CLINTON SUPPORTERS ARE BEGINNING TO JUMP SHIP

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE CLINTON SUPPORTERS ARE BEGINNING TO JUMP SHIP– AS A SIMPLE MATTER OF CONSCIENCE Hillary Clinton has done a lot of talk about the value of experience, and her selfless dedication to America during these primaries. But it's just that--talk, and many of her supporters are beginning to see it. She's trying to be all things to all people. In order to prove her executive experience, she all but claims to have been co-president with her husband. Then to prove that she's tough enough to handle the job, she claimed she had to corkscrew into a war zone while dodging sniper fire, because it was too dangerous to send Bill. And earlier on, when she began to fear that Obama might just win the nomination, and critics said she was too hardcore, she went before a gathering of women in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, valiantly fighting back tears, and with a softly cracking voice, she said the following: "It's not easy . . . it's not easy. I couldn't do it if I didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. This is very personal for me. I have so many ideas for this country, and I just don't want to see us fall backwards. It's about our country, it's about our kids. We do it--each one of us--because we care about our country. But some of us are right, and some of us are wrong; some of us are ready, and some of us are not. Some of us know what we'll do on day one, and some of us don't." It was a stellar, and now familiar performance (she's used the same wistful persona on several occasions since, but without the tears), and it went a long way towards helping her to win New Hampshire, and rightly so--that kind of talent shouldn't go unrewarded. In spite of the fact that she was ostensively choked with "emotion", her talking point was right on que ("Some of us know what we'll do on day one, and some of us don't"). Thus, one would think that someone as passionate about America as Hillary would fully understand and appreciated the integrity of a man like Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. Instead of simply taking the easy way out and caving in to cronyism, the governor, one of the most experienced politicians in America today, looked back over his vast experience and came to the conclusion that he had to support Senator Barack Obama over the wife of his long-time friend and former boss. But instead of having the class to say I'm sorry I didn't earn your support, and I understand how you must have agonized over your decision, Clinton surrogate, James Carville, labeled Gov. Richardson "Judas." Now I ask you–is this world-class, presidential politics, or kids throwing sand in a nursery school? That incident alone shows why America should take Hillary's contention that she's running to protect our children, and in the best interest of the country with a box of salt. First, the statement is both highly presumptuous and condescending–what makes her think that she's the only one who can save America? And secondly, it's a lie–that's right, yet, another one. Hillary is running for one reason, and one reason only-- to quench her own unquenchable thirst for power. It was Gov. Richardson who acted in the best interest of our kids and country, and not because of who he chose to support, but because of the way he made his decision–like a statesman, as opposed to the petty, red-faced, and power-hungry politicians who are jumping up and down about it. They claim that Richardson's not a team player, but the fact is, he's the ultimate team player, they're just on the wrong team. The Clintons' angry response to Richardson's simple act of integrity says it all–they're committed to business as usual. Sure, they want change, but only a change in power--from Republican hands, to theirs. Richardson, on the other hand, has demonstrated that he heard the American people loud and clear, then acted on it in spite of what must have been tremendous personal stress. And according to an article, by Mark Leibovich in the New York Times, Clintons Sort Friends: Past and Present, Gov. Richardson isn't the only one who's beginning to see the light. Nancy Larson, a Democratic National Committee member from Minnesota, indicated that after Chelsea Clinton learned that she was switching her allegiance from Hillary to Obama, Chelsea pressed her to know why. "She was really pushing me. She kept asking me why I was doing this. She just kept asking, 'Why? Why?' " The article goes on to point out that "Mrs. Clinton has been losing potential endorsers and superdelegate backing from grass-roots activists like Mrs. Larson as well as elected officials, party luminaries and former Clinton White House aides (the most recent being former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who endorsed Mr. Obama on Friday)." And that "there is no shortage of powerful Democrats who are quick to accuse the Clintons of defining loyalty as a one-way street, with little regard for the sacrifices they have made for a couple whose own political needs seem to their critics always to come first." And therein lies the problem–if the Clinton campaign hasn't shown anything else, it has clearly demonstrated that Hillary's needs, wants, and desires come first--before friends, before party, before country--and that's an exceedingly ugly trait, even to us little people. Previously, Clinton supporters viewed Hillary's single-mindedness as a sign of focus and determination, but the mean-spirited scratching, clawing, and lying that she's done during these primaries have betrayed a serious flaw in her character–a desperate, even, pathological need for power, and at any cost. So, yes, Clinton supporters are beginning to jump ship in unprecedented numbers. Many remember the early years, so they're leaving with deep regret. But Hillary's extreme behavior has awakened their sense of responsibility, so they must leave, as a simple matter of conscience. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com 

Pass Me A Rock--It's Lunchtime In The County Jail

BENEATH THE SPIN * ERIC L. WATTREE, SR.

