Hardline AM 830 KLAA - Listen every Sunday 7-8 p.m. on AM 830

Will Libya Intervention Change Arab Perceptions?

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:39:00 +0000

Prior to Obama’s decision to militarily intervene in Libya many Republicans criticized him for moving too slowly to aid the rebels battling dictator and terrorist Muammar Gaddafi. As the rebels began to get beaten back and the strong hold city of Benghazi looked like it might be overrun by Gaddafi’s superior air and armor ability, Obama and a coalition of mainly French and British forces intervened with air power. Currently, the forces loyal to Gaddafi are being pushed back to Tripoli. Now of course, the Republicans are criticizing Obama for intervening at all, setting up a very embarrassing situation for former Republican speaker of the house and potential Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich who is now condemning the intervention and trying to explain away making two completely different arguments only days apart.
           Republicans criticizing Obama no matter what he does? You don’t say? What else is new? We can expect little more from that political party. So what of this action? Did Obama have a choice?
           The simple answer is “Yes” Obama could have done nothing. It is reasonable to believe however, that a humanitarian disaster would have followed. As Gaddafi’ s forces drew close to Benghazi he threatened to slaughter his own people; in fact, he said that his forces were “coming tonight” and would show “no mercy.” There was little reason to doubt Gadaffi’s words since he was recently confirmed by his former justice minister of having given the order to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people in 1988. Gaddafi has also been a ruthless dictator in Libya for over 40 years.
           Obama’s rationale for initiating a military intervention on humanitarian grounds is therefore based on sound information. The immediate goal of the coalition was to halt the slaughter of civilians: mission accomplished. Now, the coalition is moving to bolster the rebels and remove Gaddafi. This is admittedly outside the mandate of the UN resolution but practically necessary, otherwise what is to stop Gaddafi from regrouping and attempting to slaughter the rebels again? The US, the French , the British and the Arab league are determined that Gaddafi’s reign will end. So Gaddafi will be gone soon. What happens after that will be up to the Libyan people, but hopefully a democratic type government will come to be.
           In all the jockeying among Republicans threatening to run for President and the occasional conservative pundit, there has been little talk about how the Arab world will regard the United States after successful interventions in Egypt of a non-military nature and the currently military action in Libya. It is well established that there is an overwhelmingly negative view of the US throughout the Arab world. Most of this is a result of our support of Israel over Palestine. Many Arabs feel the Palestinians have been maltreated, bullied and even murdered by an Israel supported and bolstered by American money and the American military.
           But the recent actions of the Obama administration show a different side. The US has been acting like the America of yore, fighting for the little guy evoking memories of the war against the Nazis and the Emperor of Japan. Whereas the Iraqi war was seen as nothing more then an unsuccessful attempt to seize oil, Egyptians have first hand knowledge that the US urged restraint on the part of the Egyptian military and negotiated President Mubarak’s peaceful exit from the country he had ruled for 30 years. Similarly, the entire Arab world is witness to the US stepping in to prevent the slaughter of common Arab people wanting only to be free of a dictator. This is not Dick Cheney’s America where the Iraq invasion was seen in the Middle East and Europe (everywhere except in the US) as an unqualified power grab. People see the US acting like it should be- requiring old allies to become democracies or get out – and asking nothing in return. This is the idealistic version of America we have not seen since Bill Clinton successfully intervened in the former Yugoslavia to prevent a war and ethnic cleansing from occurring. Every action the Bush Administration took seemed to have a lot of strings attached along with convoluted and often corrupt motives.
           The long term effect of all this could be a softening of the perception of Arabs toward America. Practically speaking, this could also lessen the number of young Arab men hoping to enter the ranks of Al Qaeda. It is difficult to hate a nation that stepped in to help the common Arab people when no one else would.

Time to Shut Down Wisconsin

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 17:28:00 +0000

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has threatened state workers with layoffs if the 14 self exiled Democratic Senators do not return to the state senate so that he can pass a bill removing collective bargaining rights for unions who did not support his campaign for Governor. Walker indicated he would lay off 1500 workers as soon as next month, unless his demands are met.

Governor Walker and other recently elected Republican Governors from New Jersey, Michigan and Ohio have sought to reduce or eliminate collective bargaining rights for public sector unions since being elected in November. The Governors claim that they are doing this to try to relieve state fiscal deficits, although it is clear that taking away collective bargaining rights will only lessen the ability of union members to negotiate, not reduce the deficit. Notably, many unions have agreed to increasing contributions to pensions and benefits and some have agreed to pay cuts. As a result, the unions see this as nothing more then a ploy to weaken the political power of the unions who require dues from their members and usually endorse Democratic candidates.

Case in point: Governor Walker of Wisconsin received heavy support during his campaign from the extreme right wing billionaire Koch brothers of Kansas. The Koch brothers are ardently against unions of all types as they unabashedly state on the web site for their front group, “Americans for Prosperity .” They are both ranked 24th on the list of wealthiest Americans, worth an estimated $17.5 Billion. That money helped get Walker elected and he is doing his best to eradicate the unions even though polls in Wisconsin show he does not have the support of the people on ending collective bargaining rights.

The middle class has been losing ground for the last twenty years: 2001-2006 saw the first economic expansion in US history where the middle class saw no rise in income. Then in 2008, the economy collapsed with the middle class and working poor being the main victims. Factor in outsourcing for cheaper labor overseas and it’s not hard to see why our middle class is quickly fading away. For many working Americans the only weapon they have against these societal shifts are their numbers and their ability to act together to ask for better pay and benefits. In other words, the unions. The unions also provide political clout because they represent voting blocks that can pool money to support friendly candidates. Less then 10 % of all American workers are currently unionized down from 23% during the 70s. The decline of unions saw a corresponding decline in middle class incomes.

Republicans have used the economic crisis (caused by millionaire and billionaire bankers) as a pretext to weaken the ability of workers to negotiate better pay and benefits and to frustrate union efforts to get politicians elected who will look out for their interest. This is nothing more than an attack on the middle class, a middle class already under siege as a result of poor economic decisions on the national level by the previous Republican administration.

So, should the union members stand by and allow these threatened layoffs to happen or should they take action? For too long many union members felt the Republican Party was sympathetic to their plight and would help them “get the Government off their back.” Of course the reality is that for most middle class people Government programs like Social Security and Medicare have been a godsend that have lifted millions of Americans out of poverty. The idea of a Government “encroaching on our freedom” is something rich people say to avoid paying taxes; it is irrelevant to the middle class who benefit greatly not only from Social Security and Medicare, but also from education loans for college and the public school system.

No doubt many union members are now realizing the hostility of the Republican Party toward regular citizens having a voice politically and economically. The Governor is threatening lay offs if he does not succeed in doing away with collective bargaining rights. Why not show him the power of people and shut down the state? Let him see how the working people of Wisconsin feel about his taking away their basic right as Americans to negotiate higher wages to support their families. Every public sector worker should go on strike if the Governor goes ahead with the layoffs. In addition, every private sector worker should go on strike in solidarity. Shut down the state. Show the people of Wisconsin that this attack on the middle class is unacceptable. Then maybe Walker and other state Governors will learn the value of the middle class.

