You Can't Support the Troops without Supporting the War, But You Can Support the Troops without Supporting Them Financially; Or, On President Bush Opp

I know this argument is waaay out of date, but I hadn't written anything for two months until yesterday, and this has been irking me greatly for that whole time span.

So, I was reading my hometown paper, The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer on Sunday, May 20th, when I came across an interesting little column. I can't remember the author - maybe The New York Times' David Brooks? - but the content was what really mattered. It discussed a piece of legislation that had just passed through the House - HR 1585 - which was an appropriations measure for the Department of Defense. (Read the story from The Army Times here).

According to the story, the HR 1585 allowed for a 3.5% pay raise for military personnel beginning January 1, 2008. It also calls for an additional .5% pay raise for troops over the increase in the private sector for each additional year between 2009 and 2012. Members of the House Armed Services Committee, the group that penned this amendment, felt that "the slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase" (Military Times article).

Seems reasonable enough and about 4 years too late, right? Well, don't tell that to the Bush administration. Once they heard about this preposterous, un-American measure, they were all over it. The administration called the additional half-percent raise "unnecessary," stating that "When combined with the overall military benefit package, the president’s proposal provides a good quality of life for service members and their families."

Now, instead of expressing his concerns for the additional expenditures - which are estimated to be a whopping $7 billion over the 5 years of the supplemental bill - as he would have done with a GOP-controlled Congress, Bush threatened, yet again, to use his veto pen. Our President, the one who put our troops in Iraq, threatening to veto a military spending bill in large part because he won't consent to more pay for the enlisted.

This is the same administration that thought we could fight the war on the cheap, that bragged about how oil revenues would easily cover the cost of this war. The same administration who, just as they were shipping our boys across the world, was slashing funding to the VA. The same administration who had to beg for an extra $2 billion in 2005 because it underestimated the cost of treating wounded Iraq war vets. The same administration that tried not only to fight increased benefits and pay to troops in 2004, but tried to slash their heath benefits while they were half way across the world.

Now, I am not a big proponent of an immediate withdrawal. I have been sitting on the fence of this issue for quite some time now. I was opposed to the war from the start, but I have been unsure of how to end it. I am coming over the side of a phased re-deployment, however. But regardless of your political affiliation, race, creed, opinion on the war, etc. NO ONE should be undercutting our troops when they are in the middle of the war. Especially not those who claim to be supporting those troops and question the patriotism of everyone else.

Opposing the military pay raise. Yet another example of the Bush administration supporting the troops in public, while stabbing them in the back in reality.

God Bless America. I hope He will at least.

The Pot Just Called the Kettle Black, and a Pot; Or On President Bush's Attack on Congressional Democrats

So I was clicking around on the political pages and blogs when I ran across this piece on the CNN Political Ticker here:

"President Bush accused Democratic lawmakers on Saturday of being unable to live up to their duties, citing Congress’ inability to pass legislation to fund the federal government.
'Democrats are failing in their responsibility to make tough decisions and spend the people’s money wisely,” Bush said in his weekly radio address. “This moment is a test'
The White House has said the failure of a broad immigration overhaul was proof that Democratic-controlled Capitol Hill cannot take on major issues. 'We saw this with immigration, and we’re seeing it with some other issues where Congress is having an inability to take on major challenges,' said spokesman Tony Fratto...

With the Senate and House now in Democratic hands, this year’s bills are producing skirmishes with the White House that also are causing delays. Almost every domestic bill already has attracted a veto threat because it exceeds Bush’s proposed budget in certain areas.
All told, Democrats plan spending increases for annual agency budgets of about $23 billion above the White House budget request. Bush put it in terms of a five-year outlook, and said their budget plan would be $205 billion bigger than his over that period, and would include 'the largest tax increase in history' by allowing some of his tax cuts to expire as planned.
The president said Democrats are embracing “the failed tax-and-spend policies of the past,” and vowed to stand firm for fiscal restraint. Republican lawmakers have pledged to support him and sustain any vetoes.
'No nation has ever taxed and spent its way to prosperity,” Bush said. “And I have made it clear that I will veto any attempt to take America down this road.'"

Really George? Did you honestly say all of that? Democrats in Congress are the reason that your immigration bill died on the floor? Are you sure about that? Because I seem to recall conservatives all across the country railing that bill as a ridiculous piece of Amnesty - I heard one commentator title it "Shamnesty" - and they called up the army of right-wingers to take it behind the woodshed.

Now, it is true that there was opposition from very liberal Democrats and more moderate, heartland democrats like Senator Ben Nelson (NE), and it is true that not all Democrats in the Senate voted to bring cloture on the bill. But are you kidding me?

And accusing the Democratic Congress of being responsible for any missteps in this country right now is quite a leap. Granted, I am not pleased with the people I helped put in office. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are complete disasters, and I would love to never have to see or hear from them again. They and their old guard pals are talking reform with one hand while holding Congress in place with the other.

But you aren't making the situation much better, Mr. President. The American Research Group just finished an interesting little poll regarding the American people's mindset on you. The poll numbers state that 45% of all adults favor beginning impeachment proceedings on you, while 46% oppose the idea. When you look at voting adults only, that number shifts 46% in favor and 44% opposing. Thirteen percent of Republicans and a whopping 50% of independents favor it.

While I am not really on board for impeaching Bush - I don't think you can make a real case for it, and there is no way it gets through the Senate - maybe these numbers mean that the President should bite his tongue here for a few minutes. Most of the problems that he has laid at the feet of the Democrats really trace right back to him and the GOP.

