HOW FAR WILL OUR HYPOCRISY GO? JOHN McCAIN AND HIS FANATICAL MINISTERS

Barack Obama has of late taken a great deal of criticism about Reverend Wright and his hate-filled speeches and positions. Out of necessity, Obama has broken the ties with the controversial minister who has been Obama’s mentor, friend, and pastor.

But Obama is not the only candidate with a fanatical minister who spouts a hate-filled philosophy. John McCain has his very own version of Reverend Wright. In fact, McCain has embraced two - count ‘em - two controversial ministers - and they have embraced him.

On February 26th of this year, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary.

With Mike Huckabee’s success at co opting the religious right, McCain had to do something - anything - to generate support from that sector. His desperation to land the support of right-wing religious conservatives has led him to throw common sense to the wind and to accept the endorsements of the ranting televangelist Rod Parlsey. The following YouTube clip provides a flavor of Parsley’s philosophy.

Reverend Parsley espouses the notion that government funds are being used to support Planned Parenthood, which in turn provides abortions to African-Americans. His remarks are truly frightening as he urges his constituency to believe that this is a government-financed “genocide” of the African-American community.

Yet, when Reverend Wright railed against the government accusing it of creating the AIDs epidemic to exterminate the African-American population, he was pilloried for his comments. See any similarities?

In February, John McCain was also endorsed by John Hagee, another fanatical right-wing minister leading a mega-church located in San Antonio, Texas. The following is a YouTube clip of Hagee’s philosophy.

Here is my question to all Americans as they muddle through this presidential election year. How do we condemn Barack Obama’s minister and leave John McCain literally unscathed even though he is supported by two ministers preaching hate and violence?

I will wager you that Parsley’s views about the war between Islam and Christianity are held more widely than anyone wants to admit. And I will also bet that deep inside, many Americans are willing to buy into Parlsey’s hatred and fear of Islam.

And Hagee? Not much better as you listen to his ravings about various entities including the Catholic Church. Listen to his outrageous comments about the destruction of New Orleans as God’s punishment for homosexual activity.

Twenty years or twenty minutes. Not a bit of difference when you tie yourself to ministers who espouse hatred. Now let’s see if the American people will condemn John McCain in the same manner and with the same venom that they have condemned Barack Obama.

“NO-VOTE” McCAIN - NO FRIEND OF THE ENVIRONMENT

John McCain is no friend of the environment. Although he likes to tout his environmental record as positive, he has consistently missed important votes - votes that were considered critical to environmental well-being.

In the 2007 National Environmental Scorecard released by the League of Conservation Voters, John McCain receives a score of ZERO. McCain was the only member of Congress to skip every single crucial environmental vote scored by the organization, posting a score lower than Members of Congress who were out for much of the year due to serious illnesses–and even lower than some who died during the term. By contrast, the average Member of Congress scored a 53 in 2007. McCain posts a lifetime score of only 24.

Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director, had the following to say about McCain:

“We were appalled two weeks ago when John McCain was the only Senator who chose to skip a crucial vote on the future of clean energy in America-dooming the measure to fail by just a single vote. As it turns out, this was merely the most recent example of a clear pattern of missing the most important votes on energy and the environment–as his abysmal LCV score clearly demonstrates.

“McCain missed votes to save his constituents $499 million dollars at the pump and at least $550 million on their energy bills, while creating more than 10,000 new clean energy jobs in his home state.

The following is the League of Conservation Voters 2007 Scorecard Senate votes, all of which John McCain missed:

• Cloture on H.R. 6, the energy bill (6/21, Vote 225)
• Passage of H.R. 6, the energy bill (6/21, Vote 226)
• Maintaining Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) in H.R. 6 (12/7, Vote 416)
• Taking away giveaways to Big Oil to subsidize clean energy (12/13, Vote 425)
• Loosening public health and environmental regulations on refineries (6/13, Vote 210)
• Undermining the RES with coal and nuclear energy (6/14, Vote 211)
• Offshore drilling in Virginia (6/14, Vote 212)
• Liquid coal (6/19, Vote 213)
• Environmental safeguards for biofuels (6/20, 219)
• Consider global warming for water projects (5/15, Vote 166)
• Appropriately prioritizing water projects (5/15, Vote 165)
• International family planning (9/6, Vote 320)
• Farm Bill subsidy reform (12/11, Vote 417)
• Farm Bill subsidy caps (12/13, Vote 424)
• Eminent Domain for public parks (12/3, Vote 429)

No doubt as the campaign heats up, we will see more of McCain’s inconsistencies. The environment deserves protection, and we need a president who will protect that environment. We don’t need someone who blithely skips crucial environmental votes and who will perpetuate the last eight years of the Bush Administration’s head-turning, wink-wink policies when it comes to environmental protection.