Consider the hypocrisy of the Republican Party: they insisted on extending the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires but now ask teachers and cops to make sacrifices. The current budget proposal from the Republicans in the House cuts distribution of food and milk to single mothers-yet they are unwilling to end subsidies to the oil companies who make record profits. The middle class needs to make a stand now, or it will only get worse. Shut down Wisconsin.

Republicans Continue Assault On The Middle Class

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:07:00 +0000

The Bush years from 2001-2006 saw the first economic expansion in post World War II history where the middle class experienced no gain in income. In fact, many middle class folks actually saw their income decline during that time period and then of course 14 million lost their jobs. Although it was well accepted prior to 2001, the economic principle that tax cuts for the rich do not stimulate growth because wealthy people do not change spending habits as a result of a tax cut, got an exclamation point during W’s time in office. The Bush Administration was preoccupied with cutting taxes for the wealthy and not concerned with providing opportunities for the middle class. What the 2001-2006 era showed was that the middle class does not benefit from tax breaks, even though it may sound good. Typical opportunities that help the middle class are education grants and job training. The middle class benefits from tax payer supported programs for otherwise cost prohibitive endeavors like a college education or cancer treatment for a child. Nothing like that came out during the Bush years because the Republicans had no interest in helping the middle class. Despite that, middle class voters continued to vote for Republicans in great numbers.

In 2010, with the “shellacking” of the Democrats at the midterm polls Obama gave into Republican demands to extend tax cuts for the rich so as to not imperil tax breaks for the middle class and to acquire another 300 billion in stimulus cash. By 2010 the economic catastrophe that was the George W. Bush years was evident. Yet Republicans continued to push hard for tax cuts for the rich despite their supposive concern with the deficit and the undeniable fact that the tax cut extension would not stimulate the economy.

The Republicans in the house recently passed a bill proposing 60 billion dollars in budget cuts for 2011. The number one biggest program they want cut? Two billion dollars in federal job training. This cut is aimed directly at the heart of a middle class still trying to recover from the 2008 crash and desperate to learn new skills to cope with a hi-tech world and the demise of jobs requiring little or no skill. It is a mystery why the Republican Party would seek to cut a program tied so closely to recovery and so necessary to permit future economic success for the middle class. Little has been made of this clear disregard for the plight of millions of Americans still suffering from the economic policies of the most recent Republican administration.

Notably, these cuts are being proposed by many new tea party members who were elected indubitably by members of the middle class. Whether it is ignorance or successful brain washing by wealthy, conservative interest groups, many middle class voters seem to think that this economic crisis is a result of government spending and excessive salaries for government workers. Never mind that during congressional hearings the heads of various banks and financial institutions already took the entire blame for the economic collapse and that the first entity of note to fall was not a state or federal agency but the Lehman Brothers trading house.

The latest attack on the middle class is occurring in state legislatures across the country where Republican Governors and legislators control the state houses. Despite the fact that unions are agreeing to contribute more to pensions and health care the Republicans want to go a step further: they want to remove the ability of the workers to collectively bargain. Essentially, they want to eliminate as much as possible the ability of the unions to organize for the purpose of asking for better pay or better benefits in the future. While nothing in the constitution guarantees a person a job, there is little debate that it is a very American thing to ask for a raise from your boss; the Governors of Ohio, Wisconsin and Indiana want to take that away from firemen, cops and teachers. Once again, neither unions or state workers caused the economic crisis- banks and financial institutions did. Why are these middle class people being punished for the wrongdoings of others while the very wealthy people in this county just got their tax cut extended for another two years?

Belt tightening is to be expected in an economic downturn and state and municipal workers are expected and have agreed to do their part. However, this Republican led effort will make it more difficult for middle class Americans to be paid a wage consistent with their skill and value to society. Teachers, firefighters and law enforcement provide essential services critical to the well being of the public. They should be allowed to ask for a raise. In addition, these middle class people will be denied a voice in politics as unions are the only groups that permit them to be heard over the din of Billionaire funded organizations that work non-stop in an effort to undermine the political clout of 98% of the population. It could be that this attack on that very American institution, which is the unions, will awaken the middle class to the true intentions of the Republican Party and reflect in the 2012 election.

The Anti-Job Party

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Sat, 29 May 2010 03:07:00 +0000

Shortly after Obama was elected it was not long before Rush Limbaugh announced that he hoped the President would fail. At the time, with McCain vanquished, Sarah Palin under orders not to talk to the press and no other Republican of any notability willing to take the reins-in rode Limbaugh as the de facto leader of the Republican Party. As is the case with most Limbaugh proclamations elected Republicans were silent or slightly critical only to later beg forgiveness as Limbaugh's fandom inundated district offices with outrage directed toward the elected official.

It is an odd thing to say: "I hope the President fails." It is odd because by failing that means that the President will have been unable to get Americans back to work; a failing that will cause continued suffering among the American people. By failing the President would be unable to resolve the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts leading to the deaths of more Americans and the expenditure of more tax payer money better spent at home. And of course, by failing to reform healthcare more Americans would die for lack of insurance. Why would Limbaugh and by silent agreement the Republican Party seek the further suffering of their own people? Especially in light of the fact that it is the Republican Party that led the nation over the cliff. Should they have not been the most motivated to correct the problems they created?

Soon enough it became clear that not only did the Republicans hope for Obama to fail but they moved with deliberate speed to make it happen. Despite a year of debate and opposition they never came up with their own health plan and in the midst of the worst economic crisis in 80 years they voted twice to filibuster the beginning of debate of the financial reform bill. The opposition to even discussing reforming the financial system is perhaps the most obvious example of a complete disregard for the American people.

Fortunately, seventeen months into Obama's administration he has not failed in fact the opposite has happen. Despite the worst financial disaster in 80 years the economy has begun to grow again; 230,000 private sector jobs were added in April. General Motors repaid a 5 billion dollar loan 5 years early and made a profit; Chrysler hired 1100 workers in Michigan. The main banks and financial organizations are solvent and have started to make a profit again and the stock market, though volatile has begun to recover.

Of these accomplishments the Republicans played little or no part. Not even in the jobs department can the Republicans claim any credit. They voted against the stimulus package which was designed to invigorate the economy by providing funds for everything from new construction projects to saving teachers’ jobs. The Republicans were against the domestic auto industry bail-out which kept both GM and Chrysler solvent and operating, preserving hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans. Many Republicans even voted against the "Jobs Bill" which provided tax breaks for new hires. Notably, the Republican stimulus plan which was never more then half-baked, directed tax cuts and tax breaks and little else. It was always unclear how tax breaks would help people with no income. While the Republicans could argue a simple difference of philosophy when it came to health care and management of the wars, it could not make the same claim when it came to job creation. They simply had no credible plan and worse, helping out unemployed Americans did not appear to be a priority.

