being 73 miles.

Unfortunately this leaves many disabled veterans in the Champaign area still paying more to get to their required hospital visits than they're compensated for. The VA does not typically reimburse veterans for health care treatment outside of the VA system unless there is a needed service that is not available at the VA hospital.

Unfortunately that gas price estimate is no longer quite valid, even though it seemed reasonable at the time. Only a few months back... oof!

Seeing gas stations locally hitting over 4 bucks a gallon, and noting the VA appointment I have this week... I figure that graphic deserves an update assuming $4 per gallon instead:




At least we're not stuck at the old rates.

Still, it has me leaning more and more towards McCain's idea of allowing veterans to get more of their basic care at hospitals/clinics of their choice instead of forcing them to make these absurd round trips (roughly an hour and half total for me), burning through a resource we are otherwise attempting to cut back usage on, and using up the time/energy/funding resources of a system that is generally overwhelmed.

I'd still want to keep the VA hospitals themselves in charge of more specialized care for veterans, and still allow the option of getting basic care at the VA hospitals if the veteran prefers it, as McCain's stated plan also does.

It just makes sense to me. The hysterical criticisms of it, do not.

Local Vet on Obama

Vets for Freedom released an internet ad on Barack Obama featuring a local Iraq veteran:



Anderson has been involved with shedding light on problems with the VA disability claims system, something he has direct experience with fighting as well.

Government Gouging?

Saw this political cartoon getting tossed around the web today:



Looks like a blog post by Michelle Malkin gave it a push from the original source, RedPlanet Political Cartoons.

The numbers in the cartoon seem off from even the oil industry's figures for average profits versus average taxes however.

"On the average, 15% percent of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits."

I'm guessing they are talking about $3 per gallon gas, that'd be 12 cents a gallon in profits and 45 cents a gallon in taxes. That seems to roughly match the average taxes per gallon according to the The Tax Foundation.

The idea remains roughly the same though. If the oil companies are gouging gas customers, the government is doing so several times over on top of that.

People still seem befuddled by the huge dollar figures of the profits made by oil companies as if they're making obscene profit margins on gasoline. As far as anyone can tell, that's simply not the case. Compare to a company like dell with a profit margin of 15.5% and it's easy to see that profit margin on gasoline is pretty minuscule in comparison. It just adds up if you're selling billions of gallons of gas every year. Painfully enough, that type of profit margin is what the government is making when you buy gas.

Fun, eh?

I somehow doubt that the government will be successful convincing the oil companies they're making too much off their product when those oil companies are fully aware that the government is making nearly three times as much as they do on it, without doing any of the work.

Convincing voters on the other hand, with conspiracies of all power oil companies being the bad guys controlling everything without any facts or evidence to show it, strangely seems to work better.

Ah, politics!

Jindal VP?

Conservatives bloggers and pundits have been aflutter over the possible pick of Bobby Jindal as McCain's VP, whether they think the timing/match is right, one thing they all seem to agree on is that Jindal is the next best thing since sliced bread.

The Politico offered summaries on those heading off to meet with McCain, including Jindal. After noting his academic accomplishments, which are impressive to say the least, and some of his political history they went on with what they felt were the pros and cons:

He would bring considerable domestic policy credentials to a candidate better known for his foreign policy expertise. Further, he could help McCain in two important demographic areas. His youth might appeal to younger voters inclined to support the 47-year-old Obama and his ethnicity would offer a much-needed dose of diversity to a party dominated by white men.

Better yet, he’s a full-spectrum conservative who could help McCain shore up his base. And as a reformer – ethics reform has been his overriding focus in Baton Rouge – he’d buttress McCain’s good government appeal to at a time when voters are fed up with the political status quo. Lastly, as the first Indian-American on a presidential ticket he could help raise cash from a tight-knit and well-endowed community.

