PUNISH LIEBERMAN?--ANOTHER NEGATIVE FOR THE DEMOCRATS

There’s no doubt that the Democrats think they know what’s best for us. Joe Lieberman’s constituents returned him to the Senate despite efforts by the Democrats to block this Dem-turned-Independent from gaining re-election, the Dems want to punish Lieberman for voicing his honest opinion and supporting McCain. This is also despite the fact that Lieberman remains a registered Democrat and primarily aligns himself with the Democratic Party. But Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., doesn’t think that’s enough. He doesn’t want Lieberman “rewarded” for his defection even though Lieberman already holds the Chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He was good enough before the election but somehow falls short now? Apparently the continued abandonment of the idea of merit remains for the Democrats.

One would think that the members of Congress have no responsibility to act according to the wishes of the voters who put them there. It’s about them and not about us, or in this case at the very least about the voters who returned Lieberman to the Senate. The Democratic leadership apparently feels nothing about their rights, wishes, or representation. It’s about consolidating Democratic power so theirs is the only voice heard. That’s pretty scary.

Ironically the only argument I’ve heard against punishing Senator Lieberman is that it goes against Obama’s pledge of bi-partisanship and therefore might alienate some of his supporters and that might cause Lieberman to bolt and join the Republicans. The latter argument is so in line with the Democrats because they don’t seem to work on principle. Lieberman is simply not in step with many of the Republican views; they’re accusing him of doing what they do—compromise principles in order to get ahead. That’s pretty scary.

The Republicans, of course, would welcome Joe Lieberman to the GOP caucus. It’s in a shambles and lacks direction. Someone who can actually take a stand and articulate it well would be welcome addition. They certainly did not have that in John McCain.

If he plays his cards right, Joe Lieberman can wield a lot of power and influence in the new administration. As both sides vie for his vote, he may be able to make political deals to do some real good. Wouldn’t that be a nice result for Congress for a change?

Lieberman Congress election politics opinion "political+opinion" Obama Democrats Republicans Senate Leahy Vermont McCain "Homeland+Security" "Not+With+A+Whimper" "a-big-bang"

WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?

With the election over, we will have a new President in Jan., and he has already given pause to think. I’m not going to spend the next four years berating him idiotically as many of my friends berated President Bush. Imagine saying, “He’s stupid. Anyone can fly one of those jets with all the gizmos in it.” Anyway, I’m not going to throw hissy fits and sit and glare whenever Obama’s name is mentioned. But I am going to continue to think, to listen to different sources and different points of view and not, as another friend does, check in on The Huffington Post or the Daily Kos for her facts. I wish the new President the best of luck in keeping our country on course. He is, after all, my president too. I’m not offering up any of the deranged, irrational hatred I’ve heard for the last eight years.

But here are some issues that are troublesome:

1. After making a statement that “there can only be one president,” Barak Obama found a way not to weigh in on some matters but then threateningly posed that if Congress doesn’t act “in this lame duck session” on another stimulus package, he will immediately after the inauguration. Additionally he will now offer HIS OWN weekly address via radio and internet until the inauguration. One president? I thought that was George W. Bush.

2. At his first news conference, no reporter from FOX or any of the papers that endorsed John McCain were called upon for a question. Is this more of the vindictive behavior that had reporters thrown off his campaign plane in favor of reporters from Essence? I will keep a close eye on the “Fairness Doctrine” debates.

3. How will the auto industry be handled? Pelosi has said that there will be limits on “executive pay,” but it is the backbreaking unions who also must give up something to keep the industry going. Will the Dems challenge the unions that support them? How can the money keep the auto industry afloat if there is no restructuring of management AND if the money offered is earmarked for smaller, more efficient cars in an industry that is not tooled to build them?

4. How will our military be treated? Barney Frank & Co. has already promised a 25% cut in military spending. Do we want our military in the shape it was at the beginning of the Iraq War—under-supplied, and under-protected? I certainly do not!

5. The economic crisis is huge. How could it not be? The Dems tossed aside every economic rule to make sure people who cannot afford homes got them. Then they watched with feigned surprise as those very people could not pay their mortgages and the snowball became an avalanche. I want to keep a close eye on my taxes!

That certainly is enough to keep me busy, but there were many more campaign promises our “country’s savior” made. It will be interesting, and probably very painful to watch. I am thinking of adding another bumper sticker to my car. The first one says, Mark Twain for President “It’s better to be popular than right.” My new one should succinctly read, “What did you expect?”

