THE WONDER OF 'IF' - Salem-News.Com

Focus on faith and religion from a Salem-News.com writer who was raised during the Great Depression.

(PASO ROBLES, Calif.) - John McCain seems a different person probably because of the advice he is getting from the Rove-pros who now are handling his campaign. He is on the attack.

But he protests too much, and what he says is mostly raw conjecture based on how his advisors choreograph his campaign. He [they] blame Obama for what he did not do, and for what McCain says would have been the result [if] there had not be a surge [Obama voted against it].

According to McCain, Iraq would have been thrown into deplorable chaos, etc., all of which is pure speculation because there was a surge, that began months after the Anbar Awakening [all of McCain’s fibs to the contrary]. It is not what John McCain says, but how his team justifies his make-believes that reveals their hypocrisy.

Just as it is impossible for mortals truly to know God, so too is John McCain and the rest of the Far Right unable to know exactly what will be, or might have been. They conjure up a scenario to suit their purpose then try to sell it by pretending it is real. But to be effective the fairytale must be felt as right, so as not to be seen for what it is. The myth, when delivered with gusto as John McCain has been coached to do when speaking of "ifs," can take on a life of it’s own.

The best way to understand the value of if is in the abstract, such as, "[if] your aunt was a man, she would be your uncle." Hardly the sort of argument to be used in a serious political campaign. McCain’s political rhetoric is a taught-echo of the fear-tactics of Geo. W. Bush whose response to any logical criticism of policy was to predict the worst possible consequence as if it was a certainty. It is propaganda pure and simple.

Another twist to McCain’s repertoire is the decided move of his campaign to embrace what Obama has consistently advocated; diplomacy. It worked in N, Korea and may yet work in Iran. But in Iraq the Bush administration holds an ace-in-the-hole by insisting that withdrawal depends on conditions on the ground. Iraq wants the invaders out, and McCain agrees that if Iraq asks us to leave we should. But Bush does not want to leave; his Party has bigger plans. By holding the ace it may yet have bases in Iraq from which [eventually] to influence the entire Middle East.

Adding to these suspicions are the recent remarks of Gen. Patraeus who, as Bush’s hand-picked commander on the ground [the ace in the hole], is unwilling to support a timetable for withdraw. But [if] Patraeus truly is the last word, would not his decision contribute to the real purpose behind the invasion, and why should he be the decider when the original [Bush] is no longer his Commander in Chief?

Both presidential candidates are tending toward the middle ground in Iraq. Obama says he would consider leaving a military force of perhaps 50,000 in Iraq after his 16-month time-line for withdrawal. If then he says that military presence will be withdrawn "as soon as possible." Bush’s War could remain in limbo indefinitely, and make one wonder if, or why, Barack Obama is joining the chorus of the opposition.

Iraq is a tribal nation to be sure, yet its people appear to be coming together. If Vietnam could revive from conflict and show the world it is worthy of membership in the community of nations, why not Iraq? It has the oil wells, and if it has the national-will to succeed, even a residual military force should be removed sooner rather than later, and the sooner the better. The next two years should prove to be very interesting indeed.

Kenneth G. Ramey was a 79-year old "writer without a Website" who is generating excellent, provocative articles on the subject of religion and world affairs. We are pleased that Ken's "lone wolf" presence as a writer in the world has been replaced by a spot on our team of writers at Salem-News.com. Raised in Minnesota and California during the dark years of the Great American Depression, Ken is well suited to talk about the powerful forces in the world that give all of us hope and tragedy and everything in between. You can write to Ken at: kgramey@sbcglobal.net

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Henry Ruark August 8, 2008 3:36 pm (Pacific time)

G-B: For me that's very poor substitute for solid "see with own eyes" from checkable, reputable source supplementing your b/bmassage, but from you it is a considerable change from simple smear-technique. Despite my complete distrust of what you would term "rational people", on good demonstration here; would also make sure they know, and can appreciate, the very different social, cultural and economic circumstances then surrounding what he was able to do, and surely shaping how he got it done despite great difficulty. Given that kind of honest inquiry, the deeper they dig the stronger will be the image shared here by Chicago observer probably better placed than either of us to make a judgment on good impact of what he accomplished. Despite "appearances", have appreciated and thank you for your participation, whether voluntary or not...brought on some good dialog from which it is possible that some may have learned, and others may have been at least "awakened". (Son just furnished new breaakfast cereal with label: "Wakes up real strawberries !" but they turn out to require soaking...in milk, that is.)

