What Now?

Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States.

Let me get calling this an historic moment out of the way. It is. That's why you saw journalists, politicians, and activists cry last night. So many people thought elected a black man President was impossible, a few years ago Chris Rock made movie mocking the idea. I have been hearing that this means when we say anybody can be president, we're telling the truth. I have nothing against that statement but, I do not think it gives credit to Barack Obama for how hard he has worked to get to this point. Hate his policies and associations all you want, he has earned everything. Nothing was given to him. So, I would like to say that anybody can be president, if you work your butt off for it.

This election was remarkable in many ways. It saw real participation from citizens. We watched countless primary debates, voted in record numbers in the primary season, donated in record numbers to campaigns, stood in line for hours, and voted in record numbers in the general election. We endured Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, the Keating Five, troopergate, socialism, sexism, racism, ageism, and any other -ism you can imagine.

But, we participated. This is what Michelle Obama was talking about when she said that she was proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. She was proud people were active in democracy.

So, what now?

Think of democracy as a verb. we all need to act. If you're thrilled with the election results, help Obama and the rest achieve their goals. Donate money to causes you support, write your member of Congress, stay involved in the issues, educate yourself. If you're angry at the election results, don't give up. Donate money to causes you support, write your member of Congress, stay involved in the issues, educate yourself, and let people know why you disagree.

Nothing changed last night. The people who were elected officials yesterday, are still elected officials for a short period of time. When Barack Obama is sworn in as President, the only thing that will have changed is who is President. Gradually, he and Congress will change policy. Then, the country will gradually change. Nothing will be immediate and nobody knows what the results will be.

As this country moves forward it is up to us, not just Barack Obama, to improve the country. That is what elections are all about. This isn't sports. You can't talk trash to the other side, the other side is on your team.

Bottom Line? " We have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America." --President Elect Barack Obama

Prediction

Barack Obama 338
John McCain 215

North Carolina will stay red. Obama will pick up Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada from the Republicans.

The national popular vote will fall go 52 percent for Obama, 44 percent for McCain, and the remaining 4 percent will mostly go to Bob Barr and Ralph Nader.

In states like North Carolina and Missouri, the races will be extremely tight but recounts are unlikely because their results, in the end, will not change the election.

Rabbit

FunnyFunny

Check it out.

Hahahaha

A Godless Elizabeth Dole

Sen. Elizabeth Dole hit an absolute low. If she beats Kay Hagan next week, I will be ashamed of North Carolina. This is her new ad attacking Hagan.



I know all about negative campaign ads. They work. The idea is that they will scare off voters who were leaning towards voting for Hagan. I really hope it doesn't work this time.

Liddy?

I will not respect you by calling you Senator or even Mrs. Dole anymore. You disgust me.

Rabbit

Special Note about Robin Hayes

Hayes, Hayes, Hayes. Where have I heard that name before?

Purple Haze? No.

Needle in a Haystack? No.

Hey Hey, my my? No.

Oh I remember, the Hayes School of Music. That is the name of the music school at Appalachian State University. I wonder if there is a relation?

The Hayes in Hayes School of Music is Miriam Cannon Hayes, daughter of textile magnate Charles Cannon.

Where does Robin Hayes get the money to fund his campaigns? Family money from the textile industry.

What is Robin Hayes' full name? Robin Cannon Hayes.

If that were it, we'd have to go Barack Hussein Obama guilt by association on him. But, that's not it.

Indeed its true, Robin Hayes' mother was Miriam Cannon Hayes.

So, Mr. Liberals liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God is in a family that funds the fine arts. I wonder how Mr. Hayes feels about his mother's school? I know those students. They're liberal. Very liberal.

Bottom Line? This isn't a huge deal. Its just interesting to me, as an Appalachian State alumnus, and I am curious how the students of the Hayes School of Music feel about this. Also, I'm still mad that a trust fund baby said that liberals hate people that work, accomplish, and achieve.

Rabbit

Official Endorsement: US Congress NC 8th District

Larry Kissell:

I don't live in this district and cannot vote in this race. But, I believe Larry Kissell must be elected to get Robin Hayes out of Washington.



Bottom Line? Robin Hayes is a trust fund baby. He knows nothing about real work. Get him out.

Rabbit

Official Endorsement: NC Governor

Mike Munger:

Who?

Mike Munger is the Libertarian Candidate for Governor of North Carolina. While I know that the governor will either be Pat McCrory or Bev Perdue, I think that Munger and the Libertarian Party deserves some attention.

Once a Republican, Munger abandoned his party because they no longer served the issues in which he believed. Notably, small government. Fiscal conservatism is a lost art in our government. Only supporting a true fiscal conservative can bring any attention to this cause.

Also, unlike many Libertarian candidates, Munger is focused on the issues that I like from the Libertarian party. He wishes to define marriage as a contract between one person and any other consenting person. In regards to the death penalty, he wants to get the state, "out of the killing business." Munger wants to decriminalize addictive behavior and focus on rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration for such behavior.

I do have personal issues with deregulation and school vouchers but, from what I have seen from Munger, he is willing to make the projects work as opposed to taking them to the extreme. He wishes to even the business playing field, as opposed to granting long term tax havens to attract business. He also is willing to work to fix the public school system instead of simply slamming it as broken.

Why am I not choosing McCrory or Perdue? McCrory, I believe, has been great for Charlotte. However, I think he would only benefit the large metropolitan areas of the state. Those areas are fine, the help is needed in smaller towns. Also, he is still on the "drill here, drill now" kick, in which I am in adamant opposition. Perdue has worked hard for the state, but her refusal to debate Richard Moore in the primary, still is a major turnoff to me, and her vague policies seem to point towards political ambition as opposed to actually helping the state.

Official Endorsement: US Senator

Senator Kay Hagan

This choice is more of a referendum on Elizabeth Dole than a desire to see Kay Hagan in Washington. Senator Hagan has been a big player in state government the last several years. North Carolina, in the last several years, has become one of the most desirable states to live. It’s the reason, that I believe, that in state races, being a part of the system is not a bad thing.

Elizabeth Dole was elected in 2002, and succeeded Jesse Helms in the Senate. To many observers, this was good move. Dole had clout, Helms’ biggest asset, and was not controversial, Helms’ biggest negative.

However, Dole has proven to be a very ineffective senator. She was recently ranked as the 93^rd most effective senator out of 100. So, the best reason to choose Dole is becoming her worst. Reasons to vote against Dole are mounting.

First, while she did grow up in North Carolina, she has not called this state home for decades. I prefer somebody who represents me to at least see what I see. Second, she has proven to be a rubber stamp for the Bush policies and that just will not do. Third, she was a vocal opponent to the updated GI bill, which would allow every veteran a complete opportunity to serve.

Official Endorsement: President

Senator Barack Obama:

This surprises nobody who reads this blog. So many Obama supporters have had their reasons questioned. Many claim that we are blinded by style and Obama has no substance. Personally, I believe that style is a vital cog to any president’s success. Why else would Ronald Reagan be viewed as such a great president to conservatives? It can’t be because he ran deficits and tripled debt.

But, Barack Obama inspires people who have never been inspired by a national politician. Voter turnout in presidential elections varies between 50 and 60 percent. Barack Obama’s campaign will likely increase that and voters will be more enthusiastic about their choice.

I believe that Obama represents a new style of governing. The temperament he has displayed is a major change from the cowboy style of George W. Bush. His first class education is based more on his own intelligence than his background. John McCain and George W. Bush both went to great schools that they would not have been able to attend on their own merit. I am not affected by the questionable associations of Senator Obama. Reverend Jeremiah Wright has yet to truly offend me. Bill Ayers associates with many important people in Chicago and he’s a college professor.