So with the mid-terms approaching and the economy just beginning to recover from the last Republicans administration what will the GOP be selling to encourage potential voters to support them? They cannot take credit for the economic turn-around because they voted against the legislative tools which helped make it happen. They can not tout a better health reform plan because they never presented one. Limbaugh said he wanted Obama to fail and elected Republicans did everything possible to make that happen by opposing every piece of legislation they could and offering nothing in the form of solutions. The only problem is that by hoping Obama failed the Republicans by extension were hoping the American people would fail. This November the voters may have a retort to those who planned their demise.

And the Lies Keep Coming...

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:35:00 +0000

The Republican effort to block Obama's attempt to right the ship after 8 years of poor decisions and bad policy continues. Having lost the health care reform battle the Republicans are now intent on making reform of the financial markets as difficult as possible. If one still needs proof as to whether the goal of the Republican Party is to make the lives of Americans better or ascend to power at all costs, this should settle the debate. There is little argument among sane people that a lack of regulation in the financial markets led to the worst economic disaster in 80 years. So you would think that given the mutual pain felt by all Americans a fix for the financial markets would enjoy, at last, bi-partisan support. Not so!

Mitch McConnell the Republican minority Senate leader still found things to grouse about and as they have with every significant bit of legislation, the Republicans invented a new lie to oppose it. Democrats had placed a provision in the bill whereby the Government could dismantle a bank or corporate entity that was threatening the financial markets and pay for the Government costs of the dismantling from a 50 billion dollar fund. The creation of the fund would come from private sector contributions. Seems straight forward, right? Well not to Mitch McConnell. He alleges that the fund will lead to more bail-outs even though this provision lies within the section of the bill entitled "Orderly Liquidation Authority".

A Republican television pundit explained that the creation of such a fund would ultimately be paid for by the tax payer because the Wall Street firms required to contribute would raise the costs to the consumers of their products to pay for their contribution. The twisted logic of this explanation aside, the Republicans, naturally, offer no solution as to who and how such a dismantling would be paid for.

Sadly, similar to the way an indulgent parent satisfies an irrational child, the Democrats may agree that a fund will be set up once the need to dismantle an entity arises. Anything to make the kid stop crying.

As if the problems that face the nation arising from the President's predecessor do not offer enough challenges the Republicans feel the need to mislead the public with each effort by the President to improve the situation of the American people. From Death Panels to the President's birth place, the Republican lies have been made shamelessly. No doubt, the President does not have all the answers and his solutions have not been perfect, yet the opposition is consistent only in its opposition and in its inability to constructively add to the debate. The Republicans hope their steadfast opposition to the President will pay off come election time. Certainly, the tea party types have been energized by Republican stonewalling and it will motivate them to get out the vote. But what about other Americans, specifically independents or moderates who just want to see things improve and for the Government to facilitate improvement? Will they tire of the Republican shenanigans? Most Americans must realize at this point that the Republican Party is far more interested in gaining political points then it is in dealing with the nation's problems. Obama, at least, cannot be blamed for passing bills to gain political advantage. Just the opposite, he has persevered in the face of ferocious opposition because he feels it is the right thing to do. If the American people collectively see the light and decide that it is better to have someone in power who seeks to positively change the status quo albeit imperfectly, Republicans may find their efforts are for naught.

Republican Party Ignites Violence

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:43:00 +0000

The big question in Washington D.C. and around the nation right now is whether the Republican Party is responsible for the current violence against Democratic members of the congress after passage of health care reform. Given what has been going on the last 14-months it should be no surprise that it has culminated in violence against those in favor of reform. During the town hall health care meetings last year I can recall distinctly watching Chuck Grassley, the long time Iowa Senator standing uncomfortably in front of constituents who very loudly denounced the "death panels" provision they believe existed in the health care reform bill. Sarah Palin herself condemned this part of the bill as she claimed it would be used to euthanize her son with Down syndrome. Grassley said that the death panels would be used to "pull the plug on Grandma". Now if I were a member of the tea party and I saw prominent members of the Republican Party affirming the existence of these panels then I might be inclined to believe these panels existed. And if I believed they existed, I think I would get very upset. Upset enough to get violent perhaps.

Herein lies the problem: there were no death panels, these panels are nothing more then a right wing fantasy. But one person's fantasy can become another's truth unless quickly rebutted. Grassley lacked the courage to address this untruth either because he was afraid he would lose their votes or because he was physically afraid of the mobs that confronted him. Then Grassley went one step further: he recommended the provision in dispute which actually referred to living wills be removed from the health reform bill because it was "confusing." So, Grassley not only failed to confront these people with the truth, he placated and encouraged them by reacting to the fantastical claim as if it were true.

Similarly, the Republicans have been loathe to confront birthers who contest Obama having been born in the United States. On this issue the Republicans once again sought to placate this claim. Republican Representative John Campbell of California announced that he would move on legislation to insure that each Presidential candidate show proof of birth. Campbell, like Grassley became a facilitator of ludicrous claims against Obama and the Government. Instead of doing his job and telling the people the truth, he found it easier to mollify them by acting as if these things were true. When the leaders of a mainstream party act as if the most ridiculous claims are true, how can we expect the uninformed and uneducated to understand what is going on? The Republicans are clearly fueling the madness. If mainstream politicians tell the people that the American Government plans to kill elderly Americans with their health care plan, then violence becomes a reasonable option. A lack of responsibility by Republicans can be directly linked to the irrationally rabid response of the tea party types and their brethren. Then, as the passage of health care reform got closer to reality the encouragement of violence by the Republicans became more direct. Hours before passage of the health care bill, protesting tea partyers called African-American lawmakers the "N" word and spit on them. Openly gay Representative Barney Frank was met with homosexual slurs as he too entered the capitol. Shortly after, Devin Nunes, a Republican member of the House of Representatives from California was interviewed on C-Span. When he was asked about the name calling and spitting directed toward his house colleagues he replied:

"I think when you use totalitarian tactics people begin to act crazy, people have every right to smear someone, they can do it, its not appropriate, I would stop short of characterizing twenty thousand people...[in this light]"

You would think that the first thing out of Representative Nunes' mouth would be a stern critique of the behavior described. Instead, he defends it as being an expected result of "totalitarian tactics". This is the first time I have ever heard voting by elected representatives described as totalitarian. And lest we forget, the Senate Health Bill passed 60-40. That is called a super majority. The final House Health Bill passed with a seven vote plurality. The Reconciliation Bill passed 54-43 in the Senate and by eight votes in the House. When a member of congress describes the normal workings of our democracy in such a misleading way, he necessarily fans the flames of malcontents. Soon after passage of the Health Bill, Democrats in various states complained of bricks being thrown through their office windows and threatening messages left on answering machines. Automobiles of Democrat politicians have been vandalized and the brother of one politician had the gas line to his home severed when his address was published on the internet.