Going Broke August 8, 2008 8:53 am (Pacific time)

GB here Henry Ruark. I am still around but I guess some of my posts have not made it. Maybe I just did not put them in correctly? As far as Alinsky, my suggestion to interested readers is to look him up and inquire in that research to seek both sides: His supporters and his critics. Then decide. Most rational people will come to the conclusion that he was no big supporter of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, nor any government democratic model that promotes individual freedoms. Does that sound like an objective approach to you HR?

Henry Ruark August 7, 2008 8:01 pm (Pacific time)

Anybody heard from G-B ? Can it be he did finally go-broke, at least in the checkable-fact areas ? OR perhaps he really was a paid-shill ? Would not be the first-time here, and probably not the last, either...

Henry Ruark August 7, 2008 3:59 pm (Pacific time)

M.P et al: Your most helpful statement here is: "...but it articulates the ideal progressive community organizers work toward. The Developing Communities Project and other organizations in Chicago's inner city have achieved some impressive results. Schools have been made more accountable-Job training programs have been established; housing has been renovated and built; city services have been provided; parks have been refurbished; and crime and drug problems have been curtailed. Additionally, plain folk have been able to access the levers of power, and a sophisticated pool of local civic leadership has been developed." You reflect precisely what I learned in key-time, for me, in Chicago, in close teaching contact with inner-city kids living in one of housing piles Alinsky work helped achieve. They came to T/L Books to earn for college, out of tough h.s. experiences. Without what Alinsky set into progress, that would never have happened. "Radical" is sometimes demanded for any breakthrough for dollar-paid inertia assisting existing status-quo for some few. Thanks for participation sharing normal development for Obama in very demanding work, at crucial time for both skill and character developments. Your sharing reflects well on open, honest, democratic dialog here, including the necessity for realistic story on Alinsky, offsetting obvious political-smear/attack. Without that, doubt if we'd have your field-report !

Mike Philips August 7, 2008 12:36 pm (Pacific time)

One of Obamas political inspirations was the father of progressive grassroots organizing, Saul Alinsky. To understand how Obama views this country and how he approaches politics, one must understand the influence of Saul Alinsky on today's radical left. In 1990 Obama wrote a chapter for a book called; After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois, published by University of Illinois. His contribution, Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City, was the high-minded fluff of an idealistic and inexperienced individual, and in the years since proven to be as inaccurate as it was naive, but it articulates the ideal progressive community organizers work toward. The Developing Communities Project and other organizations in Chicago's inner city have achieved some impressive results. Schools have been made more accountable-Job training programs have been established; housing has been renovated and built; city services have been provided; parks have been refurbished; and crime and drug problems have been curtailed. Additionally, plain folk have been able to access the levers of power, and a sophisticated pool of local civic leadership has been developed. Barack Obama Chapter 4 (pp. 35-40) of After Alinsky. One should be aware of what Alinsky's endgame was. It was power and control that would make Orwell's 1984 look like a children's book.

Henry Ruark August 7, 2008 7:32 am (Pacific time)

To all: May I further suggest that our education and economy, for so long so seriously under real attack, are the major areas of deepest concern NOW, as we enter the 21st Century ? For some solid reasons-why, see current Op Ed --and, if you have pertinent suggestion based on fact, rather than b/b fancies further falsified by neocon persiflage already in deep doo-doo, feel free to add your honest ideas to our S-N dialog here. We may even, eventually, start our own radical and Revolutionary "new approach, with some hope for the same resounding successes.