Obama president election Bush January "Huffington+Post" "Daily+Kos" "lame+duck" FOX McCain Congress Pelosi "Fairness+Doctrine" "auto+industry" bailout military soldiers Democrats "Barney+Frank" budget mortgages taxes "bumper+stickers" "Mark+Twain"

WATCH THIS AS OBAMA PROMISES TO CREATE A DEFENSELESS AMERICA

DO-NOTHING CONGRESS FINDS SOMETHING TO DO--TOO BAD IT'S THE WRONG THING TO DO

At an August AIDS conference in Mexico City, the U.S. was praised for ending its 15-year-old law banning HIV-positive people from entering the country. But that ban has yet to be lifted by the Bush administration, much to the ire of the usual groups. I’m glad it hasn’t yet been done. The bill had bi-partisan backing—Sens. John Kerry (D), no longer the most liberal Democrat in Congress since Barak Obama arrived on the scene, and Gordon Smith (R) of Oregon. Since then, 58 Dems have written to the President asking him to take “swift action on this issue.”

I guess that’s because the Congress so swiftly reacts to problems facing American citizens-----like the financial crisis brought on by the sub-prime mortgage debacle or the people in the U.S. devastated by Hurricane Ike. (although a bill promptly surfaced to help the people of Haiti)

I suppose the Congress feels HIV should be removed from the list of communicable diseases of public health significance because….That’s where I get stuck. Because….

Granted we know enough to have overcome the unwarranted fears of how HIV is spread, and true, many people innocent of some of the more behavior-prone ways of contracting this horrendous affliction have been infected and may feel unfairly targeted, BUT are we to assume that visitors to this country who are HIV positive will cease being intravenous drug users who share needles, refrain from unprotected sex so they do not spread the disease, tell the people with whom they have relationships that they are HIV positive or refrain from any other kind of behavior that promotes the spread of HIV? Sorry, John Kerry, Gordon Smith, and you additional 58 Congressman. I don’t assume that. I go back to the great line by Felix Unger in The Odd Couple: ASSUME means to make an ASS of U and ME.

We’ve got people in Washington quaking in their boots that someone out there might not like us so they are constantly considering those outside America over the ones they are elected to protect and to serve. Last July 30, President Bush signed into law a five-year $48 billion bill to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis around the world. Those are good intentions, but he should have vetoed the bill because it contained this lifting of the ban. Can you imagine the outcry had he vetoed it? Despite the names he would have been called, he should have used that veto power, and Congress should get its act together and put Americans' best interests first.

Bush politics "political+commentary" politicians "John+Kerry" "Gordon+Smith" senators laws HIV Mexico AIDS Congress "communicable+diseases" "sub-prime+mortgages" "Hurricane+Ike" Haiti sex drugs disease "Felix+Unger" "The+Odd+Couple" Washington malaria tuberculosis

ALL THE NEWS (THEY DECIDE) THAT'S FIT TO PRINT

If you watch TV news, you may have missed this horrendous event. On Wed., Sept., 18, there was an attack on the U.S. embassy in Yemen that left 16 people dead including a newlywed from New York there for an arranged wedding.

This is the same Yemen where 17 American sailors lost their lives in the Oct. 12, 2000 suicide bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.

The AP reported that the militants who launched this latest attack in Yemen are linked to al-Qaida, BUT most news outlets, if they ran the story at all, gave it a necessary inclusion and then let it drop. No follow up. Not even extensive "human interest" coverage of the American woman killed in the bombing. No further discussion of the role of al-Qaida.

We don’t hear much about the war on terror in the news these days. We still hear each time an armed services member dies, but thankfully those numbers are substanially diminishing as the Iraqis take over security their country. We are almost never reminded of that change in military. It's better for the liberals to focus on loss of life and imply it is for a non-cause.

Nor are we reminded that almost all of Congress’ “benchmarks” for Iraq have been achieved. We’re led to believe, through lies of omission, that the War in Iraq continues as it was and that the Iraqi government and people are incapable of governing themselves. There are people out there who want us to become familiar with the word "quagmire" despite its inappropriateness.

How many of you know that Kuwait is no considered a combat zone and those military personnel there can wear civilian clothing and no longer carry weapons?