The Republicans attempted to avoid being associated with these acts and sent Eric Cantor, the Republican whip to make a statement. He said he too had been the victim of harassment, by a bullet though his office window no less. A police investigation determined later that the bullet had actually been fired straight up in the air and then had fallen through the window of an office occasionally used by the congressman. The police stated that the bullet had not actually been aimed at Mr. Cantor's office. Anyway, Cantor wanted us to know he felt the Democrat's pain.

The Republicans have stirred the pot of this populist rage with blatant lies from death panels to the Health Bill having been passed undemocratically. Their deliberate campaign of misinformation has led to the point where for many people violence is an acceptable reaction.

Enough with Reagan Already!

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:13:00 +0000

Apparently Republicans in congress have little to do because some of them are floating around the idea of putting Ronald Reagan's image on the $50.00 bill. I guess being the party of "No" leaves plenty of time for amusing pursuits like preserving the legacy of one recent Republican President.

Just a few years ago the Republicans insisted on renaming the Airport in Washington D.C (originally called Washington National Airport) Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Now it seems they want to have him staring up at me from my bill fold for all eternity.

However, a problem arises: the $50.00 bill currently has an occupant or I guess the Republicans would consider him a squatter. That would be none other then Ulysses S. Grant the 18th President of the United States. In order for President Reagan to be placed on the bill they would have to oust old U.S. Grant. The Republicans must have sensed that of all the faces on the bills President Grant was the most vulnerable. But why?

Grant led the North to victory over a militarily more proficient South and then went on to become President of the nation. He played a key role in preserving the union: which many think is kind of a big deal. After the civil war Grant saw to reconstruction efforts that brought some former slaves to congress. Reagan on the other hand is known for cutting taxes but then also (less known) for raising them. In fact, he is responsible for one of the largest corporate tax hikes in history. Reagan started his Presidency with a 700 billion deficit and left with a three trillion dollar deficit. On the foreign policy front he is credited with helping to bring about the demise of the Soviet Union, which finally crumbled under his successor Bush I. In fact, Mikhail Gorbachev probably deserves a lot more credit for that then Reagan, but some Republicans would disagree. Notably, Grant was dead almost 30 years before he was put on the bill, Reagan has been dead six.

Do not get me wrong: although I am a Democrat I liked Reagan. I do not know why I liked him but growing up in the mid-eighties he reminded me of a kindly grandfather, with a twinkle in his eye, eating jelly beans by the fist full. I am just not sure he is dollar bill material since he is lacking (at this point) the historical weight to merit a memorial in my wallet. More than likely the impetus for all this is less a need to venerate Reagan and more the creation of a rally point for Republicans. Bush II followed the Republican creed of cutting taxes at all costs and drove the country off an economic cliff; then he pranced about like a cowboy and ended up starting a war for no reason with a trillion dollar price tag and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. The Republicans may feel that since the present does not bode well for their ideas why not harken back to the past. People may find comfort in the memory of the old actor and perhaps it will distract them for a moment from record high unemployment and an economic crisis unmatched in 80 years. Then again, the people may ask why politicians are not making better use of their time.

Here is a video from CNBC's Kudlow Report: Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) is interviewed.

Irrational Anger

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:40:00 +0000

In the wake of the surprise election result in Massachusetts where unknown Republican Scott Brown beat current Attorney General of Massachusetts, Democrat Martha Coakley, many people have tried to make sense of the outcome. There are a variety of possible explanations; some have said Coakley was a weak candidate or that she rested on her laurels after the primary, thinking she could coast to victory in overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts. But more then anything it seems that there is a widespread populist anger at what has been going on in Washington from the bank bailouts to the debate surrounding healthcare. I know this first hand because I volunteered to call registered Democrats on behalf of Coakley; I ended up making 200 calls the day before the election. The people I called voiced their general displeasure with Coakley, Washington, and more than anything, the fact that I was yet another call disturbing them to solicit a vote. My numbers showed that 25% of Democrats planned to vote for Brown. This is an extraordinary result given which political party was in power when the economy collapsed.

As a close observer of the political scene and an enthusiastic student of history I was not surprised that the Government sought to prop up the banks and then pass a bill to stimulate the economy. These actions were a combination of Economics 101 and History 101. That is, we learned from the Great Depression of 1929 what did and did not work, and then we acted accordingly. Among experts there is really little debate that the Government had to prop up the banks to avoid a catastrophic failure of the financial system. The reason is simple: From car loans to employee paychecks the U.S. economy relies heavily on credit-without it the whole system ceases to function. Obama made this known and he has made it known more since the Massachusetts election, that the bank bailout was a necessary evil. Despite this, many Americans are still angry with the Government for the bailout. It would seem to me the anger should be directed almost exclusively at the banks.

The other target of populist anger is the Healthcare bill now on permanent hold in Washington. Massachusetts provided an interesting venue to test people's reaction to that bill since they already have privately run universal healthcare subsidized by the state. Notably, the system they have is very expensive and apparently over budget. Regardless, there appeared to be a general consensus that the bill in Washington was too expensive. A closer look at the Senate Bill which seemed destined to be closest to the finished product shows that the bill actually reduced the budget deficit by $130 billion dollars over 10 years; it also trimmed Medicare costs, extending the life of that almost insolvent program by 10 years. So while it may have been an expensive bill (about 1 trillion over 10 years) it actually saved money for taxpayers over the long haul according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. What is unclear is how the new bill will affect individuals: Will they pay more or less? The failure to lay this out for the public caused extreme discomfort to many Americans. The changing nature of the bill and the fact that it was never clear what final form it would take probably made this a difficult question to answer. Regardless, few Americans would disagree that we need reform and yet much venom flowed toward the President even though the Republicans ignored the issue for 8 years and then refused to debate it on orders from the Republican National Committee.

Finally, some anger was directed toward the stimulus bill, a $700 billion package designed to get the economy going again after the near depression type event that occurred in October of 2008. Once again, following the lessons of the Great Depression, there is little debate we needed a stimulus, although some debate as to the size.

What then? Why would Democrats (forget Independents and Republicans for a minute) vote to give more power to the party that got us in the mess to begin with scarcely a year after the collapse? My answer is probably going to sound condescending: I think many people fail to understand that we narrowly missed a serious economic depression like the one in 1929 which saw 25% unemployment and 27 years before stock prices returned to their pre-crash levels. The bank bailouts and the stimulus package were desperate (yet successful) efforts to avoid worse damage and suffering by the American people. Meanwhile, the healthcare bill is an attempt to bring down medical costs that threaten to bankrupt Medicare and the Federal budget, while insuring 33 million Americans who lack insurance. Given that a Harvard Medical School study found in 2007 that 45,000 Americans die each year from a lack of healthcare insurance, the necessity for this bill cannot be understated. The need for Government subsidized insurance is even more acute given the current economic realities.

The fault of the Obama administration may have been in its failure to educate the public. Obama did make clear in appearances before the press what he was doing, but I think it lacked the urgent note in his voice necessary to express its importance. The former professor should have tried harder to let the people know, step by step, what he was thinking and why he was acting the way he was-especially when opinion polls went south. Clearly, no President has dealt with more weighty issues at one time than Obama, yet addressing the issues right away as opposed to waiting for the healthcare bill to pass appears in hindsight to have been a tragic mistake.