Henry Ruark August 6, 2008 7:34 pm (Pacific time)

G-B: NOW you have at least four main target Comments right out there in the public view. WHEN will we see YOUR Op Ed undertaking, in 1000 words or so, to explain WHY they are erroneous, distorted, and/or in any way "wrong" ? IF you so sure you are "right" (we'll accept the lower-case/r temporarily) let us hear from YOU --with links accessible for something a bit stronger than continued b/b massage you snipe out, while smearing world-famed achievers like Alinsky --and NEVER citing ANY reliable source. Of course, Op Ed demands you ID self to Editor Tim, which destroys that cognomen you hide behind; but that's what is properly due to readers here if you seek any further credibilities --a small price for anyone acting in good faith to share and learn. For all WE are allowed to know-now, you are paid-shill for "noise machine", as per experience in other open channels across the nation -- yes, documented for anyone deserving to know which, where and how-attacked.(ID to Tim !) Re-reading comments and the line-of-attack involved seems to indicate that possibility; if you can "knock it down" by ID and some believable bckgrd, please feel free to do so. All of those billions in lush "corporate campaign contributions" --result of false human/personhood given by Supremes by "paid-for" precedent-- now being used for precisely that kind of attack, aimed NOT ONLY at Obama as candidate, but for sure also at our democracy, by the same cabal creating the conditions under which it can and is being done. Many are now recognizing the first steps to fascism, as in Italy and Germany --a point you may wish to rebut, if you can, in your forthcoming Op Ed, surely no problem for such a sharp mind as yours (unless, of course, there are other reasons). Fortunately, American public will recognize same-old-stuff from Nixon and previous days, and wit, wisdom and will of cogitating citizens again will prevail.

Henry Ruark August 6, 2008 4:36 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Fairness and Accuracy in Media is major reliable source, even cited here recently by some other Commenteers. Here's their report re the "race card" --WHO played it, WHY they did, WHEN too, and why it may backfire on the McCain campaign as further sign of desperate measures now drawing in Rove and his ruddy gang of character-assassins: Media Fall for 'Race Card' Spin Outraged Press Ignores McCain's Ties to GOP Race-Baiting Tradition NEW YORK - August 5 - Corporate media have been absurdly receptive to the McCain campaign's charge that Barack Obama "played the race card" by predicting that his opponents in the presidential race would try to use his race against him. The fact is that racialized attacks are a standard part of the Republican playbook--and the strategy has been employed by key advisers to John McCain. (Check out FAiM website for details, in respect for space usage here.)

Henry Ruark August 6, 2008 2:11 pm (Pacific time)

G-B: Yours re tax policies of Obama and McCain far from accurate/complete, and yours re "income redistribution" also far from mark. SO here's "see with own eyes" link, and excerpt of lead portion, to "inform" you and others. IF you disagree, your target is the group that staged this debate, not what we've reported accurately in S-N, stories and Op Eds !: America's Richest Will Pay More Under Obama's Tax Plan By Sam Pizzigati, Too Much: A Commentary on Excess and Inequality August 6, 2008 http://www.alternet.org/story/93057/ "The ideologues who manage the Wall Street Journal's editorial pages have emerged, over recent years, as America's most unrelenting -- and shameless -- defenders of wealth and privilege. They enjoy the work. They do it well. No one turns reality upside-down any better. "Take, for instance, the Journal editorial last week that defended George W. Bush from charges that his administration tilts to the wealthy. George W.'s tax policies, the Journal pronounced, have actually "caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history." Any Bush "giveaway to the rich," the Journal editorial added, exists only as "a figment of the left's imagination." "The Journal offered some evidence for these bold assertions. According to just-released IRS statistics, the paper noted, America's richest 1 percent paid 40 percent of all income taxes in 2006, their "highest share in at least 40 years." "Case closed? Not quite. The rich, as a group, are indeed paying a larger share of the nation's income tax dollars, but only because they're pocketing a much larger share of the nation's income. As individuals, the IRS data show, the rich are actually paying less -- far less -- of these incomes in taxes than they have in years. "In fact, if average taxpayers in the top 1 percent had paid taxes in 2006 at the same rate as the top 1 percent paid taxes 20 years ago in 1986, those average top 1 percent taxpayers would have each paid $136,518 more in 2006 taxes than they actually did." ------------------ Hard to conceive that these skilled editors did NOT know and understand the brute facts involved here, in face of the extremely damaging and rapidly increasing income-gap in this nation. THAT's the painful driving mechanism for demanded "income re-distribution" policies, to alter our economy and prevent precisely the unethical,unfair and distorted circumstances leading to that cancerous perversion of what our system should provide. Henry Ford had it right when he understood underpaid wage workers could not buy the very product they produced. Canny old Ben Franklin had it right 'way back then: "Private property is a creature of society and is subject to the calls of that society, whenever its needs may require it. --Ben Franklin - 1789