PASS ME A ROCK--
IT'S LUNCHTIME IN THE COUNTY JAIL

Why is it that we have to pay Ben Bernanke millions of dollars to bring in a truckload of Ph.D.s just to tell us that we're hurtin'? And even then he won't give us a definitive answer-- "Ah, Well, it's beginning to look like we just might be edging, or, tiptoeing, as it were, towards the outer fringes of an exceedingly mild recession--a teeny-weeny one I assure you--but we can't be absolutely certain of that at this time." Who is he trying to lie to, certainly not the American public. People are starving while he’s hedging–they’re outside the hall throwing rocks at the police so they can go to jail in time for lunch.

But seriously, have you ever wondered why all of these so-called experts, with all their advanced degrees are always nine months to a year behind the people when it comes to seeing the obvious? Bush’s entire fiscal policy is a fraud. I have yet to taken a minute of economics, but I pointed out over a year ago that any policy based on trying to sell Gucci bags in a homeless shelter had to be conjured up by Dr. Seuss. Actually, Supply-side economics was formulated during the Reagan administration by U.S.C. economist, Art Laffer, but believe me, we couldn’t have done any worse if we had, in fact, followed Dr. Suess.

The Laffer curve was more a scam than a viable fiscal policy. The policy is based on the premise that if we give Gucci a big enough tax break, he’ll hire more people to make his handbags. Then the newly hired people will spend the money they earn and stimulate the economy. It sounds good, but they failed to take one small, but very important thing into account–if Gucci is required to sell his bags in a homeless shelter, where are the people in the shelter going to get the money to purchase his bags initially? If the people in the shelter don’t have the money to buy his handbags initially, Gucci’s not going to hire anyone on speculation, regardless to how big a tax break you give him. Why should he–he can’t even get rid of the bags that he already has on hand. So he’s going to take his new tax windfall and buy him a Ferrari–that’s what happened during the Reagan administration, and that’s what’s happening now. The only way to get Gucci to hire more people to make more handbags is to put more money in the hands of the people in the homeless shelter–then, they'll have the money to spend on Gucci's bags. Although we call it "supply and demand", demand comes first, then supply. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that-but of course, I'd never accuse our president of being a brain surgeon.

Granted, I'm not an economist, but it seems to me that what we're dealing with here are two economies. We have one economy that applies to the investor class, and another economy that applies to the labor class (labor, meaning anyone who depends on a job for a living, regardless of whether they're blue collar, or in management).

When the United States had a thriving industrial economy, one class complimented the other. Labor was well paid, so they were able to purchased goods. That allowed the companies that sold the goods to prosper, to the benefit of the investor class. But now in a global market, in order to both remain competitive with countries that pay their workers just above slave wages, and also sustain their greed, the investor class have to squeeze every penny, and concession, out of the labor class to achieve their profit margin. So in essence, whenever Bush announces that the economy is thriving, he's not talking about the American economy as a whole--he's actually telling the investor class that he's successfully squeezing the American worker to the limit. You see, since they have a global market now, they no longer have to worry about the American worker making enough money to purchase their goods--they can sell them overseas. So now the American worker is no longer a partner, he's simply a field hand.

That dichotomy in our economics also explains why our politicians can't seem to get a handle on illegal immigration. As I pointed out, in order for American business to compete in a world with countries that produce goods with workers who work for just above slave labor, America must respond in kind. That is the purpose of illegal immigration--it's being used to undermine the middle class in this country. Having a viable middle class has become cost prohibitive in this country. We're being told that illegal immigrants are only being used to do the jobs that American workers don't want, but that's not true. Illegal workers are being used as electrical workers, in construction, as truck drivers, upholsters, mechanics, etc. In the process, they're placing undue strain on our healthcare, and educational systems, driving up the cost of goods and housing, and having a negative impact on our entire social infrastructure.