Barack Obama’s policies are much better for the country than those of John McCain. First, he’ll let George W. Bush’s tax cuts expire. Those cuts benefited the rich and, while I am not against tax cuts for any group, the rich need to pay their fair share in order to pay for government spending that will occur under any administration. Obama also will push for foreign relations as opposed to military actions. Lastly, he is putting a major emphasis on education, and actually funding it.

Later This Week...

Later this week the official RANT 4400 political endorsements will be coming to rant4400.blogspot.com.

In a special two part blog, I will publicly announce the candidates I will be voting for on both the Federal and State levels. RANT4400 believes that every voter should make up his/her mind. Also, the opinions of RANT4400 are solely those of me, not any other pundit or commentator.

Rabbit

From Outsider to Politician

Good article about Barack Obama's days in the Illinois State Senate in today's Washington Post.

Check it out.

A Reason to Hate People Older than Me

I've always been told to respect my elders, and most of the time I do. However, sometimes I believe people older than me make mistakes so egregious that I must say something.

This story is prime example of my justified anger.

The National Debt is so high (How high is it?), so high that a national debt counter in Manhattan does not have enough digits to display the number. That's because the debt tripped over to $10 Trillion (with a T).

I'll try to avoid the blame game (Doubled in the past 8 years, thanks W). There is plenty of blame to go around. But, it all lies with people older than me. Now, it looks like it will have to be fixed by people my age and people younger than me.

Bottom Line?

The Gross National Debt

Rabbbit

Save the Jerks

You cannot blame anybody who is against the "bailout." Personally, I'm on the fence and very happy I do not have to make a decision. But, today I read the most compelling argument I have seen so far to support this measure.

It comes from the New York Times. Op-ed columnist Nicholas D. Kristof writes that while you may be mad that we are helping so many people who are wealthy, we do not have a choice. He uses Japan as a model. I'm not sure I agree, you cannot compare one country to another and have that be your only argument because cultures are so different, but it is interesting.

(Check it out)

Rabbit

We Vote for That?

Today's Charlotte Observer published a story on the race for the Attorney General of North Carolina. While, the United States Attorney General is appointed by the President, we get to vote for ours in this state.

That's pretty cool, so you should read the story.

(Their Target: Corruption)

Rabbit

Toss Us Up

North Carolina is a "Toss Up" state, according to Real Clear Politics, in the race for the Presidency.

(See for yourself)

This means we get to experience a real campaign. This may not be exciting to you, but I'm thrilled. It also means that issues that are important to North Carolinians, will be important to the candidates.

It also means that this election could become a landslide. I think the overall popular vote will only have a difference of about 5 percent, the electoral vote will be much larger if states like North Carolina swing to Obama.

The Senate race is also a toss up. Incumbent Elizabeth Dole is in the fight of her political life against Kay Hagan. (Polls)

Bottom Line? North Carolina politics looks to be entering a new era.

Rabbit

Getting Close to E

There's a gas shortage in Charlotte.

Here's my problem with that.

I live in Charlotte.

Most people are blaming somebody else for this problem and that's absolutely the wrong attitude to have. You must attempt to conserve during a shortage and last weekend, I drove to Boone. Had I not, I would not be getting close to empty.

This applies to everybody, some more than others. But, here is the fact. The Charlotte area got a bigger shipment of gas than normal on Friday. So why are many stations out of gas?

Because we bought it all, moron.

I try to avoid making ad hominem attacks. But, sometimes that shoe fits. The Charlotte Observer obviously is covering this event and the individual they interviewed for a story points out the problem. Now, he doesn't say what the problem is, he represents the problem. This individual came to Charlotte from Columbia, SC to visit for the weekend and ran out of gas. Then, he complained that he had to walk to a gas station.

If we are going to continue to use gas when we do not need it and then complain about walking, we will never solve this problem.

There is one person I believe who deserves to be commended in all of this. That is Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory. Many have criticized him for not doing more in this situation. But, there is only one thing a mayor can do in this situation, give good advice. He has done that. He told people not top off almost full tanks, not to fill up gas cans, and to conserve as much as possible. Its not his fault if you don't listen. He also has worked hard to bring a better mass transit system to Charlotte. The light rail can alleviate a lot of this problem. It can help more, as it gets expanded.

I do have two issues with the mayor however. First, is his criticism of the media. Its true that the Charlotte media may have facilitated a panic mode but, they did their job. Gas stations running out of gas is a huge story so, they reported on it. That is not irresponsible. Irresponsible, are the people who panic.

Second, McCrory has used this issue to encourage more off-shore drilling. The shortage began as a result of a hurricane. A hurricane that hit what? Off-shore oil rigs and the refineries on the coast. How will relying more on off-shore oil help us? It'll only cripple us further during hurricane season.

Bottom Line? I actually do need gas, either today or tomorrow, so wish me luck. Also, I may vote for Pat McCrory for governor, because I believe this off-shore oil issue is just an election year stunt and will never lead to actual drilling. But, my mind isn't made up, more on that later.

Rabbit

The Other Races

Barack Obama vs. John McCain

So, apparently that's not the only race going on, here is a list of others to think about in North Carolina.

Bev Perdue vs. Pat McCrory: For North Carolina Governor

Elizabeth Dole vs. Kay Hagan: For United States Senator

United States House of Representatives (By District)

George "GK" Butterfield vs. Dean Stephens: District 1

Bob Etheridge vs. Dan Mansell: District 2

Walter B. Jones vs. Craig Weber: District 3

David Price vs. William "B.J." Lawson: District 4

Virginia Foxx vs. Roy Carter: District 5

Howard Coble vs. Teresa Sue Bratton: District 6

Mike McIntyre vs. Will Breazeale: District 7

Robin Hayes vs. Larry Kissell: District 8

Sue Myrick vs. Harry Taylor: District 9

Patrick T. McHenry vs. Daniel Johnson: District 10

Heath Shuler vs. Carl Mumpower: District 11

Mel Watt vs. Ty Cobb: District 12

Brad Miller vs. Hugh Webster: District 13

Bottom Line? Study up.

Rabbit

And Then I Passed Out

The economy is not my strong point. But, the more I think about it, nobody really gets the economy. It doesn't sound like a great idea to rely so much on "finance" as opposed to actual "product." That is, we should work to create actual things, instead of letting our economy waiver because a bunch of paper (aka stock) isn't worth as much as before.

CNN

But, what is becoming more and more clear, is that you need regulation of a free market in the real world. In a perfect world, there would be no corruption, everybody would make sound decisions, and everybody would work hard. In the real world, we need to protect the country from the corrupt, the unintelligent, and the lazy.

Bottom Line? So many claim that the free market fixes everything. But where is the proof?

Rabbit

"Gate"

Every time there is a political scandal these days, the suffix "gate" is added to whatever the issue is. If the scandal involves state troopers, its "troopergate," if it involves strippers, its "strippergate."

This, of course, is a reference to Watergate, the media title of the scandal that led to the impeachment and resignation of President Nixon. For those of you who don't know, Watergate was the name of the hotel in which rooms were broken into by people working for Nixon.

Referring to scandals as "gate" points out a major flaw in the journalism community and the society as a whole. Journalists have not broken a story this big in over 30 years. Do you not think that something bigger has happened? The journalism community today, is lazy.

Of course, its not all their fault. The general public does not care much about true investigative journalism. If the news media cannot fund these investigations, then they will not happen.

Here's a list of "gates."

Bottom Line? Journalists need to shake things up a bit and the public should let them.