Henry Ruark August 6, 2008 10:47 am (Pacific time)

G-B: Yours re energy dialog understandable in sight of McCain sell-out to oil interests. Here's excerpt, with link for further "exam and evaluate with OWN MIND" -not yours or mine !: www.TomPaine.com The Audacity of Contempt By Robert Borosage Created 08/05/2008 Summary: Take gas prices, the most pressing issue on the minds of Americans. Offer a blatant ploy that in fact won't help — but will profit Big Oil. Pocket over a million dollars in contributions from oil executives and use the money to put up an ad promising to take on Big Oil. Sen. John McCain seems intent on proving that it is possible to scorn Americans into voting for him. Call it the audacity of contempt. Sen. John McCain seems intent on proving that it is possible to scorn Americans into voting for him. Consider McCain's latest ad in the context of his "drill, drill, drill" energy policy. The text of the ad reads: "Washington's broken. John McCain knows it. We're worse off than we were four years ago. Only McCain has taken on big tobacco, drug companies, fought corruption in both parties. He'll reform Wall Street, battle Big Oil, make America prosper again. He's the original Maverick... "Battle Big Oil." Say what? This is the same John McCain who just made offshore drilling for oil a centerpiece of his campaign, reversing his longstanding opposition to it. He did so, not incidentally, while on his way to Texas for a series of fund-raisers. The result unleashed a gusher of donations for Big Oil executives — according to Campaign Money Watch, a nifty $1.2 million from Texas gas and oil interests in June alone, the very month McCain came out for drilling. He no doubt was told what to expect from the dozens of oil company lobbyists and retainers that reportedly are working with or raising money for his campaign. ----------- You want to argue with those facts, on checkable record ? Your quarrel then is with the truth, not with distorted view of candidate achieved by perversion of the record so easily accessed. Be my guest --the more you do so, the better impact on those who still cogitate for themselves, including any who read my Op Eds ! By the way, when can we expect fully-detailed "informed opinion" --with links available --from YOU ? Really welcome here, as are all other reasonable and civil participating Comments. That's what open, honest, democratic dialog channel does, and now all can see WHY it is so exceptionally crucial in this coming vote.

Henry Ruark August 6, 2008 7:50 am (Pacific time)

G-G: Still see nothing from you except personal political smear tactic --as with Alinsky. You apparently are unaware he is long dead; that his major organization was pioneer in what it did and how it did it --via close connection with congregations (i.e. religious) groups across the nation). So much for "radical"-smear. You overlook fact that our Founders were NOT ONLY radical in their time, but truly Revolutionary, too --and for some of the same ills forced on them by the same policies you seek to prolong. One they estalished is your right to speak, surely now ironic with your open attacks on basic principles that made them --and our Constitution-- what it has now become. To attempt smear-tactic via reference to "radical" here reveals your realities --for which you should be ashamed, sir not for them but for the attack and its motivations --a clear demonstration of the "win at all costs" belief that chracterizes neocon tactics. It's coded-language for that old racism which is the full foundation of the attack you seek to cover here, while also claiming liberal-label for what concealment it may bring. THAT must provide your neocon buddies with a very large guffaw when they see it; but it proves up precisely what we need to know about you and them, too.

Going Broke August 5, 2008 7:14 pm (Pacific time)

Obama is desperately trying to find a reason for people to stick with him, to ignore the truth of who he is, the people he has associated with for decades, and the positions he has taken. But the aroma that is on Obama from these things will not wash off, and certainly, save for his moonstruck, idolater followers (who are the only ones such an appeal as this will have a real impact on), will not be able to be ignored by such sophmoric excuses and reasoning. Please note that Obama's energy plan is fluid, ever-changing, and it is this lack of consistency that will be his downfall. This energy danger is about the welfare of America, now and far into the future. It never should have been turned into an election year football. To think that the voter is so stupid not to see the day to day changing postion of Obama on this matter is insulting. Remember what happened to McGovern? It is happening once again. Also for those of you who want to see just who Saul Alinsky is, then go to an impartial source and educate yourselves.

