Michael Thurmond and the Case for Competence Over Charisma

In an era when political success is too often measured by who can generate the most viral clip or command the loudest applause, Michael Thurmond stands as a quiet rebuke to the spectacle. He is the rare figure in Georgia politics whose credibility comes not from theatrics but from decades of steady, unglamorous public service. And that, ironically, is why he’s both underestimated by some Democrats and quietly respected by many Republicans.

Thurmond is the kind of Democrat Republicans could tolerate in the Governor’s Mansion, not because he shares their ideology, but because he has earned a reputation for competence, pragmatism, and seriousness. He doesn’t posture. He doesn’t chase national attention. He doesn’t treat governing as a performance. In a polarized state, that alone sets him apart.

Yet within the Democratic party, Thurmond doesn’t always inspire the kind of emotional rush that modern campaigns seem to demand. He’s not a celebrity candidate. He’s not a social‑media phenomenon. He doesn’t fit the “vibes‑first” energy that excites certain corners of the Democratic base. But the fixation on charisma over capability has always been a political mirage, and Georgia’s recent elections have shown just how fragile that approach can be.

The truth is simple: vibes don’t win elections. Hard work, fortitude, and trust do.

And Thurmond has built a career on exactly those qualities.

He is one of the few Democrats who can move comfortably between constituencies that rarely overlap, rural Black voters, suburban moderates, business leaders, and longtime state employees who have watched him navigate government from the inside. He speaks the language of economic mobility and educational opportunity, not national culture wars. He understands the machinery of state government because he has spent years operating it, not critiquing it from afar.

That kind of credibility doesn’t trend on social media, but it does win over voters who want a governor, not a performer.

Georgia Democrats face a strategic crossroads. They can continue chasing candidates who generate excitement but struggle to expand the map, or they can look toward leaders who have built trust the slow, old‑fashioned way  by showing up, doing the work, and delivering results. Thurmond belongs firmly in the latter category.

He may not be the flashiest candidate
in the field, but he represents something increasingly rare in politics: a candidate defined by substance rather than spectacle. And in a state as divided and dynamic as Georgia, that might be exactly what leadership requires.

What A Obama Re-Election Would Mean for Sanford Bishop?

If President Obama is re-elected, what will mean for Congressman Sanford Bishop, who let's not forget was the co-chair for Obama's Campaign here in Georgia back in 2008. In addition Bishop has voted in favor of key domestic policies from President Barack Obama. For example, he voted in favor of the 2009 approximately $800 billion economic stimulus package & the hotly debated Healthcare Legislation, which caused him to sweat it out during his 2010 re-election bid which many, including me thought he had lost, only to wake up the next morning to find he squeaked out a victory.

Bishop is heavily favored to defeat John House, republican out of Muscogee County in the newly redrawn 2nd Congressional district which now includes the majority of Bibb County.

If President Obama wins re-election,  Bishop should be in line to become the next Secretary of Agriculture during a Obama second term..PERIOD! One of the knocks on Bishop back in 2008 when Obama was searching for a Ag Secretary was that he wasn't on record with a agricultural vision that addresses the production, trade and sustainability issues of the 21st century. I don't if that's true or not, but I don't buy it.

Bishop currently sits on the subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, as well as the powerful Appropriations Committee & one of the leading voices on Agriculture in Congress.

If not Secretary of Agriculture, then U.S. Ambassador to Cuba would be another option for President Obama. Why? The loosening of trade sanctions against the communist country will make it easier for America’s farmers and ranchers to sell their high-quality products.The political relationship between the United States and Cuba has been tense over the last 50 years. Yet, expanded efforts by both governments over the last decade suggest that U.S. farm exports could increase to the Caribbean island. The U.S. exported $4 billion in farm products, mostly feed stuffs, to Cuba from 2002 to 2008. About 95 percent of the total included corn, wheat, soybeans and soybean meal. The largest U.S. value-added product exported to Cuba is poultry......guess what? Bishop hails from one of, or if not the leading state in terms of Poultry Production, Georgia.

I don't know if any of this will materialize under a Obama second term, but given how Congressman Bishop has supported the majority of the president's policies, even at the risk of losing his seat 2years ago, he should reward him with a post in his administration. It would be the icing on the cake for a what has been a good legislative career for Bishop


 

Mitt Romney: Just a Average Candidate with Glaring Weaknesses

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney once again strode onto the world stage last week to weigh in on grave geo-political matters, and he promptly fell on his face. It is practically a campaign ritual at this point.
His ill-timed, misinformed attack on President Obama in the wake of anti-American violence on 9/11 at the American embassy in Cairo and consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is further evidence he may not be ready to assume the mantle of “leader of the free world.” The Libyan attack resulted in the deaths of U.S.Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.