Rabbit

Experience

Experience, Experience, Experience

That word is thrown around a lot in this year's presidential election, and really in many elections. But, I stumbled on an interesting piece of information. Of course, Sen. John McCain has more experience as an elected official than Sen. Barack Obama but, how much experience does Sen. Obama have, compared to recent presidents?

Experience (in years) as an elected official for the last 5 presidents
George W. Bush -- 6 years
Bill Clinton -- 12 years
George H. w. Bush -- 12 years
Ronald Reagan -- 8 years
Jimmy Carter -- 8 years

How many years of experience will Barack Obama have if he is elected president in 2008?

12 years

Bottom Line? Just something to think about.

Rabbit

Drill Here! Drill Now!

The Drill Here, Drill Now movement missed something.

Hurricanes.

Gas prices, at many gas stations, are skyrocketing as a result of Hurricane Ike. So, what is the answer to our energy problems?

Drill Here? Drill Now?

Here? Now? The wind seems to be picking up. Maybe we shouldn't.

In 2005, gas prices surged as a result of Hurricane Katrina. We get an estimated 25 % of domestic oil from the gulf coast. If we start drilling more offshore, the percentage of oil we get there will obviously increase. So, we're going to solve our energy problems by letting prices spike every August or September?

Bottom Line? I didn't realize it'd be so easy to poke a hole in this argument.

Rabbit

9/11/2008

freedom (plural freedoms)

1. The state of being free, of not being imprisoned or enslaved.
Having recently been released from prison, he didn't know what to do with his newfound freedom.

2. The state of being free, unconstrained; the lack of a specific constraint, or of constraints in general.
Freedom of speech is a basic democratic value.
Freedom to choose one's own destiny can be frightening.
Every child has a right to freedom from fear and freedom from want.

terrorist (plural terrorists)

1. One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; originally applied to an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.

2. Anyone who uses terror as a weapon in a political struggle, frequently in an attempt to coerce a more powerful opponent, such as a government.


Anywhere you turn today, you're likely to be reminded of what happened on 9/11/01. It makes me think about two things: Freedom and terrorists.

Many say terrorists hate freedom. But, do they really?

I'm not so sure.

I think terrorists just hate the people they terrorize. They hate what we've done more than they hate what we stand for. I doubt we were attacked on 9/11 because of the Super Bowl. I'd believe we were attacked because we have a military presence in the Middle East.

Both words are subjective.

Whats freedom to me, may not be freedom to you. What's terrorism to you, may not be terrorism to me.

Bottom Line? I think its something to think about. The pain of 9/11 is tough. But, I think we should ask "why" now that some time has passed.

Rabbit

Lipstick on a Pig

Now he's gone and done it.

Barack Obama said something wrong yesterday.

"That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing."

That rat bastard. How dare he?

How dare Barack Obama say something like that? Just because John McCain, Vice President Dick Cheney, Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington state, Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Rep. John Mica of Florida, and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado have all used the same line gives him no right. Just because a former McCain adviser wrote a book titled, "Lipstick on a Pig: Winning In the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game," he has no right. Just because Barack Obama has used the same line himself without consequence, he has no right.

It was obviously a slam on Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin who last week said, "You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick."

How could Barack Obama possibly use the same word? Everybody knows once a candidate says a word, nobody else can say it.

Does Barack Obama think that since he's been called everything from a terrorist to a communist that he can just make a little joke like its not going to hurt some body's feelings?

What gall.

Rabbit

The Commanders on the Ground Mr. President?

Article by Bob Woodward in the Washington Post describes the real story of the "surge" in Iraq.

Rabbit

Outmaneuvered And Outranked, Military Chiefs Became Outsiders
By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 8, 2008; A01