Yet Jindal would also be just one year over the constitutional age minimum. His youth could offer a contrast with the 72-year-old McCain but it might also highlight the presidential nominee’s age, rather than assuage voters about it. And despite his depth of policy experience, he has no national security credentials. Given the threats that confront the nation—and McCain’s stated desire to find a vice-president who could quickly become commander-in-chief—Jindal may represent a risk. It’s worth noting that McCain is likely to win Louisiana with or without him.

For the most part this seems to be on the ball. Here are some of my additional concerns:

If Jindal is selected it must absolutely be on the merits and not some ploy to turn him into a token minority on the ticket. The appearance of such would be far more damaging than a lack of diversity on the ticket.

Jindal is absolutely a "full-spectrum conservative" and has Limbaugh and other diehard conservatives singing his praises, regardless of whether they think he'd be a good pick as McCain's VP. This could, however, damage McCain's appeal to independents and moderates who he'll absolutely be relying on for a November victory with so many diehard conservatives still mulling over whether they'll stay home, skip that part of the ballot, or go third party. I appreciate his stronger defense of the 2nd Amendment, but balk at his extreme positions on religious issues on everything from abortion to intelligent design, his stance on immigration issues and other policy positions where he'll be likely to clash heavily with McCain.

Jindal's lack of any foreign policy experience and being "barely legal" in Constitutional age is probably the most serious concern. Having McCain advisers and appointees at his disposal and his obvious intelligence isn't a bad start, but it hardly qualifies him to be in the "decider's" seat if anything were to happen to McCain. His youth isn't just a concern of making McCain look old, but also of making Obama appear older and less naive. Also, his strict adherence to a political philosophy may make many conservatives elated, but it may be his age showing a devotion to ideology without the benefit of wisdom. If it were peacetime, taking these risks would be far less unnerving. But now doesn't appear to be the appropriate time.

I'm not sure who would be the ideal political pick for McCain's VP... someone who could help corral the conservative base without snubbing independents and moderates, or someone who'd appeal to independents and moderates without running off diehard conservatives who are still reeling over the maverick clinching the nomination... and who have been ritualistically crying "See, I knew he'd betray us!" every time McCain repeats the views they disagree with, and of course threatening to take their ball and go home all over again. As absurd as it is to keep seeing "just when I starting to warm up to McCain..." blogs from the same people, sometimes on the same subject they were complaining about during the primary, they always seem to get back on board after a while of considering the alternative.

But this endless ideological battle and infighting should not be the sole concern in the VP choice. Given the international situation and conflicts, the ability to deal with such issues must remain at the forefront, even if it means a bit more work to keep the coalition of supporters together... or listening to some of them endlessly complain about holding their noses.

Contradictions

From CNN.com:

Obama noted that Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan talked to the Soviet leaders during the Cold War, and, unlike the Soviet Union, the U.S. could easily overwhelm Iran's military, which Obama said spends "one one-hundredth" of what the U.S. spends on its military.

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union," Obama said. "They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us, and yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet.

"We should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. We might not compromise on any issue, but at least we should find out are there areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that have caused us so many problems around the world," Obama said.

McCain and other Republicans have already jumped on the baffling logic, or lack thereof, behind these statements.

Among the most notable:

The Soviet Union wasn't some little runt nation seeking to attack us in covert ways or through subnational militant groups. While there were some notable direct meetings between heads of state, these meetings were specifically crafted with specific achievable goals in mind and there status as another superpower nullified any potential concerns for legitimizing their government on the international stage. Trying to equate the talks with the Soviet Union in the same breath as he he's noting the obvious differences that made such talks a totally different ball game seems to be trying to have his cake and eat it too... and one must assume he thinks so little of the public that they just won't notice the inherent contradiction.

More blatant of a contradiction is that his position on a military victory in Iraq being impossible while implying that military action against Iran would be some sort of a cake walk... even though Iran was and remains stronger militarily, larger in population, and though it has far less dramatic sectarian divisions, it's populous is generally far more fundamentalist in nature and an insurgency there would be just as and most probably far worse than what we're facing in Iraq. The big difference is that it would be aimed almost entirely at any forces that invaded, not between sectarian divisions.

