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.

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.

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.

OBAMA MISLEADS IN NEW COMMERICAL

While the Obama minions constantly call out Hillary for misleading, Obama has managed to put out a wonderful self-congratulatory commercial touting that he “doesn’t take money from oil companies or PACS.”

He deftly uses the phrase “I don’t take money from oil companies” to convince the listening audience that he, somehow, is different from the other candidates. I guess I am confused - I think there is a difference between “don’t take” and “can’t take”.

The fact is, he doesn’t take money from oil companies because he can’t take money - directly - from corporations. And oil companies are, of course, corporations. Since 1907, candidates have been prohibited from taking such contributions. Federal campaign finance law prohibits that activity as stated in the following excerpt from the Federal Campaign Finance Handbook:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Prohibited Contributions and Expenditures

The FECA places prohibitions on contributions and expenditures by certain individuals and organizations. The following are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures to influence federal elections:

• Corporations;
• Labor organizations;
• Federal government contractors; and
• Foreign nationals

Furthermore, with respect to federal elections:

• No one may make a contribution in another person’s name.
• No one may make a contribution in cash of more than $100.

In addition to the above prohibitions on contributions and expenditures in federal election campaigns, the FECA also prohibits foreign nationals, national banks and other federally chartered corporations from making contributions or expenditures in connection with state and local elections.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

So his commercial misleads in that all candidates are prohibited from taking money from corporations. Watch the following YouTube clip which includes the misleading statement that has been made by Obama.

Now I am sure many Obama supporters will pooh pooh the notion that the oil company statement is not misleading or a lie, but if Obama and his organization know that campaign finance laws prohibit every candidate from taking oil money, why bother spinning it to look like you don’t take it instead of you can’t take it? Why, to mislead of course!

There’s a world of difference between not taking contributions because you believe it is wrong and not taking contributions because you know you can’t take them anyways. Obama has done a disservice to the voting public by blurring the line in his new commercial.

JOE KERNAN AND JIM SCHELLINGER - THE $37,250 CONNECTION

Call me jaded about political endorsements, but I usually look for a reason behind all the hype and platitudes that go with the standard endorsement. So when Governor Kernan threw his support to Jim Schellinger I started thinking beyond the fuzzy-wuzzy statements that go with endorsements. I like Kernan and I like Schellinger, but I don’t think we need another CEO in the governor’s office.

At first I thought the endorsement might be because they were both from South Bend - ties to a common city can be pretty strong no matter how far in the past they might be. I thought about that for awhile, but that just didn’t seem to add up. Schellinger had moved from South Bend when he was in his mid-20s taking a job in Indianapolis where he has continued to live.

Then it dawned on me that maybe somehow money was involved. After all, money does seem to be a major factor in all campaigns. And the more donated, the more beholden the candidate is to the contributor. So I visited the Indiana campaign finance website and started looking for that green connection. Sure enough, it was there. Schellinger contributed a large sum of money - $37,250 - to the Kernan campaign from July 2004 to September 2004.

Here are the individual contributions to the tune of $37,250.00:

July 12, 2004 report - $12,000.00 (cumulative)
August 13, 2004 report - $5,000.00 ($17,000.00 cumulative)
August 31, 2004 report - $20,000.00 ($37,000.00 cumulative)
September 16, 2004 report - $250.00 ($37,250.00)

Now, there could have been more, but frankly I think $37,250.00 is an awful lot of money. Makes it pretty hard not to endorse the person who gave you that money.

And just to be fair, I checked to see how much Jill Long Thompson donated. She donated a mere $1,000.00 - at least that is the only figure I could find in 2004.

I am sure the Schellinger people are lauding Kernan’s endorsement as a wonderful testimony to Schellinger’s attributes as a candidate and potential governor. But when an endorsement is preceded by contributions to campaigns, voters have every right to question why that endorsement was made.

Think what you want, but this happened earlier with Mayor Henry’s endorsement. Schellinger donated $5,000 to the Henry campaign and, surprise, surprise, Schellinger ended up with Henry’s endorsement. Jill Long Thompson again failed to match the larger amount and donated only $250.00 to Tom Henry’s campaign. Call it what you will - ignore the connection.

I am sure my assumptions will draw fire from those who believe that money and endorsements do not go hand and hand, but it looks to me like Jill Long Thompson is still one of us. And that is who we need in the governor’s office - someone who isn’t part of the good ‘ole boy network trading endorsements for donations.

HILLARY HITS THE FORT

Yesterday Hillary Clinton came to town in what will probably be a number of stops in Indiana before our May 6th primary. The location chosen was a small diner in the Village of Coventry. What was formerly a Captain Ds was converted into Sara’s Restaurant, a family-style eatery with an atmosphere of politics and patriotism.

When I got to the restaurant at 2:00 p.m. only a few people were present. The day was sunny, but the wind was cold and biting. We signed up individuals as they strolled onto the parking lot beside the restaurant. We had initially been told that, as volunteers, we would be able to go into the restaurant for the event. It was quit disappointing to find out that this wasn’t accurate. It was also disappointing to find out that those who would be admitted had already been picked early that morning when they showed up to get a wristband. The wristband had either blue stars or red stars and entitled the wearer to enter the event.

But knowing these things are quickly planned, I stayed to help. Slowly the lot began to fill with onlookers. A sound system and stage had been set up in the parking lot. Hillary would speak to the outside crowd first from the stage and then go inside to address the crowd and answer questions.

She arrived about an hour late and signed autographs and chatted with volunteers standing in the front. I had given up at about 5:30 and left. Standing for hours on end is very difficult for me with my physical disability. When I got home though, a TV station was broadcasting the complete question and answer session being held inside the restaurant. I watched the broadcast in the warmth of my living room, admiring how well Hillary related to those in the crowd.

Photo credit: Shirley Hirt

______________________________________________________________________

She definitely excels in the smaller, more informal venue. She appeared relaxed and comfortable as she fielded various questions from the audience. I read in a few Hillary Hater blogs that the audience had been hand-picked to assure that those in the room were Hillary supporters and would not ask uncomfortble or tough questions.

I know from being in the parking lot that that was not true. As I walked around signing up people, I ran into two women who had wristlets that would enable them to enter the event. As I talked to them and asked them to sign up and volunteer, they both told me they were not voting for Hillary. They declined to sign the volunteer sheet and said they just wanted to see Hillary and ask a question. I saw the two women on TV as I watched the recap, and they were sitting about two rows in back of Hillary.

Photo credit: Shirley Hirt

____________________________________________________________________

Even though I did not stay for her actual arrival, I am sure she will return. And, I anticipate her next appearance to be a larger venue where it is nice and warm.