At the Joint Chiefs of Staff in late November 2006, Gen. Peter Pace was facing every chairman's nightmare: a potential revolt of the other chiefs. Two months earlier, the JCS had convened a special team of colonels to recommend options for reversing the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Now, it appeared that the chiefs' and colonels' advice was being marginalized, if not ignored, by the White House.
During a JCS meeting with the colonels Nov. 20, Chairman Pace dropped a bomb: The White House was considering a "surge" of additional troops to quell the violence in Iraq. "Would it be a good idea?" Pace asked the group. "If so, what would you do with five more brigades?" That amounted to 20,000 to 30,000 more troops, depending on the number of support personnel.
Pace's question caught the chiefs and colonels off guard. The JCS hadn't recommended a surge, and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Iraq commander, was opposed to one of that magnitude. Where had this come from? Was it a serious option? Was it already a done deal?
Pace said he had another White House meeting in two days. "I want to be able to give the president a recommendation on what's doable," he said.
A rift had been growing between the country's military and civilian leadership, and in several JCS meetings that November, the chiefs' frustrations burst into the open. They had all but dismissed the surge option, worried that the armed forces were already stretched to the breaking point. They favored a renewed effort to train and build up the Iraqi security forces so that U.S. troops could begin to leave.
"Why isn't this getting any traction over there, Pete?" Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief, asked at one session inside the "tank," the military's secure conference room for candid and secret debates. Was the president being briefed?
"I can only get part of it before him," Pace said, "and I'm not getting any feedback."
Pace, Schoomaker and Casey found themselves badly out of sync with the White House in the fall of 2006, finally losing control of the war strategy altogether after the midterm elections. Schoomaker was outraged when he saw news coverage that retired Gen. Jack Keane, the former Army vice chief of staff, had briefed the president Dec. 11 about a new Iraq strategy being proposed by the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative think tank.
"When does AEI start trumping the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this stuff?" Schoomaker asked at the next chiefs' meeting.
Pace, normally given to concealing his opinions, let down the veil slightly and gave a little sigh. But he didn't answer. Schoomaker thought Pace was too much of a gentleman to be effective in a business where forcefulness and a willingness to get in people's faces were survival skills. "They weren't listening to what Pete [Pace] was saying," Schoomaker said later in private. "Or Pete wasn't carrying the mail, or he was carrying it incompletely."
In several tank meetings, Adm. Michael Mullen, chief of naval operations, voiced concern that the politicians were going to find a way to place the blame for Iraq on the military. "They're orchestrating this to dump in our laps," Mullen said. He raised the point so many times that Schoomaker thought the Navy leader sounded "almost paranoid."
* * *
The atmosphere in the tank was tense Monday, Nov. 27, 2006, as Pace briefed the chiefs and the colonels on a White House meeting about Iraq the day before. J.D. Crouch, a deputy to national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, had presented the results of a secret strategy review on how to respond to the escalating violence. "I walked out happy because I got my views on the table," Pace said, making it clear that this was not always the case.
The president, Pace told the group, is "leaning into announcing a new phase in the war that will help us achieve our original end state. . . . By April 1, 2007, we would have five more brigades in Iraq."
Schoomaker was dismayed. Suppose the surge didn't work? "What is our fallback plan?" he asked.
There was no fallback, Pace replied.
"Are people engaged on this," Schoomaker asked almost defiantly of the surge proponents, "or is this politics?"
"They are engaged," Pace replied. But if progress is still lacking "after we surge five brigades," Pace said, "then you are forced to conscription, which no one wants to talk about." To mention a draft was to invite the ghosts of Vietnam into the tank.
"Folks keep talking about the readiness of U.S. forces. Ready to do what?" Schoomaker growled. "We need to look at our strategic depth for handling other threats. How do we get bigger? And how do we make what we have today more ready? This is not just about Iraq!"
Part of the chiefs' job was to figure out how to accelerate the military's overall global readiness and capacity, Schoomaker said. "I sometimes feel like it is hope against hope," he said. "I feel like Nero did when Rome was burning. It just worries the hell out of me."
Several colonels wanted to applaud. It worried them, too. Others disagreed, feeling it was more important to focus on the current war. But they all maintained their poker faces.
"Look, no one is whistling 'Dixie' here," Pace told the group. "The president and the White House understand the resource constraints."
It was not clear that anyone believed what the chairman was saying, or whether even Pace believed it.
"We need to position ourselves properly for the decision likely to come," Pace said. "The sense of urgency is over Iraq, but not over the other issues."
Mullen said the all-volunteer force might break under the strain of extended and repeated deployments. "I am still searching for the grand strategy here," Mullen said. "How does a five-brigade surge over the next few months fit into the larger picture? We have so many other issues and challenges: Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea and places we are not even thinking about today."
* * *
In Baghdad, Gen. Casey realized that he had lost a basic, necessary ingredient for a commanding general in wartime. He had lost the confidence of the president, a stunning and devastating realization.
He wasn't alone. The president was not listening to Casey's boss, Gen. John P. Abizaid at Central Command, anymore, either.
"Yeah, I know," the president said to Abizaid at a National Security Council session in December, "you're going to tell me you're against the surge."
Yes, Abizaid replied, and then presented his argument that U.S. forces needed to get out of Iraq in order to win.
"The U.S. presence helps to keep a lid on," Bush responded. There were other benefits. A surge would "also help here at home, since for many the measure of success is reduction in violence," Bush said. "And it'll help [Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-] Maliki to get control of the situation. A heavier presence will buy time for his government."
The rest of Iraq wasn't as tenuous as Baghdad, Abizaid said. "But it's the capital city that looks chaotic," Bush said. "And when your capital city looks chaotic, it's hard to sustain your position, whether at home or abroad."
* * *
The chiefs' frustration grew so intense that Pace told Bush, "You need to sit down with them, Mr. President, and hear from them directly."
Hadley saw it as an opportunity. He arranged for Bush and Vice President Cheney to visit the JCS in the tank Dec. 13, 2006. The president would come armed with what Hadley called "sweeteners" -- more budget money and a promise to increase the size of the active-duty Army and Marine Corps. It would also be a symbolic visit, important to the chiefs because the president would be on their territory.
"Mr. President," Schoomaker began, "you know that five brigades is really 15."
Schoomaker was in charge of generating the force for the Army. Sending five new brigades to Iraq meant another five would have to take their place in line, and to sustain the surge, another five behind them. This could not be done, Schoomaker said, without either calling up the National Guard and Reserves or extending the 12-month tours in Iraq. The Army had hoped to go in the other direction and cut tours to nine months.
Would a surge transform the situation? Schoomaker asked. If not, why do it? "I don't think that you have the time to surge and generate enough forces for this thing to continue to go," he said.
"Pete, I'm the president," Bush said. "And I've got the time."
"Fine, Mr. President," Schoomaker said. "You're the president."
Several of the chiefs noted that the five brigades were effectively the strategic reserve of the U.S. military, the forces on hand in case of flare-ups elsewhere in the world. Surprise was a way of international life, the chiefs were saying. For years, Bush had been making the point that it was a dangerous world. Did he want to leave the United States in the position of not being able to deal with the next manifestation of that danger?
Bush told the chiefs that they had to win the war at hand. He turned again to Schoomaker. "Pete, you don't agree with me, do you?"
"No," Schoomaker said. "I just don't see it. I just don't. But I know right now that it's going to be 15 brigades. And how we're going to get those 15 brigades, I don't know. This is going to require more than we can generate. You're stressing the force, Mr. President, and these kids just see deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan for the indefinite future."
* * *
"The tank meeting was a very important meeting," Bush told me during a May 2008 interview. "In my own mind, I'm sure I didn't want to walk in with my mind made up and not give these military leaders the benefit of a discussion about a big decision."
The president said that if he were just pretending to be open-minded, "you get sniffed out. . . . I might have been leaning, but my mind was open enough to be able to absorb their advice."
I told him that, based on my reporting, some of the chiefs thought he had already decided, that they had sniffed him out.
"They may have thought I was leaning, and I probably was," Bush said, noting that the chiefs had felt free to express themselves. "But the door wasn't shut."
Still, Bush fully understood the power of his office.
"Generally," he said, "when the commander-in-chief walks in and says, done deal, they say, 'Yes sir, Mr. President.' "
* * *
Just after Christmas, while in the United States, Casey got an e-mail from one of his contacts. "Hey, you need to know that the White House is throwing you under the bus," it read.
A couple of days later, Abizaid phoned Casey with a warning. "Look," Abizaid said, "the surge is coming. Get out of the way." Casey was soon offered a promotion to Army chief of staff, and in February 2007, he left Iraq, replaced by Gen. David H. Petraeus.
The president said later in an interview, "The military, I can remember well, said, 'Okay, fine. More troops. Two brigades.' And I turned to Steve [Hadley] and said, 'Steve, from your analysis, what do you think?' He, being the cautious and thorough man he is, went back, checked, came back to me and said, 'Mr. President, I would recommend that you consider five. Not two.' And I said, 'Why?' He said, 'Because it is the considered judgment of people who I trust and you trust that we need five in order to be able to clear, hold and build.' "
The views of those trusted people came largely through back channels, rather than through the president's established set of military advisers -- Casey's deputy saying that a surge wouldn't work with fewer than five brigades and Jack Keane making the same case to Hadley and Vice President Cheney.
Hadley maintained that the number "comes out of my discussions with Pete Pace."
"Okay, I don't know this," Bush said, interrupting. "I'm not in these meetings, you'll be happy to hear, because I got other things to do."
So the president did not know what his principal military adviser, Gen. Pace, had recommended. Pace, however, had told the chiefs Nov. 20, 2006, that the White House had asked what could be done with five extra brigades.
* * *
The president announced the surge decision Jan. 10, 2007. Five more brigades would go to Baghdad; 4,000 Marines would head to Anbar province.
The next morning, he went to Fort Benning, Ga., to address military personnel and their families. His decision had been opposed by Casey and Abizaid, his military commanders in Iraq. Pace and the Joint Chiefs, his top military advisers, had suggested a smaller increase, if any at all. Schoomaker, the Army chief, had made it clear that the five brigades didn't really exist under the Army's current policy of 12-month rotations. But on this morning, the president delivered his own version of history.
"The commanders on the ground in Iraq, people who I listen to -- by the way, that's what you want your commander-in-chief to do. You don't want decisions being made based upon politics or focus groups or political polls. You want your military decisions being made by military experts. They analyzed the plan, and they said to me and to the Iraqi government: 'This won't work unless we help them. There needs to be a bigger presence.' "
Bush went on, "And so our commanders looked at the plan and said, 'Mr. President, it's not going to work until -- unless we support -- provide more troops.' "
Brady Dennis and Evelyn Duffy contributed to this report.

Is It My Fault?

Headlines today include a new report that the unemployment rate has hit a 5 year high (CNN). The jobless rate has reached 6.1 % and there have been a total of 605,000 jobs lost in 2008.

I'll admit that economic issues are not my strength. But, I really do not understand how we have an immigration problem and an unemployment problem. Also, with it being so tough to get a job, why do so many people I work with seem to still be lazy?

Bottom Line? I can't help but wonder if this is partially my fault. You see, I have two jobs and if I gave one to somebody else, maybe that would help lower the unemployment rate.

Rabbit

Credibility

Listening to John McCain's convention speech (which isn't over yet), I have one main observation.

Credibility (Google it)

Republicans have no credibility on their two main issues, security and small government. We suffered a major attack under the watch of a Republican administration. Our government has grown and our national debt has grown under a Republican administration.

So, when I hear this sort of rhetoric from Republicans, I do not believe them. They may not necessarily be lying but, they have no credibility to make the claims they make.

Bottom Line? I hope you're not stupid.