Thus, we need to have a national referendum on how to address the illegal worker issue in this country. We need to take it out of the hands of the politicians, and follow the will of the American people. Then we've got to make up our minds what we want to do. If we're going to grant illegal immigrants immunity, then, let's do it. But if it's the general consensus of the American people to send them home, then we've got to be serious about that as well, by passing laws with teeth-- laws that make it unattractive for illegal workers to come here in the first place, or stay, depending on the results of the referendum--then follow the laws to the letter.
We've got to stop fooling around with this issue. The longer we straddle the fence, the more people we're going to have to deal with, and the more convinced they're going to become that they have a right to stay. If we sit on our hands until they start to think of the United States as home, we're going to have a revolution on our hands if we try to change course--and if you think we have a lot of illegal immigrants now, just wait until their children start having babies.

So if we truly want to stop illegal immigration, we have to stop playing games, and trying to be politically correct. We have to start passing tough laws, and strictly enforcing those laws: Fines of twenty thousand dollars per offense for anyone who hire or house illegal immigrants, and the seizure of assets for any offense thereafter; a year in jail on first offense for anyone caught in the U.S. illegally, and a felony on any offense thereafter; make it impossible to enroll a child in school without proof of citizenship; withhold all social services (with the exception of emergency medical services) and then pass a law saying that any child born of an illegal parent is also illegal, even if that child is born within the United States. Laws such as those would take away any incentive for anyone to cross the border illegally. That would contribute to our security as well, because then, we can assume that anyone trying to cross into the United States illegally is doing it with malevolent intent.

That may sound strange coming from me, because anyone who has read my writings regularly know that I've agonized over this issue for sometime, and I've flip-flopped on it at least once before. In fact, about six months ago I wrote an article in support of illegal immigrants, indicating that they are the indigenous people of this land. But I have a policy of going wherever the facts lead, and while I desperately wanted to arrive at a rosy scenario regarding illegal immigration, the facts refused to cooperate, and only portrayed an image of social devastation.

The consequences of having millions of people flooding across our borders into the U.S. will have a devastating impact on our children and grandchildren. Therefore, in my opinion, we should assist illegal immigrants in addressing their grievances with their own governments in the same way that the Black community has done in the United States. While my heart sincerely bleeds for the plight of illegal immigrants, I simply cannot give them priority over my own grandchildren. That would go beyond being compassionate--it would be stupid. It would also play right into the hands of globalists who are trying to corral labor in such a way that it undermines the American middle class.

But we shouldn't take our anger out on the illegal immigrant--they're only pawns in this scenario. We should reserve our anger for the corporatists who are pushing those pawns. We should press our government to pressure Mexico and other countries of origin to address the plight of their poor. That should be one of our top national priorities. We shouldn't elect any politician who isn't committed to that initiative, and vote out any politician who waffles on it. We must also direct our anger, our dollars, and our votes, against any corporation, and all politicians, who contribute to conditions that force people to leave their home in order to feed their families. We must pin these politicians down, and let them know that we know what's going on, and if they don't fix it, we're going to see to it that they lose their jobs long before we lose ours.

We must also take immediate steps to see to it that American corporations don't think they can follow Dick Cheney's Halliburton to Dubai, and then think they're going to sell their goods in the United States. We need a worker's Bill of Rights that says, if you want to ship your jobs overseas, you can sell your goods over there as well. If you're an American company, you must be headquartered in America, pay your fair share of taxes in America, and use American workers. If you're not willing to do that, we'll find someone who is.

Of course, they're going to call us protectionists--but as Miles Davis said, so what.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Does Hillary Clinton Deserve the Democratic Nomination? No!