In the midst of the Great Depression and during WWII, Franklin D. Roosevelt conducted a series of "fireside chats" broadcast by radio, discussing the issues of the day. It is said that FDR managed to quell the fears of the populace and give hope to all, while also keeping them informed. Certainly, Obama is capable of a similar bi-weekly address in response to the current fears and concerns of the American public. Otherwise, Obama may find himself making the right decisions for the country but losing the information war and thus the support for his agenda.

Neo Revisionist History

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 22:27:00 +0000

By far the most maddening refrain from the Right wing these days is the one condemning President Obama for spending too much tax payer money. I have to ask the question: "Is that the tax payer money being used to bail out the financial system which collapsed 7 years and 10 months into Bush's presidency?" Sometimes I feel like I live in Alice's Wonderland with Rush Limbaugh as the Queen screaming about Obama spending too much, despite the fact the spending is directed toward cleaning up the mess left by his Republican predecessor whom Limbaugh (and the Right) championed.

At this point there should be little debate about the wisdom of spending our way out of this current depression. Ben Bernanke, a Republican and the chairman of the Federal Reserve appointed first by President Bush agrees the only way to get out of the current financial crisis is to inject taxpayer money into the economy. In fact Bernanke believes there should be a second stimulus. Bernanke was the architect of the initial bail out of the banks to include the controversial purchase of Merrill-Lynch by Bank of America. Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Chairman appointed by Ronald Reagan and also a Republican agrees in his naturally obtuse way, that it is acceptable for the US Government to provide capital in an economic crisis. However, he feels the financial system should be fixed first. Prominent economist on the left side of the economic academic elite promote Government intervention with tax payer money as well: Paul Krugman a former Professor of economics at Princeton and recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics has advocated in his New York Times columns not only for Government intervention but a much larger infusion of cash then the current stimulus contains; Laurence Summers, an economist and former President of Harvard University echoes the need for Government intervention and currently serves as an advisor to the President.

What gives then? If both sides of the economic political spectrum are in agreement why are the populist fires being stoked to such great effect against the bail out and the stimulus plan? A big part of the answer of course lies in simple partisan politics. Limbaugh and Co. want the Democrats to look bad no matter what. The problem is that this propaganda is being regurgitated by common people on the street and there is nothing explaining the very compelling opposite side of the coin. It may be time for non-partisan office holders like Bernanke to explain why the Federal Reserve and other agencies have taken the measures they have, if for no other reason then to enlighten the public.

Bernanke is an interesting person to have on the world stage right now. As a Princeton Professor one of his areas of expertise was the Great Depression. He has commented publicly on his efforts to avoid the mistakes made by the Government back in 1929. Specifically, those mistakes include the failure of the Government to get involved in keeping the banking system from collapsing which led to 25% unemployment and 25 years before stock prices reached their pre-crash levels. This sort of historical information might be useful to the American public right now. It is unclear why the Obama Administration, the Fed and other agencies have not been more effective in getting the word out. This is not a matter of partisan politics but a part of the duty of the Government to keep the people informed of the reason it is taking a certain course of action. Such explanations have been lacking or so quiet as to be lost in the storm of baseless criticism against the bail-out and the stimulus.

Here is a late Fall 2009 video from REAL TIME with Bill Maher interviewing Paul Krugman, among others.

The Rise of Mobocracy in America

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:47:00 +0000

Every history class I ever attended from junior high through college warned about the threat of mobocracy on the American Political system.

To me a mob is an angry group of people who move from place to place mindlessly destroying people's property. I never understood how unruly people could effect something as large and abstract as Democracy. Well, with the recent town hall meetings on healthcare and other issues I now understand. In Massachusetts, Representative Barney Frank was told by a woman that the President's health plan was akin to Nazism. Mr. Frank, with great disdain, declined to respond to her question. Similarly, a Nazi symbol was painted on the sign of a Democratic Congressman from Georgia who supports Obama's plan. I am unclear what providing healthcare to children and the poor has to do with a regime that started World War II and systematically killed 6 million Jews including children. A death threat was made to a congressional supporter of the health plan. The town hall meetings themselves have turned into shouting matches where the opponents of the health plan drown out any discussion. Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri admonished the crowd for their rude behavior. Arlene Specter's town hall was so boisterous it was impossible to have any rational discussion. In New Hampshire an opponent of the Obama administration showed up with a pistol strapped to his leg; in Arizona, a man appeared with an AR-15 automatic rifle. In both instances the President was only yards away.

To me this sort of behavior means only one thing: the Right wing does not want any discussion of the issues, they want to drown out the discussion with shouting, threats and ridiculous accusations. You could say that the actions of these crowds are a clear sign of mobocracy as they are drowning out democratic discourse. Clearly, such actions can be a threat to democracy. However, I am afraid that the mobocracy we face has ascended yet another level. Republican Senator Grassley of Iowa met with constituents throughout his state during the August recess to discuss the healthcare plan and other matters. A week or so earlier, Sarah Palin, the former Governor of Alaska and other prominent Republicans began to refer to a portion of the healthcare plan dealing with end of life counseling as a 'death panel'. Ms. Palin inferred that Government bureaucrats would decide who lived and died, or as it was so aptly put by Senator Grassley himself, 'pull the plug on Grandma.' In fact the end of life counseling referred to advising patients about living wills, powers of attorney and other legal devices that have been around for decades. The description of this portion of the bill as a death panel was a complete fiction. No one knows this better then Senator Grassley, as the amendment to the healthcare bill including end of life counseling, occurred in the Senate. The capper is that the end of life counseling was actually proposed by Senator Isakson, a Republican from Georgia. Senator Grassley fielded questions from angry citizens, some of whom invoked the death panels as a reason for the bill to be defeated. Not once did the good Senator explain what in fact the amendment was about. Perhaps he was afraid of breaking their spirit or more then likely he was afraid of losing their votes by telling them the truth. Unfortunately, going along with this lie was the rule not the exception for Republican lawmakers, with even Senator Isakson distancing himself from this harmless piece of legislation. Then, in a final bit of submission to the mob the Senate has decided to do away with the end of life counseling because it is 'confusing'.

Prior to the August recess, other town halls were held and that is when yet another mob (although I suspect essentially the same people) asserted itself although on a different subject. This time it was the issue of whether the President was a natural born American. One after another people stood up completely enraged inquiring from their elected representative why a man who was not born in the United States is President of the Country. The Democratic lawmakers I saw on You Tube said Obama was born in the United States to the boos of the people present. But here once again the Republicans acquiesced to the madness. Our very own Orange County Representative John Campbell appeared on the news show Hardball to explain why he was sponsoring legislature to ensure that Presidential Candidates show proof of their American birth. He also refused to say definitively whether the President was born in the United States. Representative Campbell's lack of character did not permit him to confront the irrational folks in his party and instead encouraged their madness further with proposed legislation. Certainly this new high in American Mobocracy was a new low for the nation. It is one thing for the crazies to disrupt meeting places yelling and carrying firearms; it is another for politicians to knowingly go along with the madness so as not to antagonize them. Members of our Government our giving into the mob so as to not lose their support. It is not the first time that politicians have given into ludicrous mob sentiment.