Rabbit

The Republicans' Jeremiah Wright

Remember Jeremiah Wright?

Barack Obama's former outspoken pastor apparently is not the only minister with a flare for the controversial. Republican VP Candidate Sarah Palin may be able to compete (Seriously, are Republicans just picking VPs based off headshots now). Soon you will know the name Ed Kalnins.

Examples?

Quote on Iraq:

What you see in a terrorist -- that's called the invisible enemy. There has always been an invisible enemy. What you see in Iraq, basically, is a manifestation of what's going on in this unseen world called the spirit world. ... We need to think like Jesus thinks. We are in a time and a season of war, and we need to think like that. We need to develop that instinct. We need to develop as believers the instinct that we are at war, and that war is contending for your faith. ... Jesus called us to die. You're worried about getting hurt? He's called us to die. Listen, you know we can't even follow him unless you are willing to give up your life. ... I believe that Jesus himself operated from that position of war mode. Everyone say "war mode." Now you say, wait a minute Ed, he's like the good shepherd, he's loving all the time and he's kind all the time. Oh yes he is -- but I also believe that he had a part of his thoughts that knew that he was in a war.

On Palin's Election as Governor: "a prophetic declaration and then unfolds the kingdom of God, you know."

On Alaska: "I believe Alaska is one of the refuge states in the last days, and hundreds of thousands of people are going to come to the state to seek refuge and the church has to be ready to minister to them."

On His Own Psychic Abilities? "I said, I'm a minister from Alaska and I want you to know that your wife left you -- you know that your wife left you and that the Lord is gonna defend you in a very short time, and it wasn't your fault. And the man drops his clubs, he literally was about to tee off and he dropped his clubs, and he says, 'Who the blank are you?' And I says, 'well, I'm a minister.' He says, 'how do you know about my life? What do you know?' And I started giving him more of the word of knowledge to his life and he was freaked out."

(Quotes Courtesy of The Huffington Post)

What makes this different from the Jeremiah Wright controversy is that Palin cannot claim she was not aware of such quotes because, many were made in her presence. In the above link, you will also see a video of Palin herself, speaking at the church in June 2008. Her speech alone, will provide fodder for controversy.

Again, people will claim that a candidate's private life should not be brought into question. But, positives about a candidate's private life are never questioned.

Bottom Line? This election will go down in history as either proof that the American voter is unintelligent or that Sarah Palin was the worst VP choice of all time.

RIP ACC Football

As an Appalachian State alumnus, I imagine many would think I'd face the music, go through the "we aren't as good as we thought we were" speech, and fade away from football talk.

That's just not my style.

Yes, it is true that the Appalachian State football team took one on the chin this weekend against LSU but, few people ever really claimed that Appalachian State had a better football team than LSU. We just thought that we'd have a chance.

We were wrong.

But, we still are completely in our rights to rag on our football neighbors, the ACC.

They suck.

Wake Forest's win over Baylor was the only win for the conference against an FBS opponent. The conference did avoid an embarrassing loss to an FCS school, but barely. Maryland escaped from their Delaware game with a 14-7 win and the University of North Carolina needed two fourth quarter touchdowns to pull out a victory against McNeese State.

Dismal performances from the conference's two "top" teams, Clemson and Virginia Tech, leads me to realize that the ACC simply does not deserve any BCS recognition. They have lost their last 8 BCS Bowl games.

That is disgraceful.

The ACC has sunk so low, that in the epicenter of the ACC, North Carolina, fan bases have been forced to turn their venom on my Alma mater. Schools, particular the University of North Carolina, have dodged playing Appalachian State for years. Wake Forest, after being beaten several times, fully admits it. NC State played us in 2006, likely a result of the Appalachian Athletic Director being a former Associate Athletic Director there.

But, the University of North Carolina refuses to play Appalachian State. Anybody who follows the division knows that Appalachian State is the undisputed leader of FCS football and UNC is mediocre at best on the FBS level. But, Appalachian State is not the first king of FCS/1-AA football. There were times in which Georgia Southern and Youngstown State in Ohio ruled the division. But, the University of Georgia and Ohio State never backed down from their in state teams.

Why?

Because Georgia and Ohio State are good. UNC is not.

For further proof of the fall of UNC and the rise of Appalachian State I give you these two videos.

1. A skydiver at a Duke game. How is that relevant? He was supposed to go to the UNC game. Can you believe somebody would rather be at a Duke football game than a UNC football game? Sad



2. Appalachian football 2007 teaser.



Bottom Line? Which would you rather be a part of?

Family Values

Family values are not my main reason for choosing a candidate but, if they are important to you then, which party is a party of family values?

The one with a Presidential nominee that divorced his wife because she gained weight then married a beer heiress. The one with a VP nominee that married her husband and had a baby 8 months later and has a pregnant teenage daughter?

Or the one with a Presidential nominee with 1 wife and 2 kids. The one with a VP nominee that commutes home to Delaware every night since 1973 to be with his children after his wife and their mom died?

Republicans claim family values as their issue all of the time. But, their representatives often do not carry that torch very well. To be fair, many Democratic leaders also do not carry that torch but, they also do not claim a monopoly on the issue.

The big story from Labor Day has been Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin and her pregnant teenage daughter. Many argue, every time there is some sort of private matter made public involving a public official, that we should not care.

I disagree.

Palin is a woman whose policies affect every American's private life, so we should know hers. Any politician that wants to limit your personal freedoms, should have theirs examined. It is hypocritical of her to claim that she understands traditional values, when she does not uphold them. It is stupid of her to call for abstinence-only education, with a pregnant teenage daughter. It is missing the point to claim she sticks to her guns on abortion because, she has a baby with down syndrome.

Rabbit

So it is Palin

Well, I was wrong on the Republican pick for Vice President. John McCain apparently is going for Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. I'll have to give credit to the earlier comment, that guy called it.

That being said, this is an interesting pick by McCain. The most glaring part of this choice is Gov. Palin's lack of experience. Obama was hammered on this issue from the beginning, and it seemed to be one of McCain's main strategies for the general election. But, that's not an option anymore. Palin has been the governor of Alaska for less than 2 years. Before that, she was on the city council and mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a town of approximately 8,000 people. She was also Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for 2 years.

Highlights from her personal life include being married to man who works for BP, a beauty pageant winner, has a son bound for Iraq (as does Dem VP Joe Biden), and won the Alaska small school state championship in high school.

The question on my mind is why her?

The most likely theory to be floated is the thunder it steals from Obama/Biden by having a woman on the ticket. This makes no sense. First, a woman running for Vice President is not new, it happened 24 years ago (No surprise, the GOP thinking an idea over 20 years old is new). Also, surely she cannot be the most qualified woman in the Republican Party. But, after Condi Rice and Elizabeth Dole, there are few well-known established women in the Republican party.

The Republican talking point is likely to include references to Hillary Clinton. Personally, I think this decision will help swing those undecided Clinton supporters to Obama. Palin, while she may be able to swing undecided female voters, has little in common with Clinton supporters. Palin does not have her experience, has a pro-life record, has no record on health care, and is a lifetime member of the NRA.

If this is an attempt to bring Hillary Clinton's supporters to McCain, it is a cheap one. It showcases the lack of women in the Republican Party. Major female players in the Democratic Party include: Clinton; Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi; Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Ca); Sen. Barbara Boxer (Ca); Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo); Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (Kn). All of these women could have been seriously considered for Vice President, and some were. But, choosing an unknown, first term Governor, shows how little Republicans really care about women.

I cannot stress that point any stronger. Republicans do not care about women. Republicans put up the glass ceiling, Republicans stop equal pay, Republicans do not respect women. If you do not believe me, talk to some Republicans and you will learn.