Further adding to this contradiction is his implication that Iran would somehow pose a direct threat to the US, which totally ignores the entire impetus for taking a stronger stand against rogue nations. Afghanistan was not some rival military power on par with the United States in any way shape or form. The threat they posed was not direct, nor were their actions deterred by our military supremacy. Yet Obama has no problems supporting our actions in Afghanistan and opening a new front in Pakistan to prevent any potential attacks being based out of that country. Yet he'd let Iraq fall apart into some Somalia 2.0 nightmare, where not even genocide would justify continuing our presence? Yes, we've heard his regular statements putting the blame on Bush and others for creating that potential situation, but leaving doesn't make that situation magically go away, nor does it change the strategic implications of the current situation.

And yet another contradiction is cloaked in yet another Obama attempt to "change" the subject and "hope" you don't notice. The primary complaint is that he has, on numerous occasions, noted his willingness to personally meet with leaders of rogue nations. Not that, as he now tries to paint his comments, that the US would merely have direct talks where he may or may not potentially meet personally with the leaders of them.

From Obama's own website:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

and

Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe.

The current shift in rhetoric on this issue is a blatant attempt to obfuscate his long held position that he and other democrats know is clearly naive, some of whom have argued as such in the past, or currently argue as such as if Obama had never held such a view.

The contradiction comes in with the idea that we don't already communicate in other ways, something everyone seems to readily admit is the case... the idea that we don't already know what these leaders want... the idea that we don't already know where we have some common interests in other areas... and the idea that a direct meeting of heads of state, especially with a fundamentalist puppet-like head of state like Ahmadinejad, has any positive gain, hidden or otherwise, for us... and of course the idea that we aren't listening any time they speak, openly, or through indirect diplomatic channels.

The contradiction is that he now says we "might not compromise" when he has made it clear in the past that what Iran wants, isn't something the US can compromise on.

The contradiction is that the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, widely touted by pundits who want military options taken off the table (something Obama himself said he would not do in the last debate), it pointed out that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program soon after Bush's aggressive stance towards them went into effect. This same NIE that Obama had cited in the past to defend his attacks on the Bush Administration. Obama now acts as if that NIE never existed while he dismisses the idea that any progress has been made with the current policy.

But you don't have to take my word on it.

Biden himself (the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), though arguing that Obama never held this position, but simply misspoke once, decried such a policy as wrong:



Biden knows such a policy is boneheaded, but now the former presidential candidate is attempting to defend the party's current front runner by lying that such a position was never held by Obama and is some oversimplified quote. As noted above, Obama defended that statement by affirming it, and his campaign continues to state that is his position.

Perhaps Obama is attempting to change his position from his naive view that would flunk an intro course of international relations in college. This would be a very necessary flip-flop. But politically he has to do so in a way that denies his original position was wrong, or misguided, or a sure sign of inexperience an naivety... even though everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, are fully aware that it was.

He needs to mislead the People by flooding the news coverage of this latest blow up with statements by himself, and through surrogates like Biden, framing the debate as an oversimplification by the other side and ensuring the perception by those not paying close enough attention, that Obama's stance really wasn't all that different from historical examples or even the opposition who they will paint as the ones doing the misleading.

Ain't politics disgusting? Even the "new kind of politics" is pretty pungent these days... it almost doesn't seem "new" at all. Go figure...

Shhh...afting Veterans

Time quoted this etching of an unknown soldier on Gibraltar on a recent veterans article:

God and the soldier, all men adore In time of danger and not before. When the danger is passed and all things righted, God is forgotten, and the soldier slighted.

It's a view that the US has long attempted to contrast itself to, that we can and will do better for those that served in its name. Unfortunately our system is far from perfect, and a recent revelation from an internal VA e-mail has caused an uproar among veterans groups. From CBS News:

On March 20, Norma J. Perez, a PTSD program coordinator and psychologist at the Olin E. Teague Veterans’ Center in Temple, Texas sent an e-mail with the subject line “Suggestion” to several staffers including psychologists, social workers, and a psychiatrist.

