Thursday, February 21, 2008

Cal's Straight Talk -- Will the Party Crash the Party?

I don't see us having martial law installed by Bush -- he's never been anything but figurehead and he really has no interest in running the country. For Bush, the whole president thing was just ego anyway. He is ready to get out and, as he said, "replenish his coffers," probably by sitting on Corp criminal boards and collecting huge fees.

I can see another election been rigged and stolen though.

The way I see it, "the corrupted system" is not going to change without some kind of revolution -- whatever kind may come about -- a mass one or one in the form of a rebel president. But obviously there isn't going to be a revolution any time soon because the sheeple are all caught up in hoping this election will change something.

So I say, put the Dems in -- the Repubs have already destroyed themselves -- give the Dems a chance to destroy themselves. The Dem congress certainly has destroyed itself since it was put in power. Its rating has hit bottom because of the members' incompetence, "neo" tendencies, and not listening to the voters who put them in control of congress. The same thing happening in a Dem White House should finish them off pretty well.

When there is no party left for the sheeple to run to -- then we will be ripe for a revolution.

So go ahead and give the Dems enough rope to hang themselves. Let's see what happens. Maybe they will suicide their party like the Repubs did. Or maybe not. Maybe they will wake up before it's too late and realize they work for us -- the people.


Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Cal's Straight Talk -- Decisions...Decisions...

After all comparisons of Hillary and Obama, I find they are so similar in their domestic issues, with a few minor exceptions like the health-care mandate, that I have settled on Obama. Not that it matters since we "all" the people don't get to choose the nominee. But the "line in the sand" on the Middle East and the war issue is becoming more clear between the two.

Hillary is the old bizness as usual, Obama is the new. A few things helped to bring me to this conclusion. In a Feb 3 speech, Obama said (and I am paraphrasing here) that "hope was not enough" to make the lions lay down with the lambs without a severe whipping applied to the lions. I think this indicates he at least has some "street smarts," and his kumbaya is his campaign shtick but underneath he knows how the dirty game works.

Then, in an a recent interview with Paris Match magazine, Obama advocated what I have been saying for years -- we need to talk to both Jews and Muslims. He rattled the Republican Jewish Coalition by suggesting we "hold a summit in the Muslim world, with all heads of state," to have "honest discussion about ways to bridge the gap that grows between Muslims and the West."

That is exactly what needs to be done in the ME. I would even go further -- some kind of regional UN should be established by Arab nations so they can work out their own differences and also present a united Arab front to the rest of the world to prevent further meddling in Arabia from outside powers which only stirs up more division and turmoil in the region.

Leaving out the emotion, hype and Obama groupies, the bottom line for me has become...

1) Obama's view of how to handle relations with the rest of the world is better than Hillary's -- is least likely to lead to more wars, and more likely to settle the Israel-Palestine conflict.

2) Since we don't have a fricking thing to lose with Obama on the domestic front and "perhaps" something to gain on the foreign policy front -- and all other things being equal -- the worst-case scenario is he would be a Hilllary-lite instead of a Hillary hawk. And that is probably as good as we are going to get in this election.

Cal 45

Friday, February 01, 2008

Cal's Straight Talk -- Anyone But McCain

Actually if you really study the positions of Hillary and Obama they are not that different. Obama makes much of his objection to the Iraq war, so that is in his favor. However, we have to take him at his word because he wasn't even in the Senate at the time and couldn't vote. "If" he had been in the Senate and had the "same access" to the information as Hillary, who knows how he would have voted?

As for Hillary I thinks she knows she screwed up, but won't admit it, preferring to take a tough stance for her campigning purposes. Not a good sign.

They are both "pandering" to the zionists on Iran. Hillary is forceful on that all the time; Obama is just as forceful, but only when he is addressing a strictly Jewish audience -- other times he taps it down a bit.

My main objections to Hillary are the Clintonian thing and Israel pandering. My main objection to Obama is the Israel thing and the "hope" thing because "hope" and "getting along" is not a good weapon against special interests, and he seems too light in the economics and financial departments to me.

All of the candidates are nothing but "franchises" of the money behind them. In Obama's case, we still don't have a complete picture of his franchise except for some big-time Jews in Illinois. In Hillary's case, her franchise is strictly the same Clintonian franchise that Bubba had in the ninties -- a mixture of shady and non-shady interests.

Oddly enough, Obama's "hope is on the way" campaign is a lot like Clinton's 1992 "help is on the way" campaign from Hope Ark.

The least corrupt candidate, John Edwards, is out.

So what is our choice now? Should we go with what we know about Hillary, since the Clinton years, despite their personal lives and shady character associations, did produce the best years we've had in a long time -- or go with Obama who has less experience, BUT is not much different than Hillary in his positions?

Here is the bottom line -- they are both "establishment" politicans, but the dem establishment is turning against the Clintons and bringing in a "new" establishment guy in Obama. The fact that Obama voted "present" 140 times during his time as a state legislator puts me off. Doesn't he have an opinion, or does he always play it safe and not rock the boat? I just think the dems and the repubs could both "have their way" with Obama easier than they could with a Clinton who has an axe to grind with both parties..

So, shall we go with the Clinton establishment or the Dem establishment? In thinking about that question I am somewhat drawn to having a Hillary who is pissed off at both, rather than a new member who will be eager to please the dem establishment that has done nothing for us since we put them in the majority but whine they can't get anything passed. They whine for everyone to be "bipartisan" -- bipartisan meaning saving their own asses since the public has given congress as a whole a 25% approval rating.

Beats the hell out of me....but I will be voting for anyone but McCain.
Cal 45