So will Sarah Palin help John McCain? She has no connection to any battleground state and the only major constituency she could possibly affect would be women and it is debatable that she will be able to do that. She has no foreign policy credentials (Obama/Biden have tons). She has no economic credentials. She has energy credentials but one may wonder how her husband's job at BP and her own experience in the industry will play into the debate.

But, an interesting move is that while many think Biden will be Obama's "attack dog," Palin will not need to do the same because McCain has talk radio and 527s available for that.

Bottom Line? Its a weak pick. And for the women? Women will have a better voice in an Obama Administration than a McCain Administration regardless of the VP.

Rabbit

United Wrong Way

Big news out of Charlotte. Well, besides the rain. The United Way of Central Carolinas called for the resignation of CEO Gloria Pace King. Ms. King apparently makes $1.2 million annually.

Calling all hypocrites.

I won't be calling Ms. King because she is the victim of public relations nightmare. The hypocrites are on the board of the United Way. These people are executives at Wachovia, Bank of America, Ernst & Young, Merrill Lynch and many other companies. What do they make? Now, before you start barking, I understand that being an executive at a large company is a difficult job and their decisions affect what happens to millions of dollars. Guess who fits that description? Gloria Pace King.

While it is perfectly acceptable to be outraged that a CEO of a non-profit makes that much money, understand why they do. You must be a skilled and savvy business-person to hold such a title. To attract top level people to run your organization, you have to pay them accordingly.

Of course, in a perfect world, the right person would take this job out of the kindness of their heart. But, in a perfect world, those on the board would pay attention to the board they serve on. But, this is the real world. Board members are serving their own public relations self-interest. An executive from a major company serves on the Board of Directors of the United Way to make their company and their self look good.

What makes this story particularly interesting is the public backlash. Apparently, many are none to happy with the tactics of the United Way and this gives them the opportunity to pounce.

Bottom Line? If the CEO goes, so should the rest of the Board of Directors. Also, if you want to help? Pay attention to where your money and time goes.

Rabbit

Why They May Just be Right

Many Republicans think that Democrats are stupid. They just may be right. Sometimes, I think Democrats need to hear that. The Hillary/Obama controversy showcases this perceived stupidity more than most.

With the help of many conservatives, Hillary supporters have turned a proud time to be an American, into what could be one of the worst spectacles in United States political history. That is, if Hillary and/or her supporters do something spectacular during the campaign that helps lead to the defeat of Barack Obama.

Every political scientist knows it is a great year to be a Democrat (notice the difference between political scientist and political commentator, Rush Limbaugh is a commentator, he has no formal education or knowledge of political trends). If new polls are accurate, Barack Obama will win in a landslide if one simple thing occurs. That is, if those who voted for a Democrat during the primary season, vote for a Democrat in the general election.

Here are the numbers:

In 2004, over 122 million people voted in the Presidential election. George W. Bush received 62 million and John Kerry received 59 million. The latest RCP average of polls has Barack Obama slightly ahead of John McCain 45 percent to 44 percent. If the same amount of people vote in 2008 that voted in 2004 (which most believe it will be higher) then those percents translate to close to 55 million for Obama and close to 54 million for McCain. Polls have 30 percent of Hillary Clinton voters choosing to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton received about 18 million votes so 30 percent of that is about 5.4 million.

That amount of people makes up about 4 percent of the voting population. If they throw their support behind Barack Obama, that gives him a lead of 49 to 40 in the polls. In other words, if Democratic voted Democratic, they'd control the country for the next 4 years, at least.

My only question is what did Barack Obama do? Maybe he took unfair shots at Hillary Clinton but, she did the same to him. Maybe he lacks experience as an elected official, but he has more than her. Maybe he doesn't speak specifically about how his policies, but he writes about them. Maybe there was sexism in the coverage, but so did racism (A note about that: Sexism and racism are still major problems in this country but related to this election think about how they came up. Which would you prefer, being the butt of a lame joke by Tucker Carlson or being the target of many white supremacists).

Bottom Line? Republicans know some Democrats are stupid. Karl Rove is dripping all over this story and if its the deciding factor, then we have stupid Hillary Democrats to blame for the problems in our country. Hillary Clinton almost won the nomination but, she didn't.

Rabbit

Can I Make it 2 in a Row?

So I nailed it on Joe Biden (Ok, so maybe I didn't go out on a big limb there). Now its time to make my selection for the Republican Vice Presidential Candidate. In an earlier post, I made my arguments for a variety of choices.

There are still several possibilities, and like with Obama, whoever McCain chooses will help us see the direction he wants to go in for his campaign and possible administration. There are many intriguing potential choices but I believe, once again like Obama, he'll keep it simple. Therefore, my choice is...

Former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney.

Choosing Romney gives the McCain Campaign several tools to work with. First, he is perceived to have strong economic credentials. The Obama/Biden ticket lacks specific experience in economic policy and McCain alone also is on record claiming he knows little about the economy.

Romney also has decent conservative credentials. He was the governor of a liberal state, but to many in the conservative wing of the party, he is better than McCain.

The issue of abortion seems to showcase this. McCain has a pro life record and, while he may have changed on this issue, Romney is also on record for being pro life. This issue is likely to be the "gay marriage" issue of 2008. Many conservatives have been nervous that McCain will choose a pro choice Vice President. I think this is a straw man set up to make this issue a focal point. This is a smart move for Republicans in this election, especially if Romney is the choice. Conservative Christians are not completely on board with McCain and would not be on board with Romney because he is a Mormon. But, put the focus on the pro life policies of the Republicans against the pro choice polices of Democrats, and you have an energized part of your base.

Another factor that points towards Romney is his executive experience. McCain, Obama, and Biden are all career legislators. Romney not only was a governor but, also was a big asset to the 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah.

Perhaps the most interesting reason could be evident is this new campaign ad from John McCain.



Listening to that ad, how could McCain not pick Romney? If the qualification for Vice President is finishing second in the primary season, then Romney is your only choice.

Bottom Line? If the choice isn't Romney, the Obama campaign has a free shot at McCain for not picking the second choice of the party in the primaries. Sadly, it won't be as effective.

Rabbit

Lightning Bolt

Earlier in the week, I argued that Michael Phelps is not the greatest Olympian of all time. Now, I don't think he's the greatest Olympian this year. That honor goes to Usain Bolt of Jamaica. Three contests, three gold medals, three world records. He dominated every race he was in while Phelps had a few close calls.

Bolt makes it look easy and that is exactly what superior athletes are supposed to do. His world record in the 100 meters (arguably the feature event of every Olympics) was attained with him hot dogging the last 20 meters. That's speed.

You know he's a superior athlete because sports talk radio in NFL markets are consumed with discussions about whether their respective team could sign Bolt as a kick returner. That's athleticism.

There is a certain level in anything, in which you reach that top level, you can boast about it. Bolt dominated the best, so he can make sure everybody remembers that he is the best.

Bottom Line? The Carolina Panthers need a kick returner.

Rabbit

Final VP Prediction (Democrats)

In an earlier post, I discussed my personal opinions on possible Democratic Vice Presidential nominees. We have finally come to the point in which we find out who is Obama's choice. He says he has made his choice, he's just not telling.

And my guess...

Senator Joe Biden from Delaware.

I believe Barack Obama is leaning towards picking somebody who will help him govern as opposed to help him win the race. This is what makes Biden a great pick. He was arguably the best debater of all the former Democratic candidates for president and he exceeds even John McCain in experience. I also believe that picking Biden will show that the Obama camp realizes something about the people who will vote for him. Having a north easterner on the ticket may appear as a concession of the south to McCain but, that is not necessarily true. The people in the south who would choose to not vote for Obama because he chose somebody from the north, would have never voted for Obama in the first place. These are the people still fighting the Civil War and they won't vote for neither Yankees nor black people. But, the south is not filled with these people. It is more culturally diverse than ever, and possibly the most diverse area of the United States.