In the 1920s the National Socialist German Worker's Party came to be in Germany. That party was born as a result of an economic depression, not unlike the economic times the United States is currently experiencing. In addition, there was a wide spread but entirely unsubstantiated belief that Germany's humiliation at the end of World War I was the result of a Jewish/Communist conspiracy. Many political factions on the right tolerated and joined with that party because, among other things, they helped control the communists. In the end, this tolerance led to the complete destruction and division of Germany for 50 years. Perhaps if there had been enough Germans with the character to confront the thugs and their lies a lot of pain might have been averted. It is my sincere hope there are enough strong Americans to stem the current tide.

Unedited Letter to the Editor of the Economist Magazine

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:58:00 +0000

Dear Sir: Your article projecting the rise of Texas and the fall of California is seriously flawed. You need only examine the Periodic Table where you will find elements named Berkelium and Californium; there is no Houstonium. Why? Because Texas has opted to offer tax breaks instead of investing in its people and its institutions. California's public universities have lifted the state to become the world leader in computer software, computer chips, bio-tech and fine wine production among other areas. This investment caused the State of California to have at one time, the world's fifth largest economy. For sure, California is currently a mess. But this is a mess attributable to rigidly ideological politicians in Sacramento and one rigidly ideological former President, ironically, a Texan.

Will Bruzzo

Obama Joker: RACIST!

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:05:00 +0000

Obama Joker: Racist! In July of 2008, Vanity Fair posted this depiction of President Bush as the Joker. I cannot find a single legitimate repudiation of this image, nor should their be. This artist is clearly exercising their first amendment rights.

So why is it that a simple Google search will turn multiple repudiations of this depiction of Obama as the Joker? This brilliant piece of art has already been called racist (of course), dangerous, insensitive etc, etc.

Hypocrisy of the Left knows no bounds.

Shawn Fago

Iran 2009 Florida 2000

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:45:00 +0000

Like everyone I found the recent images from the protests in Iran to be at once inspiring and horrifying: Inspiring in that an oppressed people rose up despite the risks and let their anger be known; and horrifying in the images of unarmed peaceful protesters being beaten and even shot to death and yet continuing to protest. I am sure people from every nation on earth felt the same. As an American though, I felt an additional twinge of irony that perhaps others did not feel. The horrible bitterness and anger that had long ago subsided in my gut from the disgrace of the Presidential vote dispute in Florida in 2000 suddenly rose from the ashes.

The parallels between the defrauding of the voters in Iran in 2009 and in the United States in 2000 are few. Oh sure, you could say that in each case a "Supreme" decided who won. In the United States it was five out of nine Supreme Court Justices while in Iran it was the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah. It might also be pointed out that neither the Supreme Court Justices nor the Supreme Leader was elected by the people. But the similarities end there. In Iran it is unclear whether the votes were ever counted, while in the United States, Five Supreme Court Justices ordered the voting in Florida to stop while four Supreme Court Justices thought it should continue. This included stopping the voting while the Supreme Court was deciding the case! Apparently someone was concerned that the American people might learn the result of the election. In the end, Justice Scalia, one of the cabal of conservative justices who ruled that the vote count in Florida should stop justified his actions thusly: "The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election." It was unclear then and it is unclear now why a Supreme Court Justice was so concerned with the legitimacy of a candidate's election instead of simply deciding the case based on the facts and the law before him. Regardless, it is all history now, although I am sure even old Scalia wishes he could take back his vote given the plunging value of his retirement portfolio.

But what really struck me most about the people's protest in Iran was that, well, there were protests. Despite 223 years of democracy in various forms in the U.S. there was nary a peep from the citizenry as a bare majority of Supreme Court Justices pulled the foundation out from under the people and took away their right to elect a leader. The truth is that many Americans probably did not understand what was happening. Most folks I talked to at the time were not really sure what the Electoral College was and still others had voted for Bush and so they were happy regardless. Of course a few of the educated elite in the U.S. sounded the alarm like about 150 constitutional law professors who took out full page advertisements in national papers denouncing the decision as corrupt. There was even a few protests I heard of in Los Angeles and maybe some in New York but over all it was business as usual. The lack of understanding by many Americans could explain the lack of a reaction. Iran, I am told has a highly educated population. The other explanation is that Americans have grown fat, lazy and complacent. One thing is for sure, the failure to pay closer attention to who is running for President can have disastrous consequences. When Bush took over the Presidency the American economy was at its economic zenith. During his tenure Bush presided over the beginning of the worst economic disaster in 80 years. It could be that the laws of nature sent Bush to rid of us of our complacency by causing us to lose our jobs. More importantly though it showed that five Supreme Court justices were wrong in their pick of who would be the better President. It also showed that denying the democratic process in America can cause a horrible result.

Let Freedom Ring.

Dick Cheney Vice President Of Hysteria

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:29:00 +0000

Dick Cheney Vice President Of Fear

As Dick Cheney toured the talking circuit a few weeks ago promoting the use of water boarding among other torture techniques and advocating for the continued operation of the Prison at Guantanamo Bay, I could not help but reflect on Mr. Cheney's other significant contributions to America. What comes to mind first of course, is his using the events of September 11, 2001 as the basis for going to war against Iraq. The September 11 commission, a bi-partisan group of individuals who investigated minute by minute the events leading up to and after the tragedy of that day, found no link between Saddam Hussein and the attack on the World Trade Center. President Bush and the CIA also agreed there was no evidence of a link between 911 and Hussein's regime. Despite that, within days of these pronouncements, Dick Cheney was on the air over at the Fox news network claiming there was a link between 911 and Mr. Hussein. In fact he appeared on Fox news several times in one day claiming the existence of this link presumably to cover all the time zones. I bring this up because it was only a few weeks ago that Mr. Cheney finally acknowledged, after about 6 years, that in fact there was no link between the events of September 11 and Mr. Hussein. Many of you may feel that it takes a real piece of work to misuse the worst tragedy in American History to build support for an unnecessary war and yet Mr. Cheney's work is far from over.

His latest rasion d'etre stem from his accusations that the Obama administration is making Americans less safe by closing Guantanamo and suspending enhanced interrogation techniques. This is despite the fact that at least one Republican Senator agreed it is ridiculous to think we cannot safely hold 250 prisoners in the United States and no less an authority then General Patreus, the Supreme Commander of Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, describes the existence of the prison at Guantanamo as a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda that should be shut down. What is more, at least one highly experienced FBI terrorist interrogator testified in congressional hearings that the interrogation techniques Mr. Cheney supports are not helpful and may actually hinder the intelligence gathering process to say nothing of degrading us as a nation.