Photo Credit: Wikipedia

THE REAL POWER PRIZE FOR THE NEXT PRESIDENT - SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS

As we wind down the Democratic primary race for the presidency, we are left with a sense of tension and division. It has been a long road with attacks from both parties against each other and a split among the various demographic groups comprising our voting base.

I have accepted at this point that I will not see my dream of a woman president in my lifetime. Just as African-Americans have flocked to Barack Obama in droves that reflect their desire to see one of their own succeed, women, too, have voted for Hillary Clinton to witness the ultimate “glass” ceiling shattered.

The polls indicate that both Obama supporters and Clinton supporters may desert the Democratic party to vote for John McCain. This is a betrayal which cannot be justified. We are Democrats first; then we pick our candidates to support.

But overshadowing our current divisions is the specter that no one seems to be discussing. That is the ability the next president will have to appoint at least one justice and perhaps more. We cannot let that individual be John McCain.

Photo Credit: Wikipedia

__________________________________________________________________________________

Justice John Paul Stevens recently turned 88 and has been on the Court since December 1975. Although he was appointed by Ford, he is rumored by court watchers to be delaying his exit until the “right” individual takes office. At close to 90 years old, odds are he will exit during the next president’s term.

Four other justices are either now in their 70s or within a few months of being so. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75 and survived a bout with colo-rectal cancer in 1999. Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia were born within a few months of each other in 1936 making them 72 years old. Stephan Breyer rounds out the septuagenarians, turning 70 this summer. David Souter is 68 while Clarence Thomas will turn 60 this summer - a George H.W. Bush appointment in 1991. The two youngest, Samuel Alito and John Roberts are 58 and 53 respectively.

Supreme Court justices serve for life once confirmed. They are selected for their ideological and philosophical views - views that closely match the president responsible for their selection. While a president serves for eight years at the most, Supreme Court justices impact our society and its laws for 20 to 30 years.

Long after the next president is gone, his appointments will be sitting on the bench, making decisions that impact our rights and liberties. Those justices will reflect the views of the next president, and that person cannot be John McCain.

So while I work through my disappointment, I will not lose sight of the fact that I am a Democrat first. And my obligation is to work as hard as possible to ensure that our next president is a Democrat who will appoint justices holding our Democratic values and beliefs.

“STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS” McCAIN PUSHED INTO LAND SWAP DEAL THAT BENEFITS BACKER

John McCain is known to his minions as the “stand-firm”, “straight talk express” candidate whose integrity just simply can’t be challenged. But, all politicians are human. McCain is no different, and we are beginning to see cracks appearing in his shining armor. The cracks will, inevitably, split apart that armor and expose a flawed candidate who is not the leader many think he is and who should not be the leader of this country.

The Washington Post writes about one of those cracks today - a land swap of public land for private land that will benefit tremendously one of McCain’s donors. Land swaps between private entities usually do not draw attention; however, when that land is our land - the public’s land - transactions are scrutinized to ensure that the public is not being cheated by not receiving fair value for its land.

The process began several years ago. In 2005 McCain pushed through a piece of “land swap” legislation that will benefit Steven Betts, a McCain fundraiser and contributor. Betts runs SunCor Development, a Tempe, Arizona, firm that was given the job to build as many as 12,000 homes on the swapped land. Of course Betts denies any discussion of the swap with McCain - even though according to Betts it was discussed “casually” before the bill’s passage.

The 2005 deal is the granddaddy of Arizona land swaps - the largest such swap in Arizona history according to the Audubon Society. More than 55,000 acres were involved, including rare expanses of desert woodland and pronghorn antelope habitat.

The owner of the private land, rancher Fred Ruskin and his Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership, arguing that the process was too complicated for the standard regulatory process governing land swaps, took the matter directly to Congress. Ruskin convinced Arizona Representative J.D. Hayworth to draft a bill proposing the exchange.

When those efforts failed, Ruskin hired lobbyists to “open communications” with McCain. Those lobbysits included the following:

• Mark Buse, a former McCain staff director at the Senate commerce committee
• Michael Jimenez, another former McCain aide
• Wes Gullett, an aide in McCain’s Senate office and deputy campaign manager for his 2000 presidential run

Ruskin’s efforts using former staff members and aides were successful and McCain introduced his land swap legislation in April 2003. The legislation was signed into law by Bush in November 2005.

McCain continued to spout platitudes about protecting the environment while pushing legislation to complete the largest land swap deal in Arizona history - legislation that will result, ultimately, in potential development ranging in the area of $250 million to Fred Ruskin.

But Ruskin isn’t the only one to benefit. Steven Betts, a McCain donor, will benefit - despite all the denials by Betts and McCain. And just when did Betts decide to express interest? After the legislation was passed by Congress and just one month before it was signed into law by Bush.