In the e-mail, Perez wrote, “given that we are having more and more compensation seeking veterans, I’d like to suggest that you refrain from giving a diagnosis of PTSD straight out.” She then went on to say, “consider a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder…”

"This means the veterans will not get disability benefits and health care for PTSD,” Paul Sullivan, the executive director of the advocate group Veterans for Common Sense, told CBS News.

Hearings and investigations are already being called for by many veterans groups as well as in congress to settle whether this is truly an isolated incident that was merely inappropriate, as the VA insists, or if this type of nonsense is being propagated from higher up the chain, how many veterans may have actually been affected, etc.

Obama gets the credit for being the first Presidential candidate to address this incident:

According to today's Washington Post, Norma Perez, a psychologist at the Department of Veterans Affairs' Olin E. Teague Veterans' Center in Temple, Texas, sent an email to other staffers saying: "Given that we are having more and more compensation seeking veterans, I'd like to suggest that you refrain from giving a diagnosis of PTSD straight out." She then suggested the alternative diagnosis of "Adjustment Disorder," adding that VA staff members "really don't . . . have time to do the extensive testing that should be done to determine PTSD."

Simply put, Ms. Perez's email is outrageous. As you well know, PTSD is the most prevalent mental disorder afflicting our returning Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) veterans. In order to receive their deserved benefits, these brave men and women must endure a long and arduous process. To hear that a VA official is promoting misdiagnoses of soldiers to save money is unacceptable and is tantamount to fraud.

My own personal twist on this problem goes a bit further. The VA system is government health care, a sort of "universal health care system" for veterans. Just like private coverage there is always endless haggling over budgets and fine tuning things to save a buck at the expense of those who depend on it. The big difference is when the government screws you, they don't have to let you sue them to fulfill their obligation. They have "sovereign immunity" from such lawsuits.

While both the DoD and the VA have various systems in place to appeal decisions and rulings on coverage and benefits, they're more on par with mediation... but the mediator is working for them. While they describe these hearings and systems as "non-adversarial" they tend to run more like an inquisition where the prosecutor and judge are one and the same.

What's different in this case than most of the times such systems tend to screw people out of their benefits, is that normally the providers of health services are kept independent of the claims/coverage process. Those hearing the claims/coverage arguments are typically not allowed to ignore, dismiss, or challenge the medical evidence without some conflicting medical evidence to justify doing so. If the doctor says you have condition X, the judge isn't allowed to claim greater medical knowledge than the doctor to say he's wrong.

With the VA system, the doctors are also in the employ of the same organization as the judges on these matters, the VA rating officers who decide claims. It's hard enough to get a claim through with all of the technicalities and loopholes in the laws/regulations that allow a denial of a claim, even with an accurate diagnosis.

If the VA is in any way influencing the VA medical service providers to taint the diagnosis as well... veterans, who normally can at least depend on their doctors to put them ahead of the bottom dollar, will have nobody to trust in the VA.

We've already seen this happen with the DoD health system with doctors diagnosing "personality disorders" and other "pre-existing conditions" to force out service members with previous service-connected diagnoses, both physical and mental, without the benefits the DoD would normally have to pay for with them. If they can rule the service member's problems as "pre-existing" they aren't responsible. And when the veteran, now out of the service without DoD benefits for their medical problems, attempts to file a claim with the VA they find they have years and years of fighting on their hands in denials, hearings, appeals, etc to prove their conditions are service connected and not pre-existing as the DoD claimed.

The VA was apparently paying attention. A less severe diagnosis, or a diagnosis that can be seen as not service connected, means fewer if any benefits for the veteran. For an agency that is obviously facing budget challenges in spite of the political appointee being in lock step with his appointer on championing the budget, the motive is obvious.

