A Few Questions to Ask Yourself Before You Vote

Election day is just about 24 hours away. Have you made your choice for president yet? No? Well, Allow me to help. I won’t give you any information, what I’m gonna do is ask you to answer a few questions about what you think is important. I’ll keep the questions as broad as possible, and explain the reasoning behind asking them in a few spots.

If you’ve made your choice, just tag along and see what happens!

1 ) How do you feel about the candidates foreign policy stances? I ask this because John McCain will be more or less a mirror image of our current president in regard to national security, while Barack Obama seeks a more diplomatic tone in dealing with the world. If you think this is THE main issue of this election, and you feel a strong national security stance is more important than diplomacy, then John McCain is your man. If you think America has been doing it wrong of late and want a more civil tone to our world discussions, Then Barack Obama is your candidate on this Issue.

2 ) When should we leave Iraq? 16 Months? When were done? When the Iraqis tell us to?

3 ) How do you feel about both candidates reactions to the economic meltdown?

4 ) Is prior experience, or lack thereof, a reason to not vote for a candidate?

5 ) Is the Second Amendment Important to you? Do you think any candidate will try to take your guns away from you? Has any other President tried to? And if So, were they successful? Those last two questions here in part 4 were just something to chew on while you answer the second one.

6 ) How much Power should the President have? Could you picture any of these candidates lessening the power of the Presidency? And whom do you trust with the immense power over the people and the world at large? Anyone? If so why, and if not why not?

7 ) Should Social Security be Privatized? Kept as it is? What about other entitlement programs? Are entitlement programs a solution to problems or a cause? Why?

8 ) How much have you thought about the House races in your state? How about Senate races, if you have any? Your vote there will swing the election and all the legislation that will pass through both houses of congress for at least the next two years! Do you know your candidates? If Not, Brush Up!

9 ) How important are the Vice Presidential candidates here anyway? In all likelihood the next President will live out his term, barring a calamity, so knowing that, how important are the #2’s here, really?

10 ) Has either sides campaigning left you wondering why they did what they did? Did the rhetoric of the campaign make more of an impression on you than the issues? Did you let that have an impact on you? If not why not, and if so why?

I personally think it is more important to get a grasp on policy issues and stances than rhetoric and campaign posturing, but that’s just me….Which means i let about 90% of it, from all sides, go in one ear and out the other. I had my bullshit detector turned up to maximum sensitivity all election cycle, and I am hoping that you did as well.

I could ask 100 other question, or have asked these questions in 100 other ways. I wanted to, with these questions, get away from the campaign rhetoric and get back to the meat of the issues, so that when you walk into that voting booth on election day, you are doing so not with thoughts of how much money was spent on clothes or who called who a socialist or any other nonsense like that.

A few more quick things. Get plenty of rest today. The lines tomorrow may be long at your polling place, and you’ll want to be well rested for what may be an hours long wait on line. For those who are interested, I will be on twitter for most of the day tomorrow, I am guessing from about noon, after I vote. Click the top of the page on twitter where it says “Hot Political Topics” and Look for MikeTheRhino. And click here to take a political quiz.

I’ll Talk to you Tomorrow.

Uncle Mkey

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

This is a rather lengthy continuation of yesterday’s analysis of the last friday’s debate, this post focusing on questions 4 through 6 of Friday’s debate.

Question Four: Much has been said of the lessons of Vietnam. What are the Lessons Of Iraq?

John McCain speaks first. He says the lessons are very clear. Those lessons are that you cannot have a failed strategy that very nearly causes you to lose a conflict. He spoke of early success followed by things being “badly mishandled”. He said in 2003 he went to Iraq, saw the issues and said something has to be done, we need more troops, and he fought to get them, and finally he got them and a great general, and that led to success. He called Iraq a stable ally. he spoke of the consequences of defeat

Barack Obama then spoke. He spoke of opposing the war when it was politically risky to do so. He said that it was bad because Osama Bin Laden was still out there and Afghanistan wasn’t done, Al-Qaeda hadn’t been put to rest, and that Iraq would be a distraction in the war on terror. He said we took our eye off of the ball, that we’ve spent over $600,000,000,000 and that number was well on the way to being one trillion dollars, and the cost both in money and men was too high, and has given Al-Qaeda strength.