Henry Ruark August 5, 2008 2:32 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Re relevance today for the Alinsky-notes, research under way for educational reform Op Ed next-up turns up fact that the famed Alinsky organization --the Industrial Areas Foundation, founded in Chicago in the 1940s--is still very active nationally. Pertinent fact, surely overlooked by G-B, is that it is now and has always been one operating closely with congregation-based local groups: i.e, church-connected. This page-cited reports on Cal. state group turning out 13,000 persons for school reform there. So much for "radical"-smear as attempted here. "See with own eyes", p. 39, in DEMOCRACY's EDGE; Lappe; ISBN 0-7679-4311-8; further cited in next Op Ed.

Henry Ruark August 5, 2008 2:16 pm (Pacific time)

To all: In contrast to assorted free-flow/no proof numbers as b/b massage from G-B on energy action, here's your "see with own eyes" link for serious discussion with solid source: Obama Gets High Marks for New Energy Plan By Joseph Romm, Huffington Post August 5, 2008 http://www.alternet.org/story/94001/ "Senator Barack Obama has fulfilled the promise of his earlier climate plan with a detailed and comprehensive "New Energy for America" plan. "This is easily the best energy plan ever put forward by a nominee of either party. By comparison, the plan of John "Nothing but Nukes" McCain is a joke, with nothing on energy efficiency and a pointless $300 million battery prize and long-standing opposition to renewable energy." ------------ For full detail, follow the link --THEN use own mind to evaluate what you will learn...always better than any unsupported numbers written by proven-bias political-malarkey source.

Henry Ruark August 5, 2008 12:21 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Simple question re G-B use of Orwell-insight here: "George Orwell/1984: "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength." Whose regime does that remind you of, right off the reading ? For anyone in doubt, simple check-action is to review the past eight years --which forces another simple question sure to surface: "Are you better off now than you were when they arrived in D.C. ?"

Going Broke August 5, 2008 9:15 am (Pacific time)

George Orwell/1984: "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength." I have noticed that more and more people are calling our use of oil an "addiction." It also appears that we are the only modern nation that is not fully devveloping our natural resources for the economic welfare of our citizens, not to mention our present and future national security if we continue to import more and more energy, especially from countries hostile to us. It will take decades to come on-line with alternative energy sources to offset oil and its by-products. Though you can now see Pelosi caving in to allow a vote that she knows will over ride her obstructionist position. My guess is that her days as speaker are growing short. Obama's energy policy, which was one based on using a tire gauge, is also changing. Maybe his 9 point drop in the polls has aided that change, but certainly not his core values. Our country is entering one of those moments that will promulgate a paradigm shift, and I believe we are heading for good times, though the radicals will be quite sad about the upcoming turn of events.

Henry Ruark August 5, 2008 7:35 am (Pacific time)

sts et al: Re poll-questions, from similar work will guarantee to build what you want to get return-desired...that's what skilled communications consultant does. Re those you mention, it is disservice to democracy and this channel to mention any purported-meaning of such without link or source to make possible our own evaluation. That is purpose of "see with own eyes" here, best possible defense vs those who will try to brainwash by unfounded rumor and report, failing when examined via content and source, constant habit for rational, reasonable readers. "Noise machine" is still in full --and now desperate-- manipulative operation. See first of Op Ed series, in this issue; others in Archives, over past two years.

Larry August 5, 2008 7:07 am (Pacific time)

I think the more people who get to know Obama will like him. I encourage people to learn more about his views on Obama’s site.

sts August 4, 2008 6:01 pm (Pacific time)

I heard some things today that are documented about Obama. They are not so good at all. In fact, quite bad. Not that mccain is any better, but the evidence is docemented. the source thinks that the elite are going to wait until after the conventions, then get the news out. The next 6 months are going to be interesting to say the least. In regards to polls, well, it seems they ask specific questions to get specific answers. Then, everyone sees the polls and follows them like sheep. My opinion.