Problems with spending and appropriations bills came about as a result of the Republicans in the 109th Congress refusing to make any real progress right before the election and then afterwards in their lame duck period. They sat on their hands and played politics over the interests of the American people, including the troops that they voted to put in Iraq. Oh, and it doesn't help domestic agenda matters when the President threatens to veto every bill Congress even ponders debating. How many vetoes did you use during a GOP majority? Oh yeah, two. Everything is clearly on the same footing. You aren't playing politics at all, Mr. President.

If you would like to see the man who is responsible for the War in Iraq, for 3,500 troop deaths, for the failure of immigration and Social Security reform, largely at fault for the continued growth of economic inequality in this country, responsible for the Supreme court taking 3 steps back towards sanctioned segregation, simply look in the mirror, Sir. You know the truth. You aren't as dumb as people think you are.

Barack's Bringin' in the Cash, or My Return from a Two-month Blogging Hiatus.

So, I know that I haven't written a new post for this blog in almost 2 months, but whatever. It's not like anyone actually reads this thing anyway. I already know what goes on inside my head. I don't need the Internet to remind me. But here we go again, regardless.



So, Sen. Barack Obama released his fundraising statistics Sunday night. We all learned that he raised a remarkable $32.5 million in the last fiscal quarter (April-June). That is an incredible number. According to The Los Angeles Times, it is the second highest fundraising total for a quarter since the President raised $35 million in the second quarter of 2003. That is an incumbent president raising that much money, an incumbent who has made many a bedfellow with shady corporate donors and political action committees. (see article here).


Barack Obama has raised the second highest amount of money for a political campaign during any quarter in history. His $32.5 million is more than all the 2004 Democratic candidates raised in the 2nd quarter of 2003 combined. Of that $32.5 million, $31 million is set aside for the primary campaign. That raises the amount of money he has raised this year to battle Senator Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination to $55.7 million. Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention that Obama's campaign is not accepting money from PACs or lobbyists.



To her credit, Clinton raised $27 million this quarter, about $21 million of which will go to the primary. When you add that to the $26 million that she raised last quarter, along with the $10 million she transferred from her Senate campaign war chest, she has actually outraised Senator Obama $63 million to $55.7 million. However, not all of that money is earmarked for the primaries. In fact - I do not have the actual numbers in front of me - but it appears as though when you take the $6 million this quarter, along with the similar figure from last quarter, and some of her $10 million transfer into account as general election money, Obama and Clinton are on an even keel, even with the former-First Lady's $10 million head start.



But putting the money aside, as huge a statistic as this is for the Obama camp (of which you can count me a member, if you hadn't noticed), the real revelation lies in another number. More than 258,000 people have donated to the Obama campaign since January 1. That is, without question, more than any other single candidate at this point in history. These 258,000 have made more than 350,000 donations, and more than 1,500 people join the ranks everyday. Talk about a grassroots explosion (read more here).



While money does not buy every election, simply ask Ross Perot, it will amount to an enormous shot in the arm for Obama's campaign. He will almost certainly come close to reaching $100 million by the end of 2007. That kind of money buys him several things.



One is notoriety and media coverage. Any candidate who can garner this kind of unprecedented support is certain to steal the headlines on a semi-regular basis. Even if Bill Clinton is making the rounds with his wife and squeezing money out of the Clinton stalwarts from the 90s, Barack Obama is going to make the nightly newscast, he is going to get play on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News. And most publicity is a good thing at this point in the race, especially free publicity.



Also, $55.7 million provides you with a great chance to buy publicity. He has more than enough money to run TV and radio spots in the key early primary states. He has a good marketing & PR team, as well as friends in Hollywood who can capitalize off of these.



Another benefit is that he is able to set up shop in these early states already. He has full-blown campaigns running in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada already - more than 6 months from the first caucus. Having a physical presence on the ground, especially in states where face-to-face politics means as much as it does in New Hampshire and Iowa, can make all the difference between catching the momentum like John Kerry & Bill Clinton and falling face down like Howard Dean & Gary Hart. And as we all know, no amount of money or media play can equal the power winning in Iowa and New Hampshire.



Even though he continues to lose to Clinton in national primary polls, Obama has fared far better on a state-by-state basis. While he is currently running anywhere from -10% in the Cook/RT Strategies poll to -23% in the Fox News poll (which is ridiculous, I must say. No way that Obama has 19% to Clinton's 42%), his marks are better in the states.

In Iowa, he is neck-and-neck with Clinton and John Edwards. Edwards is winning the Strategic Vision poll, leading Obama and Clinton 26%-21%-20% (notice how Barack is beating Hillary as well), and Clinton is leading in the Mason-Dixon poll with 22% to Edwards' 21% and Obama's 18%. (find these numbers here). In South Carolina, Mason-Dixon has Obama ahead of Clinton 34-29%.

Of course, these numbers mean absolutely nothing at this moment. But one thing to give some credence to is a recent poll by Mason-Dixon regarding favorability and votability (yes, I think I just made that up) of the major candidates. Fifty-two percent of those polled said they would not vote for Clinton under any circumstances, and 42% said that recognized her name & were unfavorable towards her (read more here). That's a pretty rough number. Like I've said all along, people don't like Hillary Clinton. She is polarizing and she can't win a general election against a decent & well-funded Republican candidate. Oh, and she would have NO chance against Fred Thompson. But that's just one man's opinion.