It was here that John McCain made perhaps his strongest point of the night, making the case that the past is gone and that the next President will have to: decide when we leave how we leave and what we leave behind

A clear and simple statement of objective, well worded, well spoken.

There was a fair bit of back and forth after that point. McCain making the point that Obama said the surge wouldn’t work and then had succeeded beyond all expectations. McCain making the point that Barack has never had a meeting on Afghanistan. Barack Countering with that is done as “committee of the whole” and isn’t handled by his subcommittee, something McCain well knew. Barack then tossing out there the simple fact that John McCain acts like the war started in 2007. Then Obama hit Sen. McCain with perhaps his strongest counter of the night. Calling McCain wrong about the Iraq war being easy, that He was wrong about Americans being greeted as liberators, and about there being no history of violence between Shi’ite and Sunni, questioning his basic, fundamental judgment on foreign affairs.

That may have been the strongest shot of the night.

There was talk of Sen. McCain talking to troops who had just re-upped for another tour asking him to “let them win”. There was a question of troop funding brought up by senator McCain that was a question of a bill with and without a timetable. Each one voting against it once. There was the charge that Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq, a Charge that Sen. Obama vehemently denied. There was the charge that Sen McCain toss out that Admiral Mullen said that Barack Obama’s Iraq plan was dangerous, a charge he again denied, filling in the blanks on the admirals statement.

Question five: Do we need more troops In Afghanistan?

Barack Obama answers first. Yes, and he’s been saying it for awhile. The situation in Afghanistan is getting worse and Al-Qaeda is becoming emboldened and are on the offensive, attacking from within Pakistan. He quotes Secretary of Defense Gates, that Pakistan and Afghanistan is the central front in the war on terror. Continues with the point that Iraq is a strategic mistake in the war on terror. He has a three point plan for Afghanistan. Make sure that President Karzai is working for his people. Stop the Drug trade that is funneling money to Al-Qaeda. Deal with Pakistan.

John McCain counters with it was America that started the entire ball rolling here, by giving arms to the Afghans in the 70’s to defeat soviet Russia, and then walking away. All the terrorist problems we face, we face because of that mistake. Chided Barack for being naive about saying bombing Pakistan. Not about the actual bombing, but saying in public that he would. Mentioned that he had been to the nation several times, implying it gives him special knowledge of the situation.

At this point Barack made clear his point about Bombing Pakistan, saying that if Pakistan is unwilling or unable to help and there is knowledge that Bin Laden or one of his Top guys is there, you hit’em. That’s the right strategy. McCain does not counter this point. The truth can’t be countered here. Obama chided McCain for threatening North Korea with extinction and his signing of “Bomb Iran” to the Beach boys song “Barbara Ann”, which in turn led to McCain stating his long experience in foreign affairs, without actually saying anything about what Barack Obama had just said.

For all of his lengthy experience, this answer came off as inadequate, because it did not answer the main point, that McCain is a loose cannon, an accident waiting to happen. There was an exchange of “Bracelet for a dead soldier” stories, and that concluded question 5.

Question Six. What is your reading on the Threat Iran poses the United States?

McCain answers first. A nuclear Iran is a threat to Israel. He spoke of a second holocaust. He spoke of a “league of democracies”, mentioned the Russian are blocking significant actions in the U.N. Security counsel, and then again mentioned the league that would impose “painful” sanctions on Iran. Said the Iranians had a lousy government, and their economy was lousy as a result. (ahem) He is convinced that America, along with Germany, France and Great Britain, can “afect Iranian behavior”, and reiterated Iran was a serious threat. Also mentioned that Barack Obama thought it was “provocative” to declare the Iranian Republican Guard as a terrorist threat.