Henry Ruark August 4, 2008 2:34 pm (Pacific time)

G-B: Don't bother to finish off quote from Clinton --irrelevant here-and-now when government's own and UN and international agencies all confirm inescapable delay to come on-line, and only possible small-impact then, will make no appreciable difference. Plain, obvious, unavoidable fact is that we must move to conserve and stretch whatever oil-resources we still have readily and promptly available, while building the delayed, avoided, and always-blocked development of alternative energy sources, so hampered for decades by the insatiable pursuit of profit for which the oil giants have become notorious. What the hell difference can it make NOW what YOU or anyone else recall about what, of all people, CLINTON said, then ? Spare us, please, any such memories...put em in your life-ending memoir, same as mine now underway, strictly for family wonderment and, perhaps, even some dismay !!

Going Broke August 4, 2008 7:25 am (Pacific time)

I recall quite vividly when congress in 1995 passed drilling legislation for Anwar(sp?), but Clinton vetoed and made the comment:

Going Broke August 4, 2008 11:03 am (Pacific time)

Henry Ruark here is today\'s poll as per the presidential race. One week ago Obama had a 9 point lead in several polls, e.g. Gallup. Rasmussen has been within one percentage point in the last two elections when predicting final percentages for president. So does Krugman of the NY Times have any predictions you know of? Chris Mathews? others? \"Monday, August 04, 2008 The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows the race for the White House is tied with Barack Obama and John McCain each attracting 44% of the vote. However, when \"leaners\" are included, it’s McCain 47% and Obama 46%.\" I wonder what will happen to these numbers as more info is put out about the candidates? I believe McCain has pretty well been vetted and Obama has not, so it either will be positive or negative for him. Should prove interesting, especially when the candidates stated policies are penciled out for the voters. For example raising taxes during a slow economy, is that a good idea? Importing more foreign oil, is that good? I believe everyone on this website wants what is best for the country, so getting out all info helps us get to that goal, even when one does not like the info. I suggest one reads about community organizer Saul Alinsky and his \"scheme\" about income re-distribution and another community organizer of note. I am a liberal, and there are a lot of \"radicals\" out there who pose as liberals. The best way to spot them, they want money re-distributed, and big government!.

sts August 4, 2008 7:10 am (Pacific time)

It is amazing to me that people still see a difference between the democrats and republicans. We have a one party system. Mccain or obama, makes NO difference. They both will do what they are told by their bosses (the elite), or they wont get elected. The preisident is a puppet, and the election is a sideshow to satisfy the common person into believing something that does not exist.

Henry Ruark August 3, 2008 3:06 pm (Pacific time)

G-B: Citing numbers easy...I do it allatime. BUT then I send link, too, so anyone seeing the numbers can check for themselves re what I wrote about those numbers, using OWN MIND. Thus they can compare what I wrote with what they see for themselves --and comment rationally and reasonably, if they disagree with my thus "informed" opinion-conclusion. SO ? Polls are notoriously inaccurate, dependent heavily on how done, by whom, even when and via what medium. Published reports, these days, are notoriously distorted, even perverted, dependent on bias of publisher/writers wishing to manipulate what people think is happening. One needs to know source and be able to check the complete content for any degree of reliability and confidence. SO cite link we can "see with own eyes" rather than just skim over your strictly personal feelings on what they mean. If so moved, why not do Op Ed and give complete detailed, "informed" overview --then state what it means on that basis of information rather than simply number-massage ?? Who knows what might happen then ? You might even become a journalist ! Forgive me for wishing that painful fate on someone fully unknown to me, but with best intentions, anyhow..!

Going Broke August 3, 2008 11:03 am (Pacific time)

The below poll data appears to show why Obama's lead has been evaporating since returning from his overseas trip. I wonder what the ceiling percentage is for both candidates? Strange as it may be, but Ralph Nader and other small party candidates may end up deciding this contest. I have read where both McCain and Obama cannot peak above 47%, so I expect some real down and dirty politics to happen, and from the below data it may not be good. Only 22% Say McCain Ad Racist, But Over Half (53%) See Obama Dollar-bill Comment That Way Rasmussen Reports ^ | 8/3/08 Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the nation’s voters say they’ve seen news coverage of the McCain campaign commercial that includes images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and suggests that Barack Obama is a celebrity just like them. Of those, just 22% say the ad was racist while 63% say it was not. However, Obama’s comment that his Republican opponent will try to scare people because Obama does not look like all the other presidents on dollar bills was seen as racist by 53%. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree.

