BLOGS BY BOB

This morning, Election Day 2008, my eighteen month old great-granddaughter came to visit.  As we looked at “Cat in the Hat” pictures and identified each object it occurred to me that today marks the beginning of an era in which the “norms” of old will have been turned upside down and little Lilly will live in a world far different from the one in which I grew up.

News is often defined as the unusual, the extraordinary and/or the unexpected.  Until this presidential election it was unusual to see a minority or a woman on the Presidential ticket.   While the “unusual” standard for news will remain the same, the situation has forever changed.  Great-granddaughter Lilly will think it is unusual not to see a woman or minority running for major office or holding leadership positions in everyday American life. 

Lilly can certainly thank Barack Obama and Sarah Palin for their contributions but it is because of their predecessors that today is even possible.  Lilly can really thank Martin Luther King, Shirley Chisholm, Ralph Abernathy, Hubert Humphrey, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinham and Geraldine Ferraro to name a few.  As a reporter I covered these protestors, marchers and activists.  I am a witness to the incredible sacrifices they made for all the Lillys of the world.  They made the American dream possible.   

So, even before I know who won the election I just want to say thank you to them.  I hope Lilly’s generation produces people of the same courage, character and compassion.  Future generations depend on it. 

Our economy is in shambles, we are involved in two wars, we are losing our competitive edge, Pakistan is on the verge of becoming a Taliban country, (consider that thought  – a Taliban country with nuclear weapons), and the rest of the world is not terribly fond of us.  This is no time to elect a leader who will rely only on past experience to solve future problems. 

The issue in this election is one in which knowledge of the 20^th century may have little bearing on problem solving in the 21^st.  In order for a new leader to be effective he cannot be bound by the artificial restrictions of past experiences.   

.

The Republican nominee for President, John McCain, is so tied to the past he simply is not equipped to handle the increasing number and intensity of problems with which the next President will be faced.  His computer and high tech illiteracy is a clear indicator of intellectual laziness.  He has convinced himself that he has so much experience that he need not learn anything new.  He is sure that whatever the problem, his experience will offer the solution. 

Senator McCain is about two years older than I am.  I think he is too old for the office he seeks.  Not old in the sense of years but old in the sense of inquisitiveness.  When one no longer cares about how things work, and new things keep coming, how can that person repair those things that break. 

Barack Obama is a man unbound by the paradigms of the cold war and the politics of the 20^th century.   He offers a freshness of insight and foresight that hasn’t been seen since The “New Frontier” of the 1960 Kennedy administration.  He is a man of ideas, of new approaches and one who understands how political gridlock serves no one.  As a long time political observer and insider I have placed my faith in Mr. Obama, a faith based on experience and my own curiosity.   I think the Senator from Illinois will not disappoint us.   Most certainly he will challenge us — I hope he will inspire us.    

If the McCain campaign and Sarah Palin’s handlers had any sense they could have used her need for campaign clothing to their advantage.  Instead of spending $150,000 on clothing at Neiman Marcus she could have strengthened her “Hockey Mom” image by refusing to shop in places that “Joe the Plumber’s” wife couldn’t afford.  The McCain campaign could have scored beaucoup points with the public by inviting the news media to go on a shopping trip with Governor Palin, a trip to Target, Kohl’s or Sears.  I’ll bet she could have purchased everything she needed in those stores for under $2,000 and still looked good.

What this says about Governor Palin is that at heart she’s a Neiman Marcus mom not a hockey mom.  At heart she is a elitist.  If she was really “just one of you” she would have looked into a camera and said, “The campaign has offered to buy me some new clothing ‘cause I left Alaska in such a hurry and don’t have much with me.  They said I could buy my clothing anywhere, even Neiman Marcus, but y’know, I’ve always bought our family’s clothing at stores like Target and Sears.  I got to be Governor dressed that way, why should I change now?  God bless those who can afford Neiman Marcus but I think my Sears clothing will do just fine, and I’ll pay for it myself.  Why don’t you (the news media) come shopping with me?” ….and the cameras could have followed her around the ubiquitous “Big Sale” signs at Kohl’s.    

Can you imagine the positive publicity she would have received?  She could have solidified her position as a “common, ordinary, everyday woman.”  She would have been the subject of praise not criticism.  But, when you secretly desire to make a fashion statement, to have people recognize the labels on your clothing and oooh and ahhh over your new jacket, there is no way you can resist.  Governor Palin (and the Republican National Committee) you’ve just been outed as a closet elitist and just another duplicitous politician whose words don’t match their actions.  Oh bother.

.

In the June 23, 2008 issue of Newsweek Magazine, Anna Quindlen writes, “….everyone suggests you’d better pay close attention to us (middle-aged white women) since we are used to being chronologically overlooked, and we’re a little steamed about that fact (www.newsweek.com).” Steamed, says I, may be putting it a tad too mildly.  Women I have heard from are, “Mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.”