Sen. Obama started by saying he does think The Rep. Guard is a terrorists organization, but says what Sen. McCain talked about was a mandate inside Iraq, which would have inflamed tensions between the two nations. Mentioned that the one thing that has strengthened Iran was the loss of Iraq as an enemy. When we invaded Iraq, we made Iran stronger by taking away their mortal enemy. He spoke not tolerating a nuclear Iran, and using sanctions, but getting the cooperation of Iran’s allies, China and Russia to assist us in this. Mentioned that “this notion, by not talking to people, we are punishing them” hasn’t worked.

This was perhaps the sharpest exchange of the night on this question. It had two main points. One Sen. McCain saying that Sen. Obama is naive to think that meeting our enemies without preconditions is dangerous. Obama countering that without Preconditions does not mean without preparations. This went back and forth several times. Barack Pointed out that because of this administrations policy of not meeting without preconditions had made North Korea Immeasurably stronger. John Chided him and asked him incredulously if Ahmedinejad says we’ll wipe Israel off of the map, what’re you gonna do, just say No we aren’t? It was pretty funny.

Oddest moment of the night came here. For some as yet unexplained reason, John McCain blurts out that South Koreans are three inches taller than North Koreans, somehow attempting to link height with oppression. Truly weird. and….

There is one point of alleged profanity here, and you can barely make it out but it is audible. When Barack Obama chides McCain for not wanting to talk to the President of Spain, a NATO Ally, you can just make out McCain saying something that just might be “Horseshit” twice. But it could also be “Of Course not”. which brings a host of questions on it’s own. I’ll write about it and post the video in the “Philosophical Musings” section of this site, you be the judge.

Bad manners, Mister McCain, all’s fair in debates. You’d been tossing grenades at him all night, don’t whine when one comes your way. Shows a lack of respect for the venue and the event and the people you are speaking to, that being the American People.

That’s it for Part two of The Debate Analysis. Part three, the last one (I promise) tomorrow.

Uncle Mikey

It was a slug-fest ladies and gentlemen. It was a hard fought battle that, to this observer, came out as a tight Obama Victory. If you are a die hard fan of either man, though, you think your guy won. Each man made points that were both effective and intelligent. There were points were each man Brought the fight to his opponent and landed solid blows.

The one thing that really bothered me is that John McCain kept hammering away with the lies the Campaign has tried to tell, and Obama, for the First time had a chance to directly dispute him. The best part about this is that once Barack Obama pointed these flaws out to him, they stopped. The one that I remember most was the lie that McCain tried to pass off about Obama wanting to raise taxes on everyone who made over $42,000 dollars. Obama called him a liar to his face. John McCain didn’t respond.

John McCain was good as far as the economy was concerned, but not nearly as good as Barack Obama, but he was good. He was able to control the language of the debate, but Barack was still able to make a great many points. I thought both men lost points for not naming anything specific they would cut from their plans in response to the package to fix the economic crisis. Barack Obama was effectively able to lay blame for the current state of affairs at the feet of the President and John McCain. John McCain kept going back to earmarks, actually making a reference to Earmarks as being similar to a “Gateway drug” to greater spending and trying to pin the issue directly to Barack Obama by speaking of his earmarks. Barack made the point of saying that the $18 billion dollars in earmarks was effectively a drop in the bucket, and pointing out that Sen. McCain would, if he became President lower Corporate Taxes by $300 Billion dollars. McCain tried to counter with America’s high corporate tax rate, but Obama countered effectively with the point that Loopholes make the actual taxes paid by Corporations, effectively one of the lowest rates in the world.

All in all, Barack Obama was, as expected, far better on the economic front than John McCain.

As far as the Foreign Policy section of the talks went, I was surprised that both sides here were good, and that neither side showed a real weakness. Each point made was countered. McCain said ‘You were wrong about the surge, Senator” but Obama was able to counter it by saying that the war was in and of itself wrong. In general it was the same with Afghanistan and Russia.