Betts will capitalize by constructing subdivisions located on prime Arizona property sitting astride a major interstate. Despite public outcry and opposition, McCain failed his constituency by caving in to pressure from lobbyists and politically powerful Arizona figures.

When questioned about the lobbyists, true to form, McCain simply states that he does not recall being lobbied by his former aides and staffers. Isn’t that what his pat response was to the allegations in reference to Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist who had become very close to him?

I have watched him on the Sunday morning political programs, and his answer to many questions is, indeed, becoming “I don’t recall.” Perhaps McCain should now carry the moniker of “I don’t recall” McCain instead of the laudatory labels attached to him. McCain’s armor is cracking, and soon it will fall apart.

OBAMA - NO DEBATE STANCE SHOULD CONCERN HOOSIER VOTERS

After the Pennsylvania debate, who could blame Obama for shying away from another head-to-head debate with Clinton? He was not at his usual peak performance in Pennsylvania because his method of operating is presenting lofty speeches to audiences. These speeches - which I have to admit are good - divert attention from his lack of solid and reasoned answers to questions asked in a one-on-one environment.

His ability to use this “slight-of-hand” has served him well since the beginning of his presidential run. However, since the race has been narrowed down to two people, he is struggling to find his niche when the spotlight shines solely on him in a two-person debate.

The nation-wide viewing audience was not well-served by the two hosts who preferred to dwell - and did so for 40 minutes - on issues other than those impacting American families and the economy. When the hosts finally managed to turn their attention to real-life issues, it became apparent that Obama was not as well-versed in specific topics as his supporters would have hoped.

On several occasions he appeared to be searching for words to answer the hosts’ questions. He not only had to search for words but also appeared to not understand the topic of some of the hosts’ questions, in particular, the issue of the capital gains tax. This gave the the appearance both of a lack of knowledge about the relevant topic and of a degree of uncertainty not visible when he is plying an audience with his oratory.

I would imagine his answer - the one he used to decline to debate Clinton - had to trigger quizzical looks. He indicated that they - Clinton and Obama - had already had 21 debates. I tried to think of the 21 times they had debated, and I came to the conclusion he was counting some or all of the the debates held over the past number of months which included anywhere from three to eight candidates.

A debate format involving multiple candidates does very little to give the viewers a sense of each candidate due to time constraints. But when those seven or eight are winnowed down to the final two as is the present case, then one-on-one debates can be crucial. This environment provides not only a view of positions but also how well a candidate has mastered topics through solid experience and the ability to articulate these positions to the viewing audience.

It is no wonder Obama has declined to give Indiana viewers a well-deserved debate. He knows he cannot afford a repeat of his Pennsylvania debate performance. His refusal to debate for Hoosier voters is unacceptable since Hoosier voters are entitled to just as much information and presentation one-on-one as the Pennsylvania voters received.

Obama has debated one-on-one before other “important” primaries. We have heard consistently over the past couple of weeks that Indiana is the make or break state in this race. So, if we are so important, why won’t Obama agree to debate?

Hillary was ready to debate in Indiana; Obama was not. Could it be he sees the writing on the wall and would rather not open himself up to another dismal performance such as the one in Pennsylvania? His lack of topic mastery was painfully displayed at the Pennsylvania debate. Obama’s refusal to debate for Hoosier voters should cause not just consternation but concern about his reasons for ducking the opportunity to debate for us.

A dismal performance in Indiana might very well seal his fate - a loss to Clinton - in Indiana and, ultimately, his fate with the remaining uncommitted superdelegates - a possibility that surely has not gone unnoticed by the Obama strategists.

MAGGIE KERNAN ENDORSES JILL LONG THOMPSON

In what must make interesting table talk, Maggie Kernan has endorsed Jill Long Thompson for governor. Joe Kernan recently decided to back Jim Schellinger, an Indianapolis CEO and political neophyte. Maggie Kernan has known Long Thompson for many years and is confident she would be an outstanding governor.

The race for Indiana governor on the Democrats side has been somewhat unusual. Originally three candidates had thrown their hats into the ring: Richard Young, Jim Schellinger, and Jill Long Thompson. Richard Young withdrew early on, leaving Long Thompson and Schellinger to fight it out. Although Long Thompson entered the race much later than Young and Schellinger, she has managed to take the lead and remain ahead in the polls.

Jill has run what some may see as a low-key campaign with much less money than her opponent. Yet she appears to be heading for a victory on May 6th. Maggie Kernan’s support is an important boost to Jill’s campaign.

NORTHWEST LEGISLATORS ENDORSE LONG THOMPSON

Democrat gubernatorial candidate Jill Long Thompson has been endorsed by five Northwest Indiana legislators. At a campaign rally in East Chicago this week, the following legislators threw their support to Long Thompson:

• State Senator Karen Tallian, D-Ogden Dunes
• State Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary
• State Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond
• State Rep. Dan Stevenson, D-Highland
• State Rep. Mara Candelaria Reardon, D-Munster

Jill Long Thompson, a former congresswoman and former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development, faces Indianapolis architect Jim Schellinger in the May 6th Democrat primary. The winner of that primary will face Republican incumbent Mitch Daniels in November.