They are frustrated and rightly so, their champion, Hillary Clinton, was defeated, shuffled away and not heard from since.  Many Hillary supporters have vowed to vote for Senator John McCain in protest.  Senator Obama is likely to get most of the women’s vote but he will not get it automatically.  He has to work for it, and calling women “Sweetie” as he did a female reporter recently, did not endear him to many of the feminine persuasion.  Obama must pay more than “lip service,” to women’s issues.

McCain, though, has a tougher row to hoe.  Simply put, he is no friend of “right” thinking women.  Want reasons?  Here are just a few:

      McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade.  In February 2007, the Associated Press (AP) quoted McCain as stating, “I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned.” In May 2007, he reiterated his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade during an appearance on Meet the Press. Since 1983, in votes in the House and the Senate (where he has served since 1987), McCain has cast 130 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues, 125 of these votes were anti-choice. www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf

     

      McCain is an antagonist of sensible family planning and effective sex education. In 2005, he voted “no” on a $100-million allocation for preventive health care services targeted at reducing unintended pregnancies, especially teen pregnancies.

      In 2006, he voted against funding for comprehensive, medically accurate sex education for teens.

The Arizona Senator is much more comfortable with President Bush’s wasteful and utterly ineffective abstinence-only approach.   The New York Times Web site reported the following exchange with a reporter in Iowa in March 2007 www.nytimes.com:

Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

McCain” — “uhhh, you stumped me.”

According to the Obama Website http://www.barackoblogger.com/2008/06/john-mccains-record-on-womens-issues.html

      McCain opposed the Equal Pay Bill for Women, He said, “They need education and training’ Instead.

      McCain skipped a vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that would ensure women have the opportunity to recover back pay for discrimination once they discover it. [Source: aflcio.org; H.R. 2831, Vote 110, 4/23/08; Associated Press, 4/28/08]

There is no limit to the number of anti-women votes McCain has cast and if you get into children’s and senior’s legislation the list of transgressions gets even longer.  McCain truly is the third act of the Bush administration. 

So, women, forget about your feelings being hurt by the sexism, shoddy news coverage and other slights suffered by Hilary Clinton.  Staying home or voting for McCain is not the way to protest.  The way to protest is to work even harder.  Put pressure on Obama, too, make him reflect your views in his campaign.  That is the way you will make an impression, that is the way you will reach the goals for which you have fought so hard.  Throwing your hands in the air and not voting or voting for McCain is saying, “I give up.”  Do you?

Please read and comment on my Organ Donation and Transplantation blogs on

http://bobsnewheart.wordpress.com

 Also…visit my Facebook site, Organ Transplant Patients, Friends and You at  http://tinyurl.com/225cfh  OR — my Facebook home page http://www.facebook.com/home.php

“False Pretenses”

“Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.”

According to the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) (http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/?gclid=CLGolOe175MCFQdggQodfFtLVQ) “The Iraq war was built on at least 935 lies by seven key people in the Bush administration including the President himself (President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of state Collin Powell, Deputy Defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Press Secretary Air Fleischer and his replacement Scott McClellan).  President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda.  Together this cabal made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001.”  The lies outlined in the January 23, 2008 CPI report entitled “False Pretenses” are verifiable and backed by solid evidence under a comprehensive fact checking policy http://www.publicintegrity.org/Content.aspx?context=about&topic=data_accuracy_policy&id=707 the investigation was conducted and written by Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith.

The point of this blog is this: If the war was built on lies and John McCain supports the war then it follows that the Senator from Arizona also supports the lies.  Why would anyone support a presidential candidate whose campaign is built on at least 935 lies?  Staying in Iraq for the next 5 years or 100 years will not change the foundation of fallacies upon which the war was built.  To take this a bit further, let us assume that President Bush knew that 500 of the statements were “tainted” and the rest were outright fabrications. That’s really giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, but what the heck, I’m a liberal.  Logic, then, dictates that because the truth has been exposed and McCain should have known it that McCain is an even worse liar than Bush.  Simply put, if you support a lie after you know it is a lie then you are a worse liar than the people who told the original lie.  Right?

Again, according to the CPI report, “It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose “Duelfer Report” established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq’s nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.”

Because examples are important and because I suspect you, dear reader, will click on the CPI site to see for yourself, I will use just a few of their examples. 

1.     On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney’s assertions went well beyond his agency’s assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, “Our reaction was, ‘Where is he getting this stuff from?” 

2.     In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.”

3.    On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team’s final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.

4.    On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”

5.    The “ground truth” of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq.

So, my friends, that’s the real story behind the Iraq war and why John McCain’s support of it is so absurd.  Staying in Iraq is as much a mistake as going in, in the first place.  What could we do with the estimated Trillion Dollars this war is expected to cost?  What would have happened to the thousands of dead and wounded?   Don’t get me started.