Barack Obama may have lost points in the minds of some by agreeing with John McCain on a number of things. But I have to tell you that it would have seemed odd if he didn’t as well. In large part because these men do have some places where they do agree, from environmental policy as it relates to the cap and trade system, to the more obvious things, like the need to defeat the Taliban and kill Osama Bin Laden.

One or two very curious moments. McCain made a very odd observation about the North Koreans being three inches shorter than South Koreans. I thought that was a bit silly. The second was the moment where John McCain admitted that America had in fact tortured prisoners. He also said that Pakistan was a failed state prior to Musharraf came to power. I am sure the Pakistanis would disagree with that characterization. He also didn’t respond at all when it was brought to his attention that he said he would not even talk to Spain in a radio Interview. Spain is a NATO ally. Why no response here? It would be tough for him to admit that he doesn’t know who the leader of a NATO ally is.

Things that caught my eye. John McCain seemed Unwilling to look Barack Obama in the eye. Barack Obama didn’t have that Problem. John McCain has no respect for Barack Obama and his viewpoints, and kept calling him naive, and repeatedly said that Barack Obama doesn’t understand. Barack Obama almost always countered with a Link between George Bush and John McCain.

Perhaps the most terse exchanges came in regards to, oddly enough, Henry Kissinger and, more predictably meeting foreign leaders without preconditions. Barack Obama said that Henry Kissinger had said that he would meet with the Leaders of Iran without Preconditions. McCain disagreed, and said as much, but Barack stuck to his guns. The Preconditions thing was a fight. McCain continually acting bewildered that Barack would meet with leaders without preconditions, and Barack countered with the fact that without preconditions doesn’t mean “inviting them to tea”.

Like I said, from this seat, overall, it was an Obama victory. He could have hit a Home run here by agreeing less with Senator McCain, and being a bit more combative early on, but that really isn’t his style. McCain could have hit a home run and done much better had he not gone to old lines from his stump speeches so much, and trying early to get a laugh when there was nothing funny going on. I was especially distressed when he went to the Bear DNA joke line. That joke sucked the first time he tried to tell it, and it was worse now.

That’s my analysis, what do you think? Think Obama got his ass handed to him? Think it was a draw? Drop me a line and let me Know!

Uncle Mikey

I watched The Saddleback “Civil Forum on the Presidency” hosted by Pastor Rick Warren on Saturday, and I have to tell you, I was riveted. It was truly a well put together affair. There were no REALLY difficult questions, but there really weren’t any easy ones either.

I’m not going to go over every word Mister McCain said, and i’m not going to go in any particular order. I am going to give a quote or two and then an Impression of what I thought of the man and how i feel about his answers. There were many answers that were short and to the point, and some that meandered a bit. I’ll cover both examples at least once here.

He was asked who were the three wisest people in his life. His Answer: General David Petraeus, Representative John Lewis, and Meg Whitman. Petraeus was a gimme, since McCain is an ardent supporter of the Iraq war. I think the general is a good man as well, he’s just stuck in a war that’s been badly run since before he got there. John Lewis, now that pick surprised me because he’s a Democrat, and ardently opposes the Iraq war. The third person I knew nothing about, Meg Whitman, except what Mister McCain said Himself (Founder and former CEO Of EBay). What I have found out is that she works for the campaign and has been mentioned as a possible running mate for John McCain.

When he asked what the greatest moral failure of his life he said simply: The end of his first marriage.

When asked at what point does a baby get human rights he said simply: Life begins at the moment of conception. (Some say this means he is anti-contraception as well as anti-abortion)

When asked to define marriage, he said: A union between one man and one woman. (Against gay marriage)

VERY short and to the point answers. No explanation of the thought process behind what he believes.

At other times, he was very much the storyteller, and he told four or five of them Saturday. He told several stories of his time in Viet Nam in a prisoner of war camp, and in one story he told of how he had for a moment, found a christian amongst his captors…Of standing outside for a few minutes with him on christmas eve, and the guard draws a cross on the ground, and for a minute, just a minute, they weren’t enemies, they were two christians standing together.

Touching. Truly.

