This is the 'loyal opposition'?

The following quote is from an email dialog between two acquaintances. I'm posting this, unedited, for what reason exactly I really don't know. You tell me. I have also posted the response that was made to the writer as a comment. Please feel free to comment also.

No Bruce, what this guy is talking about is the constituency of the Democratic party. Take a close look at the red/blue map at this site… http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm …and look at the areas of blue. Please look at the map before you read my commentary.

Now, after having studied the map, start in LA and go around the country with me.

In California the blues are counties in which the ultra Hollywood crybaby liberals live, then move up to the Bay Area with its bands of queers, and then north of there are the crazy tree huggers along the coast all the way up to Washington. Coming east, see Clark County, Nevada….that’s all the unions in Las Vegas. Just about all the blue areas in Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado are Indian reservations and Mexicans. Big blue splotch on the Texas border is just about all Mexican.

Up and down the Mississippi delta are the indigenous blacks left over from slavery days………just about all of whom are on the dole. They love the Democrats who give them more welfare. Northern Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan have blue pockets in areas where unions influence people’s minds.

And then we have the misguided souls in New England who’ve been shamefully influenced by the Kennedy’s, the Kerry’s and their ilk for so many years. In the New York City area is the overwhelming Jewish base hanging onto the Democrats because they know that’s who will give the greater portion of our tax dollars to Israel. Their retired tribe members all live in the blue areas of Dade and Broward counties in Florida.

I could go on but I’m sure you get the idea now. As well traveled as you are, I’m sure you knew all this already but it does help to focus on it looking at this map.

So now it’s show and tell time Bruce……..are you a Hollywood crybaby, queer, tree hugger, Indian, Mexican, black, welfare dependent, union sympathizer, Jew, or under the spell of Kennedy and Kerry? If you’re not, what in the world is a sensible bidness minded, free thinking, interesting and fun guy doing being associated with such?

Please enlighten me!

Discussion with Ralph, part 10

I own a business. the last thing I need is "government help". The other thing I dn't want is to be included in the "Rich folks who don't pay their fair share of taxes". That is another liberal line.
If someone works their way into ridiculous wealth (ain't me) I say more power to him/her. Unfortunately we now look upon success as something to be scorned...and taxed.

Discussion with Ralph, part 9

Do Democrats really believe that labor unions vote as their leadership directs?

Discussion with Ralph, part 8

Democrats pander to the labor unions in a idiculous way and they still buy the same crap.
Mitt Romney told a group of auto workers from Michigan that they should not expect a return to the job security of the fifties. "The auto market will not be the same again", he warned.
The following day a Democratic candidate claimed that Romney's was a message of despair "we must have hope that auto manufacture will return to the glory of yesterday". Bull $hit !! and it goes on ad nauseum.

Discussion with Ralph, part 7

I saw the Democratic candidates playing their same theme song over again. They pander to the minorities who buy the B.S. hook line and sinker but suffer the same indignities as they have been suffering for centuries. No one has the Gonads to tell minorities that we do not "owe them a good life" they have to earn a good life. Stop having six babies by five men and settle down to solid family life.

Discussion with Ralph, part 6

The American press corps is like a pack of sharks waiting to taste the slightest hint of blood so that they may splash it over the headlines the next day. Huntley, Brinkley and others are rolling over in their graves at what has become of american journalism. Republicans will claim the press has a liberal bias...I believe it does. Democrats point at Fox news and claim
that they are bending the truth to satisfy a narrow audience...they do.
Wake up and read the Wall street Journal or something with objective journalism.

Discussion with Ralph, part 5

We need a "Kick Ass and Take Names" leader.. Personally, I don't see anyone who is capable AND is crazy enough to spend millions of dollars to obtain an office that will age and expend a man, in exchange for historical significance.

Discussion with Ralph, part 4

Any new president represents "Change"

Discussion with Ralph, part 3

For the past six months I have witnessed the charade that passes as our Presidential Primary process. It looks more like "star search" or "American Idol". it bears little resemblance to the careful selection of a true "Leader".
That is what we are after, is it not? We seek a true leader with experience, intelligence and the strength of character to face the difficulties that are before our weakened nation today.

What the political process presented us with was;
On the Republican side, a former minister/governor who had good character but little else. We also had a former governor/businessman/multi millionaire who was not trusted because of his religious background.
The Republicans also offered Ron Paul, a wing nut with great ideas but no sense of reality.
We ended up with a septegenarian war hero who isn't trusted by his own party and who is a very poor debater.
The conservatives don't trust him, the Veterans don't like him and ....he has ailienated the Christian right who claim to have put "W" in office.

On the Democratic side we had a former first lady who thought she was going to a coronation, not a primary.
They also gave us a former VP candidate with a $1,000 haircut. He "looked Mahvelous" but was another talking head.
Your favorite now is Mr Obama. As I see it, he doesn't know what to tell you but he will say nothing in such an eloquent way that you will swoon over his charm. The Chinese can't be charmed and neither can the Iranians. But he promises to try....just for a change.

Discussion with Ralph, Part 2

The congress is full of lawyers. They don't want change they just want to keep their seats. If they really wanted health care reform then they should first give us Tort reform so that the doctors don't have to worry about patients suing for every hangnail they suffer. That has driven healthcare to the point it is today, not the doctors or the pharmaceutical developers.

A discussion with Ralph, part 1

I recently receive an email from a close friend. In it my friend brings up a number of interesting discussion points. I'm posting my friends thoughts in a series of posts, and I'm commenting to each post. Please feel free to add your comments as well.