Please read and comment on my Organ Donation and Transplantation blogs on

http://bobsnewheart.wordpress.com

Also…visit my Facebook site, Organ Transplant Patients, Friends and You at  http://tinyurl.com/225cfh  OR — my Facebook home page http://www.facebook.com/home.php

Why did Scott McClellan write his book now?  Why didn’t he say something while he was on the inside of the Bush administration?  Those are the burning questions surrounding his new book, “WHAT HAPPENED: Inside the Bush White House and What’s Wrong With Washington.”  In my opinion Scott McClellan is neither a villain nor a hero.  I think he is simply a man trying to come to grips with his own conscience. 

In 1951 the “longshoreman philosopher” Eric Hoffer published a book called “The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements.”  It was a social psychology book and although my theory may be a bit extreme, I believe Scott McClellan is an embryonic version of the “True Believer” of which Hoffer wrote.  While Hoffer discusses movements, I have chosen to apply his philosophy to an individual.  I seek not to condemn or defend McClellan’s actions but rather to offer one possible explanation for them.  Before I go on let me try to paint a word picture of the environment in which Mr. McClellan worked.

Imagine the exhilaration of holding a high-level position in the White House, where people clamor for your attention, where you had almost unlimited access to the President of the United States and sit in, even as an observer, on meetings that affect the entire world.  Imagine the excitement of facing the international press on a daily basis and becoming one of the most recognized faces in the world.  That is the world in which Scott McClellan lived.

I worked in a much more lowly position than Mr. McClellan, having served as the press secretary for a Minnesota Governor, but the power and ego trip are exactly the same.  Captains of business and industry who would not have given me the time of day in the past, sought my counsel in the knowledge that I had the ability to open the doors to the Governor’s office for them.  The important word here is “access.”  Anyone with access to the person who holds the office, becomes immediately endowed with substantial power.  I could call any state Commissioner (cabinet secretary in the White House) and with these words, “The Governor would like …..” have a powerful state Commissioner standing in my doorway in minutes — not a messenger, not an aide but the Commissioner him or her self.  That kind of power is a dizzying experience equaling ones’ most outrageous alcohol or drug induced fantasies.  And – it is not only highly addictive the addiction must be fed.  You will do almost anything to please the boss in order to ensure your position.  Losing the power is seen by some as being equivalent to death. 

When holding a position like Scott McClellan’s your sense of loyalty can become extreme even in the face of strong evidence that challenges it.  It is easy for me to understand how he could have harbored resentments, serious disagreements, even disgust and still remain loyal, unable to confront the people who gave him the position he so loved.

In his book, McClellan says the was forced out of office, that Karl Rove and others felt that his usefulness was over and a new voice and face were needed.  I submit, though, that they saw the beginnings of his disgruntlement as reflected by the questions he asked and his attitude about the language his bosses were telling him to use.  From experience, I can tell you that publicly defending a position with which you disagree is a creepy feeling, it is a gut ache caused by feeling disloyal to your sense of integrity.

Here’s Wikipedia’s take on Eric Hoffer’s book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer):

“The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements” is a social psychology book by EricHoffer published in 1951 which discusses the psychological causes of fanaticism. The book evaluates and sometimes disparages Communists, Fascists, Nationalists, and early Christians. Part of Hoffer’s thesis is that movements are interchangeable and that fanatics will often flip from one movement to another. Furthermore, Hoffer argues the motivations for mass movements are interchangeable: religious, nationalist and class-based movements tend to behave in the same way and use the same tactics, even when their stated goals or values are diametrically opposed.”

I feel sorry for Scott McClellan, I am on a first name basis with the demons he is fighting.  I didn’t write an “expose” book and never will because disagreements with my boss pale in comparison to those faced by the President’s Press Secretary.  We never sent troops into harm’s way, we never bombed civilians or started a war and we never adopted lying as a communications policy.  I hope his book helps Mr. McClellan find the serenity he seems to seek.   

Please read and comment on my Organ Donation and Transplantation blogs on

http://blogsbybob.wordpress.com

Also…visit my Facebook site, Organ Transplant Patients, Friends and You at  http://tinyurl.com/225cfh  OR — my Facebook home page http://www.facebook.com/home.php

According to Republican Presidential nominee Senator John McCain, if you are not a veteran, you have no right to an opinion about veteran’s affairs. 

Here’s the story.   On May 22, 2008, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly approved a landmark increase in college aid to veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Senator McCain, however, sided with President Bush who has promised to veto the legislation which was authored by Virginia Democratic Senator Jim Webb. But the 75-22 margin, more than the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto, suggests an easy override of the President’s wishes.