Getting the truth behind the actual back door policies and "suggestions" is a bit more difficult given the VA's propensity towards saying one thing publicly, and saying quite another out of the public eye (from the TIME article above):

At a May 6 hearing, lawmakers lit into officials from Veterans Affairs after an e-mail surfaced from Ira Katz, its chief of mental health, on suicide rates of soldiers in its care. The subject line: "Shhh." The VA had been insisting there were fewer than 800 suicide attempts a year by vets in its care; the real number was closer to 12,000. "Is this something we should (carefully) address ourselves in some sort of release before someone stumbles on it?" Katz asked. Bob Filner, chair of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, saw criminal negligence. "The pattern is deny, deny, deny," he told Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Peake. "Then when facts seemingly come to disagree with the denial, you cover up, cover up, cover up."

Shhh... don't tell anyone, but I don't buy the VA's "isolated incident" rhetoric one god damn bit.

Obama's Retort

Bush sucks...

McCain sucks...

My grandpa was a vet...

Bush sucks...

McCain sucks...

Strawman attack on McCain...

These attacks are divisive...

Notably missing: Any defense of his policy to meet directly with terror supporting states or their terrorist president.

"Hope" you noticed he "changed" the subject. A lot of Obamaniacs are already claiming it was yet another great moment. How sad. Is highly effective dodging and evasion of criticism with pot/kettle/black and distortions the only way he can stand by his policies? No actual defense? Pathetic.


-- UPDATE 12:56 PM --

The McCain camp referred to it as a "hysterical diatribe." Seems to sum it up pretty well. If he had even bothered to address the charges he was so offended about, perhaps we'd be discussing his position right now? Apparently it was indefensible. Go figure.

Interesting Week

Bush rants about the futility of appeasing ideologues:

As the workday began stateside, Bush gave a speech to Israel's Knesset in which he spoke of the president of Iran, who has called for the destruction of the U.S. ally. Then, Bush said: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," Bush added.

And even though the comment didn't reference anyone specific, and was a general slam against anyone taking this view...

...Obama's campaign quickly made sure the world knew the label fit them, and they're outraged!

By tradition, partisan politics comes to a halt when a U.S. president is on foreign soil, and Bush's remarks led Obama to quickly cry foul. The first-term Illinois senator responded to the comments as if they were criticism of his position that as president he would be willing to personally meet with Iran's leaders and those of other regimes the United States has deemed rogue.

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in a statement his aides distributed. "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.

I think he doth protest too much.

And whether Obama wants to admit it or not, the President of Iran is a terrorist, and part of the leadership of a terror-supporting state. His defense is simply wrong.

From Obama's own website:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

and

Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe.

While it's fun to ignore the subtle nuances of legitimizing your enemy in doing so, direct talks with our head of state is a powerful bargaining chip in international affairs. Obama "hopes" his die hard fans are as ignorant on foreign policy as he is. They should be stunned that Obama just made Bush sound more competent on foreign policy than him. That's just sad.

Meanwhile some folks have tried equating Obama's position and a statement McCain a couple years back:

I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

Somehow that's the same as a policy of the president meeting with our enemies in direct talks without precondition? Not even close. It specifically left open that such dealings could be through unofficial diplomatic channels and methods and suggesting nothing of the sort when it comes to direct talks with the president, nor did it suggest that any dealings would be devoid of conditions.

I heard one commentator call this a huge McCain "flip-flop" by interpreting this as an equal stance to Obama. I'd sure love to see how they're the same in any way shape or form.

Hamas itself seems to see the difference. As much as the DNC and others (including in the previous link) are whining about McCain "smearing" Obama for having Hamas support... they (including the previous link) like to neglect acknowledging that Hamas did indeed state their preference was Obama. McCain jumped on the comment to reiterate that he'd be their worst nightmare. "Smears" usually aren't "facts" in politics... unless you want a "distraction" from the facts.

Hillary has also jumped on the bandwagon of Democrats outraged at Bush suggesting that those who think they can change the mind of fundamentalist regime heads by legitimizing them on the world stage and trying to reason with them.