Despite all this counterweight to Mr. Cheney's arguments, Democrat and Republican Senators voted overwhelmingly against funding the closure of the Guantanamo prison. The stated reason was that a place to put the prisoners had not been established yet. The real reason is that Mr. Cheney had once again succeeded in raising the fear factor causing many Americans to express alarm that terrorists might be installed in their communities. These concerns were soon communicated to representatives in the U.S. Congress who instead of educating their constituents caved into the latest Cheney fear mongering. It was as if people feared the terrorists would be asking their daughters to the prom and rubbing elbows with them at Denny's over a grand slam. It was not so long ago that some of the same members of that austere body caved into Cheney fear mongering and authorized the President to go to war. After 250,000 Iraqi deaths, thousands of Americans dead, maimed and injured and hundreds of thousands of Americans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, to say nothing of 1 trillion dollars spent, it appears they have learned little. What is truly remarkable about Mr. Cheney is that despite a career that has been characterized by being wrong about just about everything, he still talks as if he is the ultimate authority and that to disregard him is to do so at one's peril. What is even more remarkable is that despite his track record both Americans and their politicians continue to listen.

Tune in and tell us what you think.

President Obama How About a Little Appreciation!

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:59:00 +0000

One Voice Can Change The Room. Fired Up? Ready To Go?

Now that Obama's inauguration has come and gone and a new era has dawned for America I feel the time is right to express a little disappointment. No I am not disappointed in Obama's becoming President quite the opposite, I campaigned vigorously for his election. My disappointment stems instead from the invitation to the inauguration that never came; the telephone call from the man himself that never materialized; the brief mention in a speech using me as an example of a committed American that was never uttered. Even a handwritten card on construction paper signed by Malia and Sasha in crayon would have made me happy!

Maybe an explanation is necessary: In July of 2008 I attended an event called Camp Obama in Long Beach. This was an all-weekend, eight-hour a day training session where we learned how to organize phone banks and otherwise get out the vote. It was a great experience where I met other similarly committed people who wanted to make a change. We even heard folks testify about being "recovering Republicans" who had decided to change party affiliations. Although a long two days it was well worth learning politics on the grassroots level and meeting great people. Part of participating in Camp Obama meant that you had to also commit to attend one weekend in Las Vegas for further training then a subsequent 5 days around the time of the election also in Las Vegas. The reason they sent all us Californians to Nevada is because California was already in the bag for Obama whereas the difference between McCain and Obama in Nevada was well within the margin of error. Literally thousands of Californians poured into Northern and Southern Nevada participating in phone banks and knocking on doors. In fact so many Californians were promoting the Democratic ticket they swept Nevada Democrats into the majority in the state senate and Obama won Nevada by 13 points (Perhaps understandably, the Nevada Democrats kept their gratitude to California to themselves). The Californians who went to Nevada took days off work, paid their own travel and their own lodging. Even when we made phone calls we made it from personal cell phones. Many of us also made the maximum individual donation toward the cause.

Speaking for myself and perhaps others, the motivation for my efforts boiled down to this: I wanted to make sure that on the day after the election, when I looked at myself in the mirror, I could say that I had done everything I could toward the goal of effecting the necessary change the county needed.

Naturally, I cannot ignore that I was only one of the similarly inspired multitude willing to leave friends and family behind to join what became an all encompassing movement. The truth is that the memories of knocking on doors in challenged neighborhoods and hearing the enthusiasm and hope of the residents for the President-to -be will certainly remain with me longer then rubbing elbows at fancy dress balls or taking in the crowd on the national mall. I will never forget the people I joined forces with, many professionals like me who might have benefited from the tax policy of the other side but chose to do what was right for the vast majority of the country. So while I cannot complain about those great memories a little appreciation from the man might be nice. I am not asking for anything exorbitant just a phone call or a little game of hoops on the new basketball court. How about half court? Please?

Nasty Southern Senators

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Wed, 06 May 2009 23:27:00 +0000

In the end even George Bush had to agree that allowing the auto industry to go under and causing the unemployment of 3.2 million people was a bad idea. As he explained on Fox News although he is a "free market guy" he was not going to permit the economy to completely implode. Not on his watch. But what about those Senators from the South like Shelby from Alabama?

Senator Shelby adamantly opposed any bail-out arguing that it would delay the inevitable collapse of the auto industry. The good Senator seemingly oblivious to the jobs of all those Americans. Notably, not one economist I have heard of thought it was a good idea to allow the collapse of the auto industry and in fact most were emphatic they had to be bailed out since bankruptcy would not help either. But at least Senator Shelby is consistent: he also voted against the banking bail-out even though every economist on earth agreed it was needed to stop a complete catastrophe.

What gives then? Is Senator Shelby a closet economic guru who knows that a complete implosion of the economy is actually good while we all assume it will be bad? Republican Senators Cochran and Wickner from Mississippi also voted against the banking bail-out while hailing from consistently the poorest state in the union. Nothing from Senator Shelby's back ground (a lawyer) indicates that he has any particular economic experience and yet he has led the charge against both bail-outs.

Senator Shelby's state is home to several titans of the foreign auto industry like Mercedes-Benz, Toyota and Hyundai. Senator Shelby has used these companies as examples of businesses which are well operated and do not have to run to Uncle Sam when things get rough. Of course, both Mercedes-Benz and Toyota come from socialist countries where pensions and medical care are paid for by the state while American companies are saddled with enormous legacy costs from previous and current employees. Anybody see the irony that foreign companies do better because they come from socialist countries?

Not that Senator Shelby is against the government helping out private industry here and there: Alabama granted $778 million in tax breaks to Mercedes-Benz, Toyota and Hyundai to encourage them to build plants in that state. The return for Alabama and other southern states has been in the billions. What is truly disturbing is Senator Shelby's disregard for the well being of so many Americans.

I realize his constituency is from Alabama but does that mean that he does not give a hoot about his American brothers and sisters in the Northeast? The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was a government financed project that brought power and running water to huge areas of the south to include Alabama. In fact the TVA is still the source of power for some of those foreign owned manufacturing plants that Senator Shelby champions. Why is it that the American taxpayer can foot the bill to provide a decent living standard to the South in 1933 while Senator Shelby flippantly disregards millions of American jobs in 2008? I am sure Senator Shelby will explain that he does not believe in handouts. Adhering to principles your mother told you about is all well and good but sometimes (like in the middle of a Republican created economic crisis) you have to think outside the box. The people of Alabama and Mississippi should not have to rely on other state's senators to overrule their own when it comes to making the right decisions for the country.

The Plame Affair Revisted

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Wed, 06 May 2009 23:21:00 +0000

Scott McClellan, the former Press Secretary for President George W. Bush from 2003-2006 is the latest member of the Bush Administration to write a tell-all book aptly titled "What Happened". Although the book came out several months ago I felt a painstaking scrutiny of the book was warranted given McClellan's proximity to the inner circle of the Bush Administration and his long history with the President. This article is the result of that effort. McClellan's main objective is to explain the reason behind the disaster that has become Bush's presidency. He boils it down to an emphasis on the "permanent campaign" within the administration. That refers of course to the all consuming effort to please the political base and preserve the party in power as opposed to making decisions in the best interest of the majority of the American People. While McClellan is probably correct in his assessment, it is his discussion of the Valerie Plame affair which is most notable and of which he has unique firsthand knowledge.