He did also have a few moments where he pushed his talking points a bit much. He pushed his energy agenda hard, like he was selling detergent, and sold his anti-russia views just as hard. He waffled big time when it came to taxes and what he considers “Rich”. Now, I am of much the same mind as him on Russia. His energy policy though isn’t nearly as comprehensive or as strong as Barack Obama’s. He would have won me over a bit more if wasn’t such a waffler on the Tax/Wealth question. When asked why he wanted to be President, he almost sounded like he was back on the stump, “America’s best days being ahead of us”. At times like that the man sounded genuinely wooden, like he was rehearsing a half remembered speech. You would have to be an ardent supporter of the man to think he did well in this “civil forum”.

But I’ll tell you, the overall impression I got was that he is a guy who maybe tried too hard to sell parts of his agenda to the public, who was too busy trying to be the best politician to show who he really is, but who believes in the basic power of the goodness of what he wants to do as President.

On a personal level, I do not believe in everything Mister McCain has to sell, and I am more convinced than ever that there are too many things that he and I disagree on for me to be happy with him as a candidate. But I think I know the man a bit better now than i did before this happened.

A video of the event for your viewing pleasure:

Do you think John McCain has what it takes to be the next President of the United States of America? What do like most about him? What is least appealing to you about him? Drop me a line and let me Know!

Uncle Mikey

Today I am going to look at 3 men, one a Lobbyist, one that lobbyist’s business partner, and the other a former lobbyist working in the McCain Campaign, and their baggage.

First Up: Harry Sargent/Mustafa Abu Naba’a. The McCain campaign last week had to return $50,000 in contributions from donors due to the fact that the donations were in fact collected by a foreign national, Mr. Mustafa Abu Naba’a, a man who is a citizen of both Jordan and the Dominican Republic. This is seen as potentially conflicting with election laws, because it is illegal for foreign nationals to give to American political campaigns. Not to mention that the money came from donors who do not even back Senator McCain.

Mister Abu Naba’a owns a 1/3 share of Mister Sargent’s company, which supplies oil to the U.S. military in Iraq, and has contracts that could be worth up $1,400,000,000 with the U.S. military.

That’s a nice piece of change.

Also of some interest here was the amount given and the people who wrote the checks that Mister Naba’a allegedly picked up for Mister Sargent for the McCain campaign. The amount given? The most allowable to give, by law. $2,300 per person. It is HIGHLY unlikely that an Auto Mechanic, a Taco Bell Manager, and a couple that at one time ran a liquor store would have that kind of money to give to a political campaign. This, ladies and gentlemen, is not exactly the people you would normally imagine giving this much, and I severely doubt that any of these people actually have that kind of money to give to a political campaign. I know auto mechanics. They don’t make enough money to actually be able to give that kind of money to a political campaign. The guy doing your brakes doesn’t make enough to give like that. Trust me on this one.

And if Taco bell pays that much, I’m leaving the copy center of the Law Firm I work at and going to taco bell to chase my dream of wealth and success. Oh wait. They don’t…pay.. that much…. Hmmmm… Neither does working a Liquor store. That job is more likely to get you on TV as a shooting victim than any real prosperity.

But Wait there’s More!

Mister Sargent is also being looked at by Rep. Henry Waxman, the chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, for overcharging the military for the fuel he sold them. And the contract that he signed with the Military is interesting, insofar as it was not the lowest bid for the supplying of oil used by the American military in Iraq.

Another Bundler of joy is a man named Randy Scheunemann. He is former President of the committee for the liberation of iraq, of which John McCain was a member, which was widely seen as a PR organization for the Iraq war push back in 2002. He was also closely linked to the Project for the New American Century, A Neo-conservative think tank, which is stated as an important shaper of American Foreign policy. Other Members of this Think tank Included Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz.

He was also an Advisor to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq. He is now foreign policy aide to John McCain.

This man, Scheunemann, has been linked to Ahmed Chalabi, The First Iraqi Oil Minister, who has given state secrets to Iran and has been accused of fraud involving Iraqi currency as well as grand theft of both national and private assets in Iraq.