Here's a fun game for you... in both these links, comments by Hillary and others, see if you can find a coherent defense of Obama's (and in some cases, their own) position. It's just outrageous, malarkey, or bullshit! Why? They can't say.

They'd have as much luck trying to defend that position as legitimizing the Westboro Baptist Church by having the president meet with them and having discussions to show them the error of their ways. We all know what they want, we know they can't have it, and we know they will not change their mind on their fundamental beliefs with some reasonable argument... it would only serve to help them, for zero gain.

What's Obama going to offer them? Israel's head on a platter? Of course not. No oversight on a nuclear program? Of course not. Turning the other cheek on their support of Hezbollah or Iraqi insurgent groups? Of course not. Everything Iran wants, we know they can't have, and we know we aren't going to change their fundamentalist beliefs with reason or logic to get them to stop Shari'a Law or their policies towards Israel and the Western nations that support it. What's the only thing direct talks can possibly achieve? Throwing them a free bone, for zero gain, by giving them a moment of legitimization on the world stage... especially among our enemies there in the region and elsewhere, in an internationally broadcast moment of Iran's terrorist president standing up to the West. Something that has been used as a rallying cry against US interests in other regions under other circumstances (See Chavez).

Soon Obama is supposedly going to directly and personally take on the President for his insidious remarks that dare suggest that people with his naive view of foreign policy are deluded fools.

Good luck with that.

Meanwhile California's gay marriage ban will die in a month thanks to a recent ruling by their State's Supreme Court. CNN initially reported that the Court had upheld the ban and declared the San Francisco marriages illegal...

...but then they started reporting on the decision past the first page, which had just merely been noting a previous ruling.

They started getting the story right a few minutes later.

All in all an interesting week.

West Virginia Secondary

Hard to call it a primary, when it's 99.9% a sure bet for a Clinton blow out. No suspense there... Guam seemed to get more coverage, even though the margins of victory in West Virginia will determine more delegates than Guam's potential tie verses a single delegate gain.

The other issue is the popular vote, something that Democrats have been pointing to quite a bit as an important, though not necessarily exclusive qualifier for super-delegates to make up their mind. As CNN notes:

“We are going through to June 3," Clinton Campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe said on MSNBC Monday. "I can unequivocally tell you we are in until June 3.”

“We will move ahead in the popular vote. There are 1.1 million Democrats in West Virginia, there are 1.6 million in Kentucky, 2.4 million in Puerto Rico. We win by these huge margins, have good turnout there, we will pick up a significant amount of the popular vote."

While it seems impossible for Hillary to get to the needed delegates to win the nomination, there is a potential, especially if Florida and Michigan are seated to deny Obama a majority of the delegates. Without Florida and Michigan, the bar is set at 2025 delegates to clinch it... with them, that number could jump out of Obama's reach... and could force a 2nd convention vote and a possible convention battle.

That could get ugly.

On the bright side for Democrats, the LP is looking like it may run a Ron Paul friendly candidate who will give anti-McCain Republicans and conservatives a place on the ballot to register their protest votes, and potentially become a Perot/Nader factor for McCain. The rumor mill is already alive and well on Bob Barr and Ron Paul and the possibility for cooperation and support between the campaigns and supporters. So far that includes the fact that Barr introduced Paul at the CPAC 2008 event, that they might be sharing supporter listers already, that Paul may endorse Barr, etc.

As usual there are strong denials that such a run wouldn't be viable or would divide conservative or Republican voters and ensure a candidate they disagree with even more would be handed the victory. The ones who admit the spoiling effect are either happy about it, Democratic supporters, or feel the GOP should be punished for their treachery in nominating a moderate, the so-called "true conservatives." These "true conservatives" who want to punish the party feel that the primary was stolen from them because the conservative vote was split... though they tend to readily admit that their preferred candidate (either Thompson or Romney) had their asses handed to them by candidates who they referred to as "RINOs" (Huckabee and McCain), time and time again.