Romney’s blundering is bad enough on its own. But this incident also reflects a broader plague infecting this nation’s political culture.

What is painfully obvious is that Romney’s instinctive reaction to the tragedy or at the very least the reaction of people close to him to whom he was more than willing to listen  was to quickly identify how it could be used on his behalf against Obama, and to strike immediately.

Romney may not have known about the deaths when he decided to try to score the obligatory cheap political points by claiming that the violence itself served as evidence of the president’s weakness as a leader, his failed foreign policy and his willingness to “apologize for American principles.

Romney should have known better than to pontificate while the situation was still volatile and facts were still coming in. And to say things that were patently untrue. Clearly, within Romney’s campaign, the embassy attacks most of all represented a chance to stick it to the President, regardless of the facts.

Aside from the fact that his comments further revealed an appallingly weak grasp of foreign policy, Romney was also reflecting the win-at-all-costs ethos poisoning both parties.

Now comes the comments Romney made about the 47% who are with President Obama, are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, etc... This is reminiscent of Obama's 2008 remark about rural voters cling to their guns & religion as nothing more than a psychological symptom or rationalization.

Now I've never been the biggest Obama cheerleader & he deserves some of the blame, along with republicans as to why this country hasn't moved a inch in 4 years, but right now I rather have him over Romney to lead this country for another 4 years. Romney weaknesses are now coming to light & his disdain for working class, low-income voters who are living paycheck to paycheck are clearly evident in that taped audio. At this juncture, Romney is not ready to become the leader of the free world. Its not too late for him to turn things around, but time's a wasting. Less that 50 days are remaining until Nov 7.

The Future of the New Deal & Great Society Programs after 2012 Elections

The 2012 campaign season is shaping up as a possible "transformational" election, but not the kind that Barack Obama and many Democrats had in mind.

Instead, it's a year when, if Democrats don't get their act together ASAP, they could suffer a trifecta of losses that will trigger further erosion of threatened New Deal and Great Society legacies and fulfill many conservatives' longtime dreams.
Many Democrats still seem smugly assured that, in the end, voters would never, EVER give GOPers control of all three branches of government given the rhetorical overkill of the party's talk show political culture, Congressional Republicans' political obstructionism, the continued enabling of Twilight Zone-like birtherism, plus Republicans' alienation of Latinos, many women voters, gays — and seeming disdain for moderates and America's "sensible center."
Among the many questions posed about the 2012 there are these three:

Two are a) whether the center is still "sensible" (centrists, moderates and some independents will ask) or b) whether the center was ever sensible (liberals and conservatives who consider the center mushy, unrealistic, lacking principles, and uninformed will ask). Polls vary, but most find that in terms of party identification the electorate is largely tied between Democrats and Republicans who need swing "undecided" voters to win.

A third question is whether 2008 will prove to be a fluke, merely a single Democratic Party volume wedged between two Republican Party bookends, a victory largely due to multiple-level Bush administration failures and the financial meltdown. If so, it means GOPers are destined for complete political control of the Supreme Court and that the mostly Republican dominance of Presidential elections since LBJ's exit continues.
Right now some analysts say Obama could become another Truman. Some Republicans say he's another Jimmy Carter. But Obama may generate "another Obama" that pundits and historians will use in the future. Exactly what "another Obama" means will emerge on Election Day.

So will the Democrats win despite themselves? Will some liberals really stay home because there was no public option in Obamacare? Will they forget about the Supreme Court (again)? Which party will swing voters hate the least and hold their noses and vote for? Will Republican Party unity combined with Super PAC bankrolling support make America's first African-American President just another fired one-term President?

If so, it will be another instance of life again seemingly imitating TV art, as the Democrats on election day would wake up to see the New Deal and Great Society more on the way out than ever, and find themselves epitomizing the name of another TV show: "The Biggest Loser."

50/50 Obama gets re-elected..But what If President Obama DOES get Re-Elected in November?

Hmmmm......, as we learned in 2010 and as we’re learning to some extent during the early month of the 2012 election cycle, the Tea Party has also caused the party to go off on bizarre tangents at times and to take insane stands like appearing to be willing to take the nation to the brink of financial chaos back in August. The “no compromise” position that the Tea Party represents may be good for internal party consumption and it may make the true believers happy, but it’s not good government and it’s probably not a good long term political strategy. A loss in 2012 that gets pinned on the movement would likely re-energize the “establishment” and more traditional conservatives in the party and cause a backlash against some of the more radical elements of the Tea Party. In the long run, this would probably be good for the GOP.