On the Senate floor, Democrat Presidential candidate Barack Obama respectfully disagreed with McCain’s opposition to the Webb bill saying, “I respect Senator John McCain’s service to our country. He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I can’t understand why he would line up behind the President in his opposition to this G.I. bill.”  The bill’s chief author is Senator Jim Webb who has a son serving in Iraq.  Webb, like McCain, is a war hero who also served as secretary of the Navy under President Reagan. 

The Webb G.I. Bill is co-authored by Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton along with Republican Senators Chuck Hagel, Frank Lautenberg and John Warner.  It proposes paying tuition, room and board and a $1,000 monthly stipend to veterans who have served on active duty for at least two years. The legislation is backed by several veterans’ groups, including The American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Webb argued that providing today’s veterans with a G.I. Bill similar to what World War II-era veterans received would boost recruiting, ease the transition of soldiers returning from war and raise the quality of life for those who have risked their lives.

McCain responded to Obama not with an answer but with an angry personal attack saying that he would not listen to any lectures on veteran’s affairs from Obama, “Who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform.”

Well, if people who didn’t serve in the military are not entitled to opinions on the subject then I imagine Senator McCain is also referring to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Abraham Lincoln (not a veteran by his own admission) Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton (Bush was in the Air National Guard but rarely showed up for work). 

I cannot help but infer that McCain feels his judgment on the needs of current veterans is better than that of other Senators (whether having served or not) simply because his service is superior to theirs. What incredible arrogance. 

Let us follow McCain’s convoluted reasoning a little farther.  Does John McCain have a right to opine on issues concerning women — he’s never been one.  Does the good Senator have any right to speak out on minority issues — he’s never been a minority.  Does the Arizona Republican have any right to speak out on Israel — he’s not Jewish.  And —what about the economy?  McCain admits he is weak on the subject.  His response to Obama was not only an example of his famous hair-trigger temper; it was a perfect example of hubris.  And, oh yeah, I’d still like to know the answer to Senator Obama’s question, “Why are you opposed to this G.I. Bill?

Finally, in case you didn’t know, the original G.I. Bill returned between five and thirteen dollars on every one dollar invested. It also was more generous than Webb’s proposal because it also covered private college tuition.  Guess who said this, “The original G.I. Bill is one of the greatest things about the 20th century.”  None other than Arizona Senator John McCain. His support of President Bush in opposition to the Webb bill can be defined as nothing other than sheer hypocrisy.  Never have the words “John McCaine, more of the same,” been truer.

Please read and comment on my Organ Donation and Transplantation blogs on

http://blogsbybob.wordpress.com

Also…visit my Facebook site, Organ Transplant Patients, Friends and You at  http://tinyurl.com/225cfh  OR — my Facebook home page http://www.facebook.com/home.php

Being as I am a political junkie I thought I would share my views on the current presidential campaign. 

I like Hillary Clinton but she will not win the presidential nomination of her party and should withdraw from the race now.  She should do it gracefully and together with her husband should not only support Barack Obama but work as hard for him as they did for her.

Ms Clinton is one of the most informed presidential candidates I’ve seen and I have voted in the last twelve presidential elections.  She should be president of the United States.  Hillary’s big drawback?  Bill!  For some reason she gets blamed for her husband’s sins. Hillary’s loss of the nomination can be directly blamed on Baggage Bill despite his successful presidency.

Barack Obama is bright, inspirational and visionary.  He is also professorial and sometimes speaks over the heads of his audience. He will win the nomination and probably the presidency.  My lingering doubt about Obama lies with the Pastor Wright issue.  I can’t believe that he could be a member of that church for twenty years and never heard, or heard of any of the outrageous things the pastor said.  I also don’t know what took Obama so long to divorce himself from his pastor.  “Goddamn America” is repulsive enough but blaming the people of this country for the 911 attack is unconscionable and would cause me to leave the church and disown the pastor whenever and however I heard of it. I’d like to know the rest of THAT story.

John McCain, the American hero and Republican maverick will be President only if the Democrats destroy each other.  McCain, God bless him, is more of the same.  To this point, his attempts to separate himself from George W. Bush have been feeble.  I think McCain could be a good leader, but he’ll never get there by riding the Bush horse. 

This country is in a mess.  Gasoline at $4.00 a gallon, unemployment is up, the economy is in shambles, our planet is dying, we are in dept up to our eyeballs, the war in Iraq has now gone on longer than WW ll, Korea and the Civil War and there’s no end in sight.  Mr. McCain is offering no solutions to any of those challenges other than the same failed Bush policies that got us here in the first place.  If he is a real leader, he should begin offering some real solutions.

In summary, other than the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln this may well be the single most important presidential election we’ve ever had.  Voters should forget ideology and party affiliation and think about our collective future. If we don’t, the “American dream” will be an empty promise echoing off the walls of a deteriorating congressional rotunda.  China will become the economic and military leader of the world and we will join Russia, England, France and Spain as a “former world power.”