Part 1 - On the Executive and Legislative branches

Doug,
I am wrapping up my chores early tonight and, after one glass of Chardonnay, I have screwed up the courage to write tou you about politics. After eight years of "Dubya" it is obvious that you and everyone else wants "Change". My concern is the quality and strength of change. For years we have been puzzled about the leadership in the White House and in Congress. The present occupant of theWhite House is the easy target so we all take shots at "The Bush Administration" as if the executive branch of our government is the only hand on the rudder of our ship of state.
Everyone will be sorely dissapointed when "Dubya" is out of office and we are still in a quagmire militarily, fiscally and
politically.
Yes we need change but it does not all hinge on the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania avenue. The spineless US congress must make a few about face turns ..if they have the guts and the presence of mind to really understand the situation.

This would be funny, if....

See the original at http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/

That's not what's important....

I watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC regularly. I'll miss it when we're on vacation. If you haven't picked up on it, it's the anti-FOX (along with Hardball, Morning Joe and Verdict). Olbermann periodically, when warranted, 'rants'. This is one of his rants, from last night. No matter which way you lean, watch this. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25126582/

Here is part of what it says to me. It's not ALL about issues. It's not ALL about taxes. It's not ALL about spending. Etc. Of course it includes all of these things. But there's something perhaps more subtle, just beneath the surface. I call it attitude. And it becomes exposed in the most casual ways, as in this case. No matter how much McCain chattered after saying it, it's impossible to ignore. Watch Keith Olbermann. He does it so much better than I ever could.

Talk or war?

Which do you prefer, talk or war? Isn't it really that simple? It seems so to me. If the United States of America were not a superpower (the only one currently)perhaps talk would be a more interesting and viable approach.
Is there anyone out there who feels that war is anything other than the absolute last option?
Is there any rational reason to refuse to talk with any country?
It is really hard to contain my thoughts on this and maintain a focus on just this one issue. So many other closely related thoughts flood in and demand attention. Perhaps I can address those in subsequent postings, things like "who can threaten us?", "the success or failure of past wars", "preemptive wars", "what war are we fighting".
According to the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html) there are 266 nations, dependent areas, and other entities in the world. 192 nations are members of the United Nations (http://www.un.org/english/). The US State Department (http://www.usembassy.gov/) lists 201 countries, but I can't be sure if we have embassies in each. Where am I going with this? Simply this - all of these entities must talk with each other. When talking stops, physical fighting often starts, so it is imperative to keep talking.
The USA does this to a large degree. We maintain diplomatic relationships with most countries and participate actively in the United Nations. This is the name of the game - diplomacy (talk).
Talk can never hurt. Talk won't kill anyone. War does hurt. And war does kill.
So the answer for me is quite simple. Keep talking. Start talking. It is the preferred method by far.
Listen (that's the other side of talk, by the way). Listen to your friends. Listen to your enemies. Consider. Evaluate. Postulate alternatives.
There are other options, ways to help others see your point, such as all kinds of economic pressures. Use talk to persuade other nations to apply pressure, to join the cause, whatever it is.
In the end, realize that there is always a negotiation involved, and that as sound and firm as your position is, it may not be possible to have it all.
Keep talking. Listen. Save the last alternative until there is absolutely no other option. [by the way, I thought this was US policy until just recently.....]
Oh, I almost forgot. As I understand it, Barack Obama has stated that he will talk to the heads of state of our enemies as well as our friends, and John McCain has chided Obama for suggesting that. According to the John McCain website (http://johnmccain.com/), "While he (John) supports robust diplomacy with our allies and adversaries, he would not rush to bestow the prestige of unconditional presidential meetings on the world’s worst dictators." and "Senator Obama proposes to conduct presidential summit meetings with the world’s worst dictators."
As I read the above from John McCain, I note the following: John supports diplomacy with our adversaries (including presumably the 'world's worst dictators", but would not rush into it. From Obama's website (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/)"He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead." I don't see the "rush" mentioned on the McCain website.
My opinion (this is an opinion piece) is that John McCain will not use diplomacy with our adversaries, but would follow the course followed for the last eight years. I believe Barack Obama will pursue diplomacy.
The last time war accomplished anything was, in my opinion, WWII, when Hitler was stopped. What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!

A better way

At first I created an email distribution list. I wanted to tell all my friends about interesting facts and issues in the presidential race between John McCain and Barack Obama. I offer the option to opt off of the list.
Happily, I received many replies, mostly favorable. Then it occurred to me that I could make it even easier for folks to ignore my ravings. Just create a blog, and rant all I want. If anyone cares to listen they can subscribe, otherwise they won't even know it exists. Good idea, eh?
So, since you have subscribed, I hope I don't bore you too much. I promise to stick to issues and not get down into mudslinging. Both candidates have promised the same, and I certainly hope they stay that course!
As you know, I'm firmly in the Obama camp. John McCain is a fine man and I respect him. But the Republican party has, for eight years, 1) spent us into new debt territory, 2) initiated a war that was totally unnecessary and unjustified, 3) weakened our military, and demonstrated that weakness to the world, 4) done everything they could for corporations and 5) done literally nothing for the 'common man'. And that's just the overview. I believe we need a change, and I am sure we will not get change from any Republican president.
I'm rambling now, so I will stop for now. Future posts will be directed at specific issues, trying to compare the candidates views on each issue.
Oh - please feel free to post comments at any time. Thanks.