Scheunemann has also been linked to, and in fact worked for, Stephen Payne, the disgraced former lobbyist who offered access to Senior administration officials in exchange for large amounts of cash for the George W. Bush Public Library.

And Until March of this year, Mister Scheunemann had been a lobbyist for the nation of Georgia, who were recently attacked and mauled by the Russian bear. Could this be the reason for John McCain’s rush to take the Georgian’s side in the recent Georgia-Russian conflict?

This is very fertile ground for analysis. There are TONS more Lobbyists, and not just McCain’s men who I can skewer. Are there any shady dealings going on anywhere that you would like to be brought to light? Anyone out there you think needs to get the third degree? Drop me a Line and Let me know!

Uncle Mikey

Here we go again, Ladies and Gentlemen, another go-round on the Foreign Policy unmerry-go-round, This time only with a passing focusing on Iraq.

On Barack Obama’s website, he has a page dedicated to his foreign policy as it relates to other areas of the world. This includes Iran, Darfur, Sierra Leone, and Israel. I will focus on his Iraq policy only to state that he says there will be a “residual force” left behind in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al-qaeda. His points on other nations include:

1 ) The eventual creation of a Palestinian state along side the Israelis.

2 ) The use of direct Presidential diplomacy with Iran. No “Saber-rattling”, Diplomacy.

3 ) Insulating the Director of National Intelligence, making him a more independent player, having a depoliticizing effect on the DNI.

4 ) Increased American and non American troop numbers in Afghanistan, 4 Brigades total, 2 American, 2 from NATO, among other things.

5 ) Increased Dialogue with the Chinese, among other things.

The Impression one gets in reading this part of Mister Obama’s website is that he believes that diplomacy and intelligence are weapons in the war against terrorism, alongside our military.

John McCain’s website however, has much less on the diplomatic edge and has a much larger military focus. While there are a great many different places on Obama’s website you can see for yourself what he will do, on a nation by nation basis, you get none of that with John McCain.

John McCain has No section devoted to Foreign Policy on his website, he does have one for Iraq, but No other nation is treated as such. What he does however have, is a rather extensive “National Security” section, which makes the following statements:

1 ) … the rise of potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country’s vital interests and deter challenges to our security.

2 ) … John McCain has been a tireless advocate of our military and ensuring that our forces are properly postured, funded, and ready to meet the nation’s obligations both at home and abroad.

3 ) … The most important weapons in the U.S. arsenal are the men and women of American armed forces. John McCain believes we must enlarge the size of our armed forces to meet new challenges to our security.

The Impression one gets in reading this particular section is that the man thinks of the United States Military as almost a diplomatic arm of the Executive branch of government. And while I can almost understand that, he fails to mention, at all, the need for actual diplomacy that comes from anywhere else but the barrel of an American gun. The Military IS a part of our Government, but Mister McCain treats it, at least here, as it’s most Important part, a point which I vehemently disagree with the man on.

Did not President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his final speech as president, warn us about the “Military-Industrial Complex”? It seems Senator McCain is very much about said complex.

As an aside, both men have decried the Russian Invasion of the nation of Georgia, which I covered in Monday’s article. An Invasion that truly did not get enough press to start off. John Edwards has gotten more press with a story that is a few months old, about marital infidelity, than thousands dying in a war with a resurgent cold war power has gotten.

Think there is something I am missing about either man’s Foreign policy stances that needs to be discussed? Think either man misses the point? Think I do? Want to discuss Foreign Policy? Drop me a Line!

Uncle Mikey

Foreign Policy. It’s a big world out there, and we need someone who knows what they are doing when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world. In light of the events in South Ossetia, and the War between Russia and Georgia, and with Us in Afghanistan, and That lovely little place called Iraq, I think it’s high time to look at how these gentlemen voted on the senate floor On foreign policy issues. Many thanks to Project Vote Smart for the Information I gleaned from their website.