Bottom Line? Biden would be a good choice because the race isn't as close as you think. Polls are notorious for excluding minorities and young people, aka Obama's core constituency.

Rabbit

A Reason Not to Respect Women's Sports

If you grew up in the environment that I did, you'd understand why that is an uncharacteristic title for a post. I was taught that women's sports should be treated with the same respect as those played by men. I normally do not have a problem with that.

But, there is one story from the past year that soured me on that opinion. That is, the fall of Hope Solo. Hope Solo, a goalkeeper for the United States soccer team, is probably one of the top 5 best female athletes in the country. In the 2007 Women's World Cup she dominated the tournament, allowing only 2 goals in 4 games. But, she was benched for the semifinal match in favor of 36 year old Brianna Scurry.

The United States lost 4-0 to Brazil (In football terms, that's like losing 42-0).

After the game, an obviously upset Solo had this to say.

"It was the wrong decision, and I think anybody that knows anything about the
game knows that. There's no doubt in my mind I would have made those saves. And
the fact of the matter is it's not 2004 anymore. It's not 2004. And it's 2007,
and I think you have to live in the present. And you can't live by big names.
You can't live in the past. It doesn't matter what somebody did in an Olympic
gold medal game in the Olympics three years ago. Now is what matters, and that's
what I think."

For that reaction, Solo was not only benched for the Bronze medal game, she was kicked off the team and many of her former teammates ripped her publicly and privately.

Luckily, the head coach was fired and Solo was asked back to the team for the 2008 Olympics.

The United States just won gold, beating Brazil 1-0.

Here is my problem with the whole situation. Women's sports need an athlete like Hope Solo. She dominates and she knows it. Sure, it may have hurt the rest of the team's feelings that she felt that she was the missing link that kept the United States from World Cup victory. But, she was right.

Male athletes are often criticized for being too arrogant and boisterous. But, what many who have never competed at anything do not realize, it is that characteristic that makes those who are great, the absolute best. If Peyton Manning was benched in favor of Jim Sorgi in the Super Bowl, he would've reacted the same way and make no mistake, this story is the equivalent to benching Peyton Manning in the Super Bowl.

Bottom Line? If young female athletes start emulating Hope Solo, women's athletics will finally get the respect it deserves.

Rabbit

Please Just Get the F Out

Iraq and the United States have been debating when and how United States troops should withdraw from Iraq. Iraq seems to want us out, and we seem to not be ready to leave. (CNN)

This issue has been central in my personal movement away from the right. When it hit me how many lies were told about this war, how many people have died in this war, and how much this war costs, I could not support it anymore.

But, I always maintained the thought that when the Iraqi government said they were ready for us to leave, we would leave. That is not happening and I have two theories why.

First, as you may know, much of the money spent on Iraq, is given to contractors from the private sector. Billions of dollars are given to various corporations, many with specific ties to the Bush Administration. So it is plausible, to me, that the Bush Administration does not want to leave Iraq because their buddies are making too much money to leave.

Second, Iraq is dangerous. Regardless of the violence level, Iraq is dangerous. It will take many miracles for this country to stay stable, regardless of whose troops are or are not there. Sunni, Shia, and Kurd do not get along. The country is in a volatile area. I believe, that many in the Bush Administration know, that if they make the decision to leave, they will be solely responsible for the disaster of Iraq. But, if the following administration makes the move, then they can pass blame.

Bottom Line? We should have never went there in the first place and we are in a tough spot with how we will get out. But, I really want the troops out of Iraq.

Rabbit

Who Cares? Its just our state

Last night, the two candidates for Governor of North Carolina debated for the first time on television. Of course, if you were in Charlotte, you could not see it. Not that anybody cares.

The Governor of your state may have a bigger impact on your life than does the President. It would be wise to pay attention. It would be even wiser to have somebody in the media attempt to care.

My choice for Governor is the one I'm struggling with the most. Honestly, I'm leading towards Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory because I see his work everyday. I disagree with his stance on offshore drilling, which has become the hot button issue of the race, as it appears to be in most races.

But, I know that offshore oil production will not increase regardless of who is elected. It is all an election year trick to get Republicans elected. While the ban may be lifted, oil companies are just going to sit on the leases, like they sit on so many other leases they have. But, I'll save more of that for another rant.

Bev Perdue really turned me off during the primary season. She refused to debate her opponent and made quite possibly the worst campaign commercial I have ever seen. I know Andy Griffith is a popular man in North Carolina but, knowing my governor, "sure are gonna make a fine governor," I will be embarrassed for my state. There is nothing wrong with being folksy, country, or southern but, when you want to hold the highest office in the state, try harder than rocking in a chair with Andy Griffith.

Bottom Line? This race will be tight. North Carolina rarely elects Republican governors and rarely elects Democratic presidents. This year could be different for both.

Rabbit

Moderate Fundamentalists

An Op-ed column in today's Washington Post by E.J. Dionne Jr. discusses the overall move to the center of the political spectrum of evangelicals.

With all due respect to Mr. Dionne, you don't get it. Beltway columnists need to realize that they are not immersed in many of the cultures they write about. Abortion and gay rights, while they are hot button issues in the Christian community, have never been the only issues an evangelical voter considers when choosing a candidate. If you disagree, tell me the last time that an evangelical Christian voter chose a Muslim candidate because they were against abortion and gay rights.

Also, the notion that evangelical Christians have historically chosen those two issues over poverty is false. While it can be argued that Christians fail at their attempts to help "the least of these," they do believe in the cause. Liberals in this country need to realize that helping the poor is not an exclusively liberal cause. Conservative churches have been giving to the poor for centuries.

Personally, I would argue that it is this "new moderate evangelical" movement that has drifted from having poverty as a priority. Even Rick Warren with his purpose driven proclamation that its, "not about you." Go to the Saddleback Church Website. Did you see ways to help others or ways to help yourself? I would take Rick Warren over Pat Robertson any day. But at least Mr. Robertson tries to make a real difference.

Yes, it is true that Rick Warren is much more moderate politically than many of his recent predecessors. But, George W. Bush is much more moderate than Dick Cheney, but trust me, he's still a conservative. If you watched Saturday night's forum, while Warren was decidedly neutral, it was apparent from crowd reactions, where the majority of votes were going.

But, McCain is not winning those votes because of abortion. It is because of the main difference between McCain and Obama. Its McCain's direct stances versus Obama's nuance. Evangelical Christians are taught to pick a side and not to believe anything from the other side. So, when any candidate views complicated issues as complicated, he will not be their choice.

While the issues being discussed in churches may range from abortion to poverty, in either situation, they are told to pick a side. This shows the word that should be used to describe evangelical voters, fundamentalist. In my opinion, few things in the world are as complicated as the Christian religion and the Bible. But, to these people, its the most basic of all principles. So why should any other issue be complicated to them?

Bottom Line? Even if fundamentalist Christians were to maintain extreme left wing beliefs, they'd still likely vote for the candidate who was simple as opposed to complicated. My only hope is that there are fewer fundamentalists than I think.

Rabbit

Great? Yes...The Greatest? No

This just in.

Michael Phelps is not the greatest athlete of all time. He is simply the most decorated Olympic athlete of all time. There is a difference.

First, there are 17 swimming events for men in the Olympics. Phelps won 8. That is impressive but its also unfair to give him more credit for competing in a sport that awards more medals.