BENEATH THE SPIN * ERIC L. WATTREE Blank statement: Hillary Clinton does not deserve the Democratic Nomination for president--in fact, based on what these primaries have revealed of her character, she doesn't even deserve her seat in the senate. While Hillary has long since switched to the Democrat Party, recent weeks have clearly demonstrated that her Republican inclination towards cutthroat politics, shallow character and deceit remains firmly in tact. Compelling evidence of that is the CBS News report indicating that Hillary said, both she and Senator John McCain offer the experience to respond to a crisis, while Barack Obama only offers rhetoric. Specifically, the report quoted her as saying, "He's [John McCain's] never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002." That is the most mean-spirited and irresponsible remark that one Democrat can make about another prior to a national election. With that statement she has essentially--no, in fact-- endorsed Republican, John McCain over Barack Obama if she fails to get the Democratic nomination. That statement, along with her subsequent behavior clearly demonstrates that Hillary Clinton has embarked upon a scorched Earth campaign against both Barack Obama and the Democratic Party as a whole, and it is also now clear that her every move is designed to hold the very viability of the Democratic Party hostage against nominating anyone but herself. Further evidence of that is in spite of her claim during the last debate that she is "so honored to be here with Senator Obama" and that she represents change, throughout the run up to the Texas/Ohio primaries she has engaged in the Karl Rovian politics of mudslinging ("to see what will stick"), the politics of fear, and an attempt to ridicule Senator Obama's strengths, even though she certainly realizes that if Obama is the nominee her attacks will make it more difficult for him to be elected in November. In fact, that is her plan--to sling so much mud on Obama that he won't be able to mount a viable campaign against the Republican nominee. In my article, Will the Real Hillary Please Stand Up?, I pointed out that "Even Bill Clinton has acknowledged that if Hillary doesn't get a win in Texas, she won't get the presidential nomination. So in the next two weeks her character, and the kind of experience she brings to the table will be on display. If she's truly committed to change, and what's in the best interest of the United States, we'll see a lady engaged in a valiant, yet, clean fight for the nomination. But if the "experience" she so often speaks of is of the old-style, me-first, America-be-damned kind of politics of the past, we're going to see a lot of lying, desperate mudslinging, and win-at-any-cost kind of tactics." I also pointed out in that same article that "Hillary is right in one respect, however--experience can be impressive, as we saw in the Texas debate--and she certainly has it. But Hillary has the wrong kind of experience--she's experienced in the old ways of voter manipulation. During the debate we saw a chameleon at work--first we saw the cordial Hillary, but she felt she needed to set herself apart; then she became presidential Hillary, but Obama easily matched her sober, no nonsense veneer; then she went into attack dog Hillary, only to quickly change tactics after being booed; towards the end, she finally settled on Saint Hillary, to confer love upon her opponent. It took her the entire debate, but being the "experienced" politician that she is, she finally stumbled on just the right tone of manipulation. I have a feeling we're going to see a lot more of that in the future, so I just wanted to give you a playbook so you can keep up with which Hillary is on display." No, I'm not clairvoyant, it's just that Hillary is so self-serving that she's predictable. You see, Hillary is so far behind Obama in the number of delegates necessary to secure the nomination that she'd have to win all of the remaining primaries by over 20 points just to catch up. In short, she can no longer win the nomination--the only way she can get it is to steal it. Thus, she's calculated that the only way she can become the nominee is through hook, crook, and deceit. So she's calculated that she must threaten to destroy the Democratic Party's chances of winning the November election in order to secure her community property rights--the office of the presidency. That's right, she sees it as her entitlement. So, even though all of the democratic candidates agreed beforehand not to campaign, or seat, the delegates in Florida and Michigan due to the states' violation of a prohibition against holding their primaries before February 5, now Hillary is demanding that the 366 delegates be seated, and with good reason. In spite of the fact that all of the democratic candidates, including Hillary, agreed that those delegates wouldn't be counted, when all of the other candidates took their names off the ballot, Hillary allow her name to remain on, and since she was the only Democratic name on the ballot, technically, she won the primary. Now that she's hopelessly behind Obama in delegates, she wants to change the rules of the game and count those delegates. A fight over this issue would tear the Democratic Party apart and allow a republican victory in November. Hillary knows that, and she also knows that Obama is the people's choice for the Democratic nomination, but instead of taking the high road and simply bowing out gracefully, she's holding the Democratic Party hostage as she slings mud at Obama, so that later she can convince the superdelegates (the party bigwigs) that Obama is so muddied that he wouldn't be a viable candidate--never mind the fact she's the one who's throwing the mud. So the real Hillary has finally stood up, and what do we find--vindictiveness, deceit, and self-service. Some would call that hardball politics. I call it a flaw in her character, that should preclude her from the Democratic nomination. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com