Henry Clay Ruark August 3, 2008 8:11 am (Pacific time)

To all: Forgive, please...need coffee this early ! Register-Guard link, for full access to Krugman column, is www.registerguard.com. SO go "see with own eyes" --and let's find out what happens when G-B's wimple finall comes loose...

Henry Ruark August 3, 2008 8:06 am (Pacific time)

G-B: But meanwhile here's another quote you can treasure, placing yours directly vs world-famed economist: "A McCain ad says gas prices are high right now because" some in Washington are still saing No to drilling in America". "That's just plain dishonest: the U.s. government's own Energey Information Administration says that removing restrictios on offshore drilling wouldn't lead to any additional domestic production until 2017, and that even at its peak, the extra production would have 'an insignificant' impact on oil prices." (Paul Krugman, NYTimes, p.3, R/G-Eugene Sunday Commentary) The rest of this column lays out in distressing, disgusting detail precisely a long list of flip-flops from McCain that you complain about so vociferously here, from Obama. SO, now, your dialog can be with Krugman, rather than with mere reporter here. We seek only testable background to inform Op Eds --perhaps now you might wish to do one ?? Perhaps you can remove that tight-wound wimple now, and even return to the 21st Century from your wishful sojourn in 19th Century with well-outmoded economic myth, perpetrated in large part by Reagan for personal political persiflage, and erroneously originated by U/Chicago professor Milton Friedman as "monetarism" and "fundamental free-market principle", now discarded even by World Bank and other international agencies who have used its malignity as blackmail for funding to many developing nations, including nearly all of South America, where their influence has become nil. IF you ID-self to Editor can still share with you whole pile of PDFs from totally reliable and nonpartisan sources, covering every statement made here by me and Krugman, too... Where's your "see with own eyes" link ? Buried still in that wimple ??

Henry Ruark August 3, 2008 7:11 am (Pacific time)

G-B.: Your cover name tells it true, and your wimple is so tightly wound with right-side propaganda, result of last thirty years "Noise Machine", that nothing else is worth dialog here...so best of luck to you in next 8 years, too !

Going Broke August 2, 2008 6:27 pm (Pacific time)

McCain's position on Affirmative Action is right there with mainstream America, from what I read earlier. As far as awarding people a redistribution of someone's profits, well that could be slippery ground. You of course know that oil profits that have been mentioned as "windfall profits" are taxed at around 50%, so these profits increase tax revenue. There are literally millions of shareholders (pensions, etc.) involved in oil company profits and hundreds of thousands of employees. Their profit margin is much lower than many other businesses, plus they plow billions back into R and D, not to mention losses from disasters like hurricanes and of course the frequent "dry hole" that costs millions to dig. Bottom line, we need more oil and natural gas, not just for consumption, but also national security. As far as being better off now than I was 8 years ago, well that is a question that will be asked a lot in the next several months, but I want a president that has some core values not one that flips positions to one more advantageous because the polls sway them. When the gas ration period comes, and it will, remember those who obstructed legislation to increase our domestic energy supply and/or put so many rules/regs into place that it essentially made it unprofitable to increase supplies. Those of you who want the government to take over the energy industry, then what would that portend? Not to mention that the government cannot run anything efficiently.

Henry Ruark August 2, 2008 8:21 am (Pacific time)

G-B.: You want quotes ? Here are two for you to treasure, one from McC. and one from Obama: "...affirmative action is in the eye of the beholder". He did not mention that he supports an anti-affirmative action referendum in Arizona. (From AP story, p. 8, R/G today in Eugene.) ------- "This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months...or cover the entire increase in your heating bills" --re his "windfall profits" tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs. (AP, R/G-Eugene, same page.) --------------- That would snatch back a share of windfall from gas companies for all suffering consumers, surely an appealing way to aid economy and control predation by corporations. Do you deny that has and continues to occur ? Makes one recall that strong election-question years ago: "Are you better off now than you were eight years ago ?" The answer here is obvious for 90 percent of all of us, even to anyone as confused as the comments here surely show.