Second, its impossible to compare swimming to sports that require specific skills. I am not saying that swimming is easy. It is not. But, the objective in swimming, like track and cycling is simply to get from Point A to Point B faster than anyone else. That is extremely difficult. But, it requires one to excel in one task. Other sports, like basketball; baseball; football; wrestling; gymnastics; and tennis, require the best to excel at a variety of tasks. In other words, sports are divided between ones that show athleticism and ones that apply athleticism.

Third, how many people actually attempt to swim competitively? How can you claim the title of greatest athlete ever, if few people actually attempt to beat you at your own game? The fact is, while many people swim, not many choose it as a sport. The greatest athlete must come from a sport in which many people have tried and failed.

None of this takes away from anything Michael Phelps has accomplished. He proves how much hard work pays off. Why is he the best swimmer in the world? Because he works his butt off at it. But, to claim he is the greatest athlete of all time, or even the greatest Olympian of all time, seems to be more about seizing the moment of popularity than a real possibility. Honestly, why not write about why Michael Phelps is the greatest athlete of all time? People will read it.

Bottom Line? It is impossible to choose the greatest athlete of all time but, if it were possible, that person would not be Michael Phelps.

Rabbit

Stop Trying so Hard

"Experts" spend a lot of time exploring things that just are not there. Over the past several years, the terms "Red State" and "Blue State" have entered the English language. In reality, neither exists as some may want you to believe.

A majority of voters in North Carolina have chosen Republicans to be their President in every Presidential Election since 1980. New Yorkers have chosen a Democratic President in every election since 1988. That is not the major difference between North Carolina and New York.

Bigger differences can be found in each state's economy, metropolitan areas, climate, culture, and many others. The majority of New Yorkers may be more liberal than the majority of North Carolinians. But, there are thousands of liberal people in North Carolina and thousands of conservatives in New York.

More people voted for George Bush in New York than in North Carolina. More people voted for George Bush in California than in Texas. Obviously, this is a result of higher populations but, it still helps debunk the red vs. blue issue.

More skilled political scientists will look beyond the breakdown of states to how population density, income, and other factors affect voting habits.

Bottom Line? The best way to describe a state or an individual does not include who they vote for and there are more Republicans in California than in Texas.

Rabbit

Question????

This is a short post, all I have is a question.

Why are Americans allowed to say that Russia invading Georgia is wrong?

Rabbit

Conflict of Interest?

Do me a favor. Go to www.cnn.com/politics. You do not have to read any of the stories, just look at the banner ads. One in particular may get your attention.

The Obama Campaign pays for advertising on CNN's website. Campaign advertising with news services, of course, is not limited to the Obama campaign. Watch any television news and wait for commercials. You'll see ads for both candidates and many from lobbyist groups.

One of my favorite shows dealing with politics is "Meet the Press." Their commercials include General Electric, which should not be a surprise considering they own NBC. I also see many commercials from oil companies. There just seems to be a major conflict of interest here.

Money's affect on government and those who govern is a major issue, and has been for a very long time. But, should we not be concerned with the money in those who cover the government? We rely on our news organizations to present fair stories without bias. But how could NBC News do a negative story about GE? How could they really did deep into the positives and negatives of both candidates if they provide advertising dollars?

Bottom Line? This is a situation in which I point out a problem without giving a solution. The only possible one I can think of is a state run press. That is NOT a good idea.

Rabbit

Tarnish of a Golden Boy: Eugene Robinson

As you may know if you read this blog from time to time, I'm very interested in forming my own opinions. One of the biggest problems with people who claim to follow current events is that they cling to the words of certain commentators instead of figuring things out for themselves. Often, a columnist or commentator makes many good points but, that does not mean that I will automatically agree with every word they create.

But, sometimes I believe they explain a story so well that it should be repeated. The following is an Op-ed from the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson about John Edwards.

Rabbit

Tarnish on a Golden Boy

By Eugene Robinson
Sunday, August 10, 2008; Page B07

There is some sincerity and some snake oil in every politician, but John Edwards exudes both in almost freakish measure. During the primaries, I saw him deeply move audiences with his up-from-nothing life story, his empathy for the working class and his clarion call for a national crusade to eliminate poverty. Afterward, though, I usually heard a few snarky comments about the golden perfection of his hair, the blazing whiteness of his smile and the opulence of his North Carolina mansion.
Maybe Slippery John somehow convinced Earnest John that this moment would never come. In fact, it was inevitable -- and if Edwards had somehow won the Democratic nomination, the party would be in the midst of a historic meltdown.
In terms of newsworthiness, it's supposedly not that a politician has an affair (none of our business, we tell ourselves) but that the politician lies when asked about it, thus violating the public's trust. And, indeed, Edwards lied when the National Enquirer confronted him about his affair nearly a year ago, and he continued to lie until his confession on Friday.
In this case, though, we should just admit that it's not the lie that makes the story compelling. It's the "How could he?" factor. We all know about Elizabeth Edwards's battle against breast cancer. We remember the news conference at which the couple announced that the cancer had returned and was incurable but that they intended to press ahead with the presidential campaign. We saw a strong, loving marriage that could teach us all lessons about living life to the fullest.

Edwards says his affair -- with Rielle Hunter, a onetime campaign aide -- was initiated and terminated at a time when Elizabeth's cancer was in remission. He acknowledges that this doesn't ameliorate his sins, but he apparently hopes that it makes him seem like less of a heel.
At least he was man enough to do his mea culpa interview with "Nightline" alone. Standard practice for adulterous politicians in such situations is to have the betrayed and humiliated spouse there, too, grimly demonstrating support if not forgiveness. But Edwards claimed, and Elizabeth later confirmed, that he insisted on facing the music alone.
To the extent that he has faced the music, that is. He was forthright and plainspoken with ABC correspondent Bob Woodruff about the central facts -- his relationship with Hunter, his having lied about it repeatedly, his betrayal of his marriage. But when pressed on certain details, Edwards retreated into lawyerly precision.
He maintained, for example, that he knew nothing about any hush money Hunter might have been paid. But it's clear that he desperately wanted her to hush. Edwards acknowledged that the whole point of his meeting with Hunter at the Beverly Hilton Hotel last month -- a rendezvous somehow sniffed out by reporters from the Enquirer -- was that "I wanted her not to tell the public what had happened."
Was she threatening to tell all? Given that Hunter was a struggling single mother with a sensational story to sell, wouldn't Edwards have been the least bit curious about her financial circumstances?
Fred Baron, a wealthy Dallas lawyer who was the national finance chairman of the Edwards presidential campaign, said Friday that he provided unspecified "assistance" to Hunter without telling Edwards or anyone else. But when I listen to Edwards's careful words and read Baron's careful statement, I have to wonder whether this is an exercise in compartmentalization and deniability.
Then there's the question of Hunter's baby, which Edwards adamantly denies fathering, to the point of announcing his eagerness to take a paternity test. (Hunter said in a statement yesterday that she would not seek a paternity test.) When Woodruff pressed him about an Enquirer photograph that purported to show Edwards holding the baby, Edwards parsed his words:
"I'm saying you asked me about that photograph. I don't know anything about that photograph, I don't know who that baby is. I don't know if the picture has been altered, manufactured, if it's a picture of me taken some other time, holding another baby . . . I have no idea. I was not at this meeting holding a child for my photograph to be taken, I can tell you that." Edwards finally told Woodruff that he didn't recall a baby being present. Uh, okay, glad we cleared that up.
I hope Edwards is finally leveling with us -- and with himself. I've always thought there was genuine substance beneath all that slickness.
Whenever I want to write him off as a total fraud, I tell myself that if Elizabeth Edwards loves and respects him, he can't be all bad.
eugenerobinson@washpost.com