There is a motive behind this blatant withholding of news. It is the presidential elections. A biased and liberal media wants Americans believing the worst as the presidential election approaches. It keeps us ignorant of the truth. It marginalizes Obama’s steadfast refusal to admit that he was wrong in many of his votes concerning the war despite his agreement that the surge worked “beyond our wildest dreams,” a statement I disagree with as Petraeus & Co. certainly aimed for the results the surge achieved. The withholding of war allows McCain’s steadfast understanding and support of our efforts to fade into the background.

You might say today's top story is the economic picture, and you may have a point, but when the news is full of Caylee Anthony’s disappearance, O.J. Simpson’s trial, Lindsay Lohan's political views while ignoring the fact that Dem. Mark Foley will not be prosecuted for sending sexual emails to teenagers or that Dem. Charles Rangel is still Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee while he doesn’t file taxes, etc., you’ve got to wonder. Could it be that we’re expected to think that corruption only exists on the other side of the aisle? Let’s compare Larry Craig’s (R) wide stance advances to Mark Foley’s (D) coming on to teenage boys.

It’s getting more and more difficult to vote intelligently because of the news “filters” we have. As my magnetized NOBAMA and McCAIN FOR PRESIDENT bumper stickers were stolen off my car, I’ve replaced them with one I bought at the Mark Twain home in Hartford, CT. Twain said it all! The bumper sticker proclaims: MARK TWAIN FOR PRESIDENT (with picture of Twain): IT’S BETTER TO BE POPULAR THAN RIGHT.

al-qaida politics politicians Iraq Yemen Kuwait military war surge news commentary opinion "U.S.+Embassy" bombing suicide sailors "New+York" Americans Obama McCain AP "news+service" congress benchmarks Rangel Foley Craig sex taxes "House+Ways+and+Means" committees "combat+zones" Petraeus Democrats Republicans "Mark+Twain" quotes CT

GOV. DAVID PATERSON--LOOKING GOOD

While there’s no difficulty in finding fault in government and politicians, there are some good things going on as well. New York’s governor, David Paterson (D), is proving to be worth his mettle. He’s good about announcing his legislation, and he’s been doing some good things for New Yorkers. That’s what we expect and what we are entitled to.

Here’s one of several improvements I’ve noticed. On Sept. 5, Gov. Paterson signed legislation to allow pharmacists, once they are state trained and certified, to administer flu shots. This sensible and seemingly small change enormously increases access to the vaccines by virtue of pharmacies' hours and locations. The result should be a healthier winter for many New Yorkers.

On a side note, the bill was sponsored by Long Island Republican Sen. Charles Fuschillo, and that indicates Paterson's willingness to support positive efforts by both sides of the aisle.

Paterson has vetoed 49 bills showing he is not afraid to use his authority when he sees the correlation between budget and policy decisions as they impact local governments and taxpayers. To me that means he is on the right track. New York is a mess, and its state officials on both sides of the aisle, by and large, spend their time bickering over power. If Paterson can pull in the reins on this runaway horse of a legislature he inherited, he can have my vote as long as he wants it.

"New+York" governors Paterson "David+Patterson" health flu vaccines vaccinations pharmacists pharmacy healthcare medicine Democrats Republicans Senate Fuschillo "Long+Island" illness

OBAMA IS A BOTTLE OF SODA POP

Obama is like an ice cold bottle of soda pop on a hot summer day. He glistens in the heat. The glass is wet and your mouth longs for the cool refreshing taste of something bubbling with carbonation, something to tickle your dry tongue, your parched throat, something to break through the thirst you’re experiencing even as perspiration beads on your face.

Go for it! It looks sooooo good. Drink! But consider what's really happening:

You’ve loaded up on sugar—a temporary fix that does nothing healthful for your body. It is empty calories. Worthless.

If you’re a sipper, the fizz dissipates rapidly and you’re left with the real thing—an absolutely flat taste that goes nowhere. It has no life of its own. No energy; no nothing.

If you’re a gulper, the good feeling climaxes quickly and leaves you dissatisfied and full of gas.

In a little while, no matter how you approach it, you’re as thirsty as you were before. You may be closer to tooth decay or weight gain. A sugar high is simply not worth the trouble.

Maybe this analogy doesn’t quite work because there’s one big difference between Barak Obama as president and carbonated, flavored sugar water. You can dump the soda; you’re stuck with Obama for four years!

Obama politics commentary elections Democrats president candidates "soda+pop"