The Plame affair should rank as the most serious transgression of the Bush years and this fact is reinforced by McClellan's book. Conservative columnist Robert Novak first exposed Ms. Plame's covert CIA status after learning it from a state department official and having it confirmed by Karl Rove. This caused the CIA to request an investigation since it is against the law to reveal the identity of a covert CIA operative. As the media storm began brewing, McClellan was required to answer the press's questions about the source of the leak. McClellan was told personally by both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby that neither of them had anything to do with the leak and he dutifully reported that to the press. In due time it was learned that Rove and Libby had both revealed Plame's identity to various members of the press before it was revealed to Novak. Some of these revelations arose from sworn hearings conducted by the Justice Department and resulted in the indictment and conviction of Mr. Libby.

Mr. McClellan does not hide his anger at being misled by these two gentlemen, although those of us who keep up on the news might have been surprised that he trusted them in the first place. By far the most insidious deception of McClellan and by extension the nation was on September 29, 2003, when McClellan asked the President about the Plame affair. The President confirmed that "I would fire anybody involved.." in the leak of Ms. Plame's status. McClellan reported this to the media. Almost three years later, when confronted with Libby's grand jury testimony revealing that the President himself had declassified the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that led to Plame's outing, the President admitted to McClellan that he had in fact authorized the release of the information.

In effect, if Bush had lived up to his pledge to fire whoever was involved with the leak he would have had to fire himself.

It is unclear to me how the President was able to remain in office after indulging in a campaign to discredit Plame's husband that was so reckless and mean spirited it resulted in the uncovering of a covert American spy. The latter being an act tantamount to treason. It really gives perspective to the colossal disaster of the Bush Administration that such an act gets swept under the rug because the results of other corrupt decisions appeared to pose an even greater threat to the nation.

The Curious Case of Roland Burris

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Wed, 06 May 2009 23:18:00 +0000

As everyone knows by now Roland Burris was chosen to fill Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat by the Governor of Illinois. Normally, such an appointment would not raise any eyebrows except that the Unites States Attorney's office released information to include recorded conversation that show the Governor, Rod Blagojevich attempting to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder before he appointed Mr. Burris.

Apparently it is the opinion of the United States Attorney that the framers of the constitution might have frowned upon someone purchasing a Senate seat and that the actions of the Governor were corrupt and a violation of law. There is little dispute that Blagojevich is a crook and the victim of too many Soprano episodes. But what of Mr. Burris?

The Democrats were initially united in deciding that the Governor would not be permitted to appoint a Senator given the situation. The President-elect himself was on board with this idea and the Illinois legislature went to work to attempt to remove Governor Blagojevich who refused to resign. Then Blagojevich defiantly appointed Burris who accepted with a smile and headed to D.C. Mr. Burris apparently missed the memo that said Thou shall not accept an appointment from a disgraced, corrupt, pending indictment Governor who tried to sell the very Senate you are accepting. Notably, other Illinois politicians were approached by the Governor about accepting the seat and declined presumably because it did not make sense to go about business as usual with a Governor who although not convicted, had clearly committed a heinous crime. What does it say about the integrity of a man who accepts appointment of a Senate seat while the integrity of others caused them to decline the same appointment? Mr. Burris appears to be an opportunist who was not going to allow integrity, morality or principle stand in his way when it came to becoming a U.S. Senator. In fact it could be that Mr. Burris lacks all the attributes mentioned which would seem to be a serious omission in the character of a U.S. Senator.

What made the situation even worse is when Bobby Rush, a U.S. congressman from Chicago and an African American began to throw racism around as the reason behind people's hesitancy in accepting Mr. Burris. This red herring was also used by a CNN TV personality. I am unclear how Mr. Rush was able to make this accusation with a straight face. Apparently he too was willing to compromise his integrity to get his candidate appointed while setting back legitimate claims of racism in the process. Notably, Mr. Burris stopped short of making a claim of racism himself.

Although Mr. Burris was initially rejected by the U.S. Senate he has now been seated while those who declined Mr. Blagojevich's offer will not be. By illustrating his lack of character from the outset perhaps Mr. Burris is hoping to spare the people of Illinois from being surprised in the future. For a political party working to effectuate a sharp departure from the corruption of the Bush years this hardly seems like a good start. Meanwhile, Mr. Burris remains inexplicably unembarrassed and unashamed of how he has arrived.

Contact Hardline AM 830

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Wed, 06 May 2009 20:40:00 +0000

Shawn Fago

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Wed, 06 May 2009 19:54:00 +0000

Shawn Fago. This Southern California native breaks the mold when it comes to Talk Radio. Fago embodies the independent spirit of the American West. Fago's unique experience with federal, state and local political elections earned him the respect of principal strategic advisors throughout the conservative movement. With diverse experience in coalition building, electoral analysis, grasstops & grassroots coordination, Fago represents the freshness of his generation and the perspective of a seasoned operative. Along with Will Bruzzo, Fago has created a forum for honest, insightful dialogue about the issues facing California and our nation. Fago has served as President of the Orange County Young Republicans (OCYR), Associate Representative of the California Republican Party, Vice Chairman of the Young Republican Federation of California (YRFC) and is currently campaigning for Chairman of the YRFC.

"My hope is to encourage you to open your mind, defend your convictions and to understand your fellow man. It is not always necessary to defeat the opposition but it is crucial to understand it. If you are open to living a meaningful life and if you are ready to do something positive then together we can change the world if not just ourselves." -Shawn Fago

Will Bruzzo

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Wed, 06 May 2009 19:50:00 +0000

Will Bruzzo is the Co-host of Hardline a radio talk show on KLAA 830 AM in Anaheim, California. Along with Shawn Fago, Mr. Bruzzo debates current political and legal issues important to the public. He is a registered Democrat and a former alternate member to the Orange County Democratic Central Committee. Mr. Bruzzo also led the only Orange County demonstration against the U.S Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore on the front steps of the Orange County Superior Court house in Santa Ana in 2000.

Mr. Bruzzo is the senior attorney in the Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo practicing exclusively criminal law in Santa Ana, California. He has been a practicing lawyer since 1993.

In addition, Mr. Bruzzo served as an Officer in the United States Marine Corps for 7 years. His service included time as a Company Commander, Executive Officer and a military lawyer. He was honorably discharged as a Major.

Hardline 830 AM with Will Bruzzo and Shawn Fago

noreply@blogger.com (HARDLINE) — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:08:00 +0000

Hardline with Will Bruzzo with Co-host Shawn Fago 6 pm every Sunday on KLAA 830 AM, Anaheim, Ca. Tune into the debate, on current political and legal issues that are important to YOU!