Going Broke August 2, 2008 8:10 am (Pacific time)

As I said below "you just can't make up stuff like this." I have seen this statement by Senator Obama on CNN and MSNBC. I believe there are numerous online video's of this footage. I just grabbed the first link I came across (below). This is very pertinent to people who are struggling with the price of energy products, which is pretty much the majority of us. Another majority, in every poll I've seen so far, is that we want more domestic oil/gas production, which makes the below video very pertinent. Please be aware that I will only post controversial matters that have links. Thank you. Also if the below link does not work(it just did for me), try using a search engine dealing with Obama and tire pressure/tune-ups. http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=2171andstart=0andpostdays=0andpostorder=ascandhighlight=andsid=9ec9b4c8e0ddb5a3545536bd59eebbbe

Henry Ruark August 2, 2008 7:22 am (Pacific time)

G-B et al: Perhaps unwittingly, your key phrase is:"As things have been unfolding, it's obvious we have a political grab for power that is putting the American citizen is a very serious situation." That's perfect precise description of the past 8 years of Bush-cabal, per very numerous national press and Congressional reports. Single-quote cannot offset that record, esp. when it is very close to correct on fact, as documentation can prove. ID self to Editor Tim for PDF; will share here later, lost in shuffle closing out files.

Going Broke August 1, 2008 11:42 am (Pacific time)

You just cannot make up stuff like this [see below quote]. The below comment by Obama shows just how out of touch he is with those of us who are seriously impacted by high energy costs. Ask yourself, why isn't the House or Senate allowing a simple up or down vote on proposed energy legislation? Which presidential candidate can lose the most votes if this vote is allowed? As things have been unfolding, it's obvious we have a political grab for power that is putting the American citizen is a very serious situation. There will be many deaths coming that will be blamed on the price of gas, and energy in general. I hope some of you out there take off your blinders and see what is happening. It is political, and it is putting us all in danger.
OBAMA: " We could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and -- and -- and getting regular tune-ups, you can actually save just as much."

Editor: Please remember that this is the comment section and nothing is factual just because it is written.

Henry Ruark August 1, 2008 8:09 am (Pacific time)

To all: Dunno what kind of snuff or smoke or shot Erland is on, but find his comment here not only ridiculous but also self-degrading and deleterious to decent, honest, democratic dialg since it depends so heavily on completely obvious religious fanaticism distorted and perverted for his own surely non-religious purposes. Its use of degrading image and reference by damaging implication to U.S. leaders, regardless of their political passion, demeans and delimits real dialog here. I hope he broadens his questionable reading of Scripture without finding it necessary to implode and impossibilize its true meaning for others. In that he might thus find real salvation... He does us all and the author a disservice by this ranting outburst of personal persiflage and "potent" statement, the "potent" surely coming from "pot" of some kind, in this case: How else to interpret such rabid ranting here ? Freedom of speech always demands responsibility and accountability, eventually missing here since impossible to clearly define most of his distorted statements, but nevertheless still present despite cover name and no other credibility information.

Lewis Erland July 31, 2008 10:02 am (Pacific time)

I enjoyed the above article and today found a London Times article that compliments the commentary by Ken Ramey. The Times article goes on “When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: ‘Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?’ In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites. And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.” One of the more obvious aspects of the Obama phenomenon is that the media is conspiring to put this creature into the White House. They all seem to be in love with the idea of the first Black president. Critical questions about experience and his policies being typical far left socialism are considered “too rude” and even “racist.” Few reporters are reporting on what Obama says, or what he doesn’t say. The media is not only abdicating its responsibility to investigate Obama’s past and the anti-American hatred of his wife; they are actively enabling a completely unqualified individual to skate on into the office of the presidency, as a kind of Affirmative Action hire. It’s lucky some of us still read the foreign press on the Internet and we can still hear the little child pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. Ramey's background in military tactics and strategies is no doubt matched by Obama and most of the faculty found at San Francisco State (and most colleges/universities) that are inculcating the inexperienced, only adding layer after layer of misleading information, further stunting their ability to overcome their inability to view the world realistically.

Telford July 31, 2008 9:29 am (Pacific time)

What a read, very entertaining in a particular way.

Mark Berger July 31, 2008 1:15 am (Pacific time)

Great commentary, it is so ironic that the Republicans gained control of the religious vote back in the 80's. Democrats were sleeping at the wheel I'm afraid. It is important to note that the church's zealous support of GOP doctrine is a relatively new thing.

[Return to Top]