Like I mentioned a few articles back, These men have missed a fair amount of their more recent votes.

Barack Obama has Missed 15 of the last 22 senate foreign policy votes, dating back to June 2007, with his last vote coming June 26th of this year, A yes Vote on Iraq and Afghanistan war Funding, Unemployment benefits extension, and The G.I. Bill, a bill which passed with Bipartisan Support,92-6.

John McCain has missed 19 of the Last 22 senate foreign policy votes, dating back to June 2007, with his last votes coming December 18th 2007, a No vote on The Iraq Withdrawal Amendment, an amendment to hr 2764, the “Inclusion of Iraq and Afghanistan Military Operations Funding with the Consolidated Appropriations” bill, on which he voted yes. The Iraq Withdrawal Amendment was defeated 71-24, and the Iraq M.O.F. appropriations bill passed 70-25.

Not Surprisingly, these gentlemen have not voted the same way on a single foreign policy issue when they have both voted on the same bill, which admittedly has not happened often. Mister McCain has only voted on eight of twenty seven foreign policy bills since Barack Obama started his tenure in the Senate. Senator Obama mind you, is not Much better, with twelve of twenty seven.

Obama Voted Yes, and McCain No, on the first two bills they voted On in common, The Iraq Progress Reports Amendment to S 1042, The Reporting Matters in Iraq Amendment.

This bill would have had the president report to the congress on U.S. Policy and Military matters in Iraq every three months until the Last Brigade is home. S. 1042 was not adopted, being voted down 48-50, with all but one Republican present and voting no.

If you look at Both senators records the One thing that stands out is their stances on Iraq, which exactly jibe with their rhetoric.

But there is more to Foreign Policy than Iraq. There’s an entire world out there to look at, and I will look past just their voting record and delve into their statements about foreign policy, and try my best to probe deeper into the potential next Presidents mind to see just what is going on there.

Uncle Mikey

Instead of giving my take here of all things green, at least up front, I think I will simply give them the floor, and let the green party speak for itself. Each quote will be directly from the Green party website, from it’s 2008 platform.

The Green Party of the United States supports divestment from and boycott of the State of Israel until such time as the full individual and collective rights of the Palestinian people are realized.

The Green’s call for :

Full withdrawal of US military forces, civilian military contractors, and corporate interests on the fastest possible timetable consistent with the safety of bringing home US troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other states of the region.

Re-formulate all international trade relations and commerce as currently held by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), (Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB), and the nascent Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The new formulation must be Fair Trade and the creation of a level playing field. It must protect labor, human rights, the environment and grow the local economy of receiver nations. Especially local agriculture and water supply must be protected from foreign corporate control and domination.

I have chosen to focus on foreign policy because my mind has been turned to it by the events in South Ossetia, and the Russian Invasion of the nation of Georgia. The economy is a regular focus of mine.

I believe in peace. I believe in doing our best for ourselves and the rest of the world. But I have to say that what I see, in the Non-violence espoused by the green party as a main part of the party platform, is unfortunately, not enough in this intensely war-like time. I think we do need to get out of Iraq ASAP, because the war is wrong on just about every level. I do think that we need to go after, hunt and kill Osama Bin Laden and Al-qaeda, and that we need some kind of force in the Area to assist in that hunt, which means, by necessity, a force In Afghanistan.

If, like Me, you simply read the 2008 platform of the party, you get the impression that they are, well, a bit more interested in what we do for the world, and much less what we do for ourselves. And while I am very happy to see their Anti-corporate stances, I do not entirely get their stance on universal basic Income, or the realistic-ness, for lack of a better term, of their Corporate control, and their Banking and Insurance reform seems just a little undo-able and frankly, with the shape of of the economy right now, a little dangerous to the long term economic strength of The United States. But that’s just me.

A video for you, of the Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney accepting the Nomination of the Green Party.

What do you think of the Green Party platform, and the Green party in general? Is their 2008 Platform viable, given the current economic and political circumstances this nation finds itself dealing with? Drop me a line and let me know!

Uncle Mikey