Letters to the Editor
-
the 3 AM ad's subliminal text
it is the middle of the night. the alarm rings. a worried woman goes to check on the children. are they safe? OR has a Black Man broken into the (white) house?
-
The McCain Myths
Myth #1: McCain stoically and heroically withstood torture, refusing to talk or implicate himself or comrades in alleged atrocities and war crimes.
The Truth: McCain admits that he talked under torture. He broke, and to make the torture stop, he told his interrogators everything they wanted to hear, which isn't surprising because that's exactly what torture makes you do.
Myth #2: John McCain is a war hero who served honorably.
The Truth: In the 1990's, McCain described himself as a war criminal for knowingly bombing civilians. His attitude toward himself changed right around the time he first ran for president.
Whether or not these truths disqualify him for the Presidency is up to one's individual conscience. (To my mind, the truth behind Myth #1 doesn't disqualify him for the Presidency, but the truth behind Myth #2 does.)
-
Please, Sir, I want all three.
The Clinton ad doesn't say what the midnight emergency is. If it's military then I want her to answer the phone. If it's diplomatic, I want President Obama to pick up the call. If it's the "big one" hitting Los Angeles, I want Arnold to be later quoted saying "thank God John McCain is president."
For the first time in my memory I am assured that there will be a President of the United States who has earned my respect and admiration. As a moderately liberal Democrat, I support Senator Obama. But Senators Clinton and McCain are extraordinary people also.
All three offer unique and very valuable skills which our country desparately needs. President Bush has left a mess of historic proportions for the next administration to clean up. Frankly it’s too big of a job for any one President - so I have a modest proposal.
In poker there is a term “chop the pot”. It’s especially popular in tournaments where last two or three players agree to split the total winnings equally, no matter who wins the tournament. So I would like the three top candidates to agree now, to “chop the pot”. Here’s how it could work:
Clinton and McCain both put Obama on their ticket as Vice-President. I don’t think this is prohibited by the law, and the deal would be he get’s to run as President in the next election, with the loser being Vice President. All three agree that no matter who wins, the other candidate will be appointed as “special advisor” and all decisions would be made by the three of them. There would be three desks in the Oval office. Two votes and the decision is made, no matter how passionate the loser feels. All three of these folks are honorable people and know how to argue for a consensus.
As the Bush Babies have demonstrated, this would not require any changes in the Constitution. If something Constitutionally suspect turns up, they’d just solve it with a signing statement or whatever. They would be the “deciders”. After eight years the system would go back to normal, and Barack Obama would be either be unelectable, or the hands down favorite for President.
Here’s what the country would get:
Hillary Clinton would focus on America’s number one problem, universal health care. This is a crisis which when solved will help alleviate the suffering of the poor, the aging baby boomers and US companies trying to cope with capital draining health care benefits.
John McCain would focus on Immigration and rebuilding an affordable and effective armed forces. He can also be the voice of reason when the three confront military decisions. He could focus on retreiving Afganastan from the Taliban. And he would restore moral authority to our Military and intelligence agencies.
Barack Obama would work on reinstating our influence and leadership in the rest of the world, especially the Mideast and Africa. He could focus on the number one foreign relations problem – developing Palestine into a country Palestinians would want to keep, and the Israeli’s would want as partners in peace. Much of the animus generated against us in the Muslim world stems from our support of Israel.
Would there be heated debate behind closed doors? You betcha. But ultimately the collective good and will of the people would inform each resolution.
Would Congress feel intimadated by a triumverant of such stature? You betcha. But gridlock would be eliminated, and we would finally get our house in order.
The list of benefits could go on and on. Increased competence during multiple crisis, an energized populace willing to pitch in and help, and a new model of how things could work. Hell, this is what we are trying to make the Iraqis do, so why not start “walking the walk”?
But the best reason of all is the image we’d have on videotape of Rush Limbaugh’s head exploding on the day the three of them take office.
-
best at 3 am
For a country that publicizes itself as the meanest and most powerful SOB in the valley, America seems to have a bad case of fear of the bogeyman when it comes to national security. The question of who would be best to handle the 3 am phone call if it ever came sounds like something out of Dr. Strangelove. If there is such a call and it was really big time then presumably MAD would kick in and the world start singing "We'll Meet Again". If it was some minor incident like US Embassy in Baghdad disappearing, surely the guy/gal in the bed will have enough common sense to make a rational decision no matter who he/she may be.
McCain appears to be a man of integrity, common sense and honor but he has some weird ideas that may be coupled to his time in the Hanoi Hilton. His military career is certainly something for him and the country to be proud of but how does it quality him as best choice to occupy the White House? Personally I have a suspicion of military or ex-military men in positions of great authority. To me military or ex-military have a serious character quirk; anyone who has a job that involves the possibly killing others is just a bit strange.
Obama also appears to be a man of integrity and honor but as stated has little experience in foreign affairs . However the question has to be asked if past experience is in anyway relevant to the way foreign affairs is evolving? Clinton has had mush more exposure to the inner workings of Washington and this may be the key asset she brings to the table, more important than experience in foreign affairs.
For a country where guns are almost as numerous as citizens and violence is a frequent everyday occurrence, the anxiety and fear that a faceless un-quantified and so far ineffective threat causes would be hilarious if it were not so expensive and debilitating to the well-being of the country.
Somebody is getting very rich off what may well be people's misplaced anxieties.