Long Thompson has also been endorsed by five Indiana Teamsters locals, the United Steelworkers, the Service Employee International Union, Communication Workers of America, the American Federation of Government Employees, the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, the United Transportation Union and Local #446 of Association of Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees.

Even though Schellinger has raised more money than Long Thompson and, early on, received the blessing of some of the higher ups in the state Democratic Party, he has failed to convert those assets to his benefit. He is a CEO and, frankly, I think Hoosiers have become leary of business leaders who attempt to convert themselves to politicians - a la Daniels.

By Schellinger’s own admission he is “new” at this. Do we really want someone who is inexperienced in the realm of politics taking the helm of our state? The answer is no. Come May 6th, Hoosier voters will have the opportunity to select Jill Long Thompson, a Hoosier with strong rural and working class ties who was educated in Indiana, knows Indiana, loves Indiana, and will bring Indiana “back on track” from the destructive and exploitative course set by Daniels.

Photo Credit: Wikipedia

DANIELS IN TOUGH SPOT - UNABLE TO MAKE HEADWAY DESPITE HIS MILLIONS AND HIS MINIONS

Despite his millions of campaign dollars from his minions, the Guv can’t seem to get a leg up on either of his opponents. A new poll, taken by IPFW in Fort Wayne, show’s Daniels would get 47% of the vote to Democrat Jim Schellinger’s 46%. And he’d get 48% to Jill Long Thompson’s 47%.

The poll of over 1,200 Hoosier voters also showed people are lukewarm on Daniels’ performance as governor. A showing of only a percent lead on either of the two Democrat challengers must be pure misery for those who believe the sun rises and sets on what Daniels purports to have accomplished.

Remember how absolutely certain Daniels and his Republican-controlled General Assembly were that switching Indiana to daylight saving time would save energy? What a shock it must have been to see a study come out that found that going to daylight saving time actually increased energy costs by $8.3 million dollars.

And, the leased toll road? Well, we now see that the foreign company involved in the Public-Private Partnership is almost doubling its tolls. Two of Daniels’ much-touted “accomplishments” that appear to have backfired.

Four more years of Mitch? I don’t think so. Indiana can’t afford another four years of a marketer who is better at manipulating his feats than coming through with real solutions.

GREEN FROG HOSTS “CHEERS” BARTENDER TED DANSON

Ted Danson stopped by one of Fort Wayne’s home town bars today to campaign for Hillary Clinton. The smaller Green Frog was the site of a late afternoon visit by Danson, who is a family friend of the Clintons. While Danson encouraged voters to learn about candidates in order to make an informed choice, he emphatically stated that his choice has been made and that choice is Hillary Clinton.

The Green Frog was full of excited onlookers as Danson spoke about his support of Clinton. As Danson finished, he offered to answer questions. One male made poor use of the opportunity by asking if Hillary would ever “wear a skirt.” Without missing a beat, Danson responded by saying that she possibly would if Obama would wear a kilt. Ah, good old sexism is still alive!

Mr. Danson was readily available to sign autographs and pose for pictures. Although many individuals were having their picture taken with Mr. Danson, I opted to shake his hand and thank him for campaigning for Hillary. I figure stars are no different than anyone else - they have opinions about politics and whom they choose to support.

We may have to wait years again before we get the opportunity to be visited by stars at local bars! So Cheers to Ted Danson for visiting our city and one of our local establishments.

LONG THOMPSON SURGES AHEAD OF SCHELLINGER

A recent SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for WHAS-TV Louisville KY and WCPO-TV Cincinnati OH shows Jill Long Thompson surging ahead of Jim Schellinger in the Democratic race for governor. With three weeks to go to the Indiana Democratic gubernatorial primary, Long Thompson has picked up momentum and now leads Schellinger by eight points.

The poll places Long Thompson at 46% and Schellinger at 38%. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA poll released two weeks ago, Long Thompson is up 7, Schellinger is down 3. Long Thompson, who represented Indiana’s 4th Congressional District from 1988 through 1994, has made inroads among men, where Indianapolis architect Schellinger had led by 21, now leads by 5.

Among women, Long Thompson previously had led by 13, but now leads by 20. In greater Indianapolis, Schellinger had led by 9, but now leads by 3. In Southern Indiana, Schellinger had led by 22, and now is tied. Among white voters, Schellinger had led by 3, now trails by 5. The winner of the primary will face incumbent Republican Governor Mitch Daniels.

With Schellinger’s money and backing, he has had a difficult time in grabbing the attention of Hoosier voters. While Schellinger continues to outspend Long Thompson, she continues to draw more support.