But facts conflicting with ideology often get tossed to the wayside, regardless of where on the political spectrum the ideologue in question may sit. Some Obama supporters, suffering from a lack of any examples of leadership or experience in actually bringing change in his career, have pointed to his semi-successful presidential campaign (the first competitive race he's ever run, and perhaps soon will have won) as proof of both leadership and the ability to bring change. An interesting resume pad there. Qualifications? Experience? I showed up to the job interview! See?

...

I know, I know. I'm just skeptical because he's black. He said so. His supporters have said so. Logic, reason, etc? Nah, that stuff's irrelevant. As one supporter put it on another local blog, to understand some of the issues I need to "stop being white." As if skin pigment denies one the ability to empathize with the situations of others... *sigh*. I'm off to the tanning salon to see how it miraculously expands Obama's dismal qualifications for the job...

The Happiest of Mothers Days

After lots of preparing... and worry...

and more worry...

and waiting...

and more waiting...

...a local soldier-mom was able to grab her son who is state-side from Iraq as of this weekend: The Best Mother's Day Ever

A handy reminder to not just support the troops, but also their families.

Back from the Dead

No, I'm not talking about Hillary's campaign. In spite of her energizer bunny campaign tactics right now, even the "nuclear option" of seating Florida and Michigan look unlikely to save her at this point. Now she's pulling a Huckabee. Obama doesn't have the numbers yet, but he almost certainly will, now it's just a matter of time.

Check out CNN's Delegate Calculator... and see if you can come up with a realistic scenario where she can pull it off. I can't.

I am the one back from the dead... I was out sick this last week. We now resume are regular blogging programing, already in progress...



On to the general election!

Skewed CBS/NYT Poll

One of these polls is not like the other:



...and not just with the skewed results... but with the sample size... that appears to be a third to half smaller than any of their recent polls, and even compared to other polling agencies.

Perhaps their results will be confirmed by other polls soon, but it seems highly unlikely since their results appear way way way off the mark even in comparison to polls of much larger samples during the same time period.

Given the timing and what seems to be an almost intentional limited sample to give skewed results, right before an important primary... it appears they may have been more interested in getting attention through sensationalism... which apparently worked given the coverage of the results in almost every other media outlet.

Fortunately the upcoming primary also means a slew of polling should be coming out today and tomorrow that can either expose this as dishonest polling for headlines, or confirm it as an almost unexplainable and titanic shift in public opinion. I'm putting my bets on dishonest polling myself.

Hillary Doomed?

For a while now the pundits have been pointing out that Hillary almost sure to lose without Florida or Michigan counting.

CNN has a nice visual representation of why on their website right now with a Delegate Calculator.

Here's a sample screen shot of if Hillary won by 10 point margins in the remaining races (snow ball chance in hell) and with the super-delegate counter adjusted to deny Obama a majority in the first round voting:



It'd take roughly 63% of the super-delegates to offset Obama's lead, even with double digit wins in the remaining races. To actually win you'd have to adjust that up to 70% of the super-delegates (pretty unlikely since they've been trending more to Obama's side lately).

These odds make her continued fighting seem hopeless on the surface and it's fueling all sorts of theories on how exactly Hillary has calculated a possible victory, including what some are referring to a "nuclear option" to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates. From the Huffington Post:

With at least 50 percent of the Democratic Party's 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee committed to Clinton, her backers could -- when the committee meets at the end of this month -- try to ram through a decision to seat the disputed 210-member Florida and 156-member Michigan delegations. Such a decision would give Clinton an estimated 55 or more delegates than Obama, according to Clinton campaign operatives. The Obama campaign has declined to give an estimate.

Republicans hoping for chaos would likely not be disappointed by such a move. If Hillary turns her perceived renewed momentum into a solid streak it'll be more and more likely for some '68 style convention protests/riots to be the big news a few months. If Obama effectively shuts her down, not even Michigan and Florida will be able to save her.

Grab your popcorn!