If President Obama wins it will almost certainly be with less electoral votes and percentage of the popular vote than 2008, making him the first president to win reelection with less votes since Woodrow Wilson back in 1916. What would President Obama be able to do in his second term? He's been politically impotent since January 2011 and there's no reason to think that this election year will be different. With 23 of the of the 33 senate seats up for reelection in 2012 held by Democrats the Senate you can it's almost likely to be held by Republicans. The only possible Democratic pickups would be in Massachusetts and Nevada. Many of these Democratically held seats are open in 2012 due to retirements. It's possible for Democrats to take back the House but they need to gain 26 seats to do so.

Although it seems bleak for the president, there is an awful lot that he can accomplish using one simple tool: The Presidential Veto. A re-elected President Obama COULD veto any extension of the Bush Tax Cuts, but that'll hurt the economic recovery, oversee the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, around 2014, he could call for changes to the HealthCare Bill..let's face it, that bill will not be repealed, despite all the tough talk by those on the right & he and can start high profile fights with Republicans over issues like the closing of Guantanamo, the federal budget, and the future of entitlement programs. Obama's second term would be marked by his ability to ironically prevent change. His re-election will prevent the privatization of Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, which is one of the top goals of the GOP. With the political center being so wide open, the president should drop anchor there while the hard left & the hard right battle it out, tearing each other apart....The odds are against the president winning re-election, but its very possible that he will win a second term.

Barack Obama: The obstructionist for Republican change.

The Tea Party will re-elect Barack Obama in 2012?

And here's why:

If Barack Obama is somehow able to win reelection, the Tea Party should be on his list for a thank you note. President Obama’s prospects for reelection are decidedly mixed, but better than we’d expect given all else in the environment.

The economy is terrible, unemployment is high, and President Obama’s approval rating is extremely low. Normally, this bodes badly for a president seeking reelection, although in this case, Obama’s approval rating is still much higher than the ratings for Congress or the Republican Party. The Tea Party deserves some of the credit.

At least two Tea Party achievements are now helping the president: By invigorating the Republican Party’s base and helping it make huge gains in the 2010 elections, activists have been able to pressure members of Congress to work on their agenda....an agenda that isn’t very popular with the rest of the country.

The Republican Party in Congress is now comprised of people elected with Tea Party support, others who fear being challenged in primaries by Tea Partiers. The House passed Rep. Paul Ryan’s model budget, which would slash both taxes and government and turn Medicare into a voucher program. Policy merits (or de-merits) aside, it’s awful politics. Republicans turned the debt ceiling debate into a debacle, and are now blocking an extension of the reduced payroll tax on working Americans to protect low rates on–really–millionaires.

Tea Party enthusiasts are still disappointed. Others are scared. And the Republicans need a presidential candidate to beat Barack Obama. Without discussing intelligence and integrity at this point, candidates for the Republican nomination have created the weakest field of hopefuls in my opinion in either party for generations.

The party out of power wants to nominate a presidential candidate who can win elections, and has demonstrated that ability in the past, preferably by winning big elections. Practically, this means governors and senators, preferably from large and/or swing states. Among the top tier of candidates, only Mitt Romney (Massachusetts) and........ Rick Perry (Texas), yes Rick Perry qualify on this front, and Governor Perry has disappointed as a campaigner so you can almost stick a fork in him. Ex-Governor & Ex--U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman (Utah) have generated minimal support, but he out of all the GOP candidates is the most well-positioned to take on President Obama & win because he doesn't come off as a scary, or a loon or too hardcore for voters who are independent/moderate.

Meanwhile, the rest of the field has included Herman Cain, a radio host who could have surprised political pols had not been for the various women who came out against him who alleged he had either sexual harassed them or affairs with them, former Senator Rick Santorum, who had been at the bottom of the barrel has found new life in a new polls showing him surging with the Iowa Caucuses only 5 days away, & two sitting members of the House, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul), and a former Speaker of the House Newton "Newt" Gingrich who was forced to resign in disgrace by his own party more than a decade ago & someone who I said could give Obama a run for his money if he somehow makes it to the general election.

The Tea Party mobilization within the Republican Party scared off or silenced many establishment Republicans, and nourished several weak and improbable candidates. It has also moved the entire debate far to the right, with candidates trying to cultivate the enthusiasm demonstrated by Tea Partiers.

Because he started organizing and fundraising early, and because he has been willing to pander to the Tea Party, Governor Romney has survived all of this, but left little space and money for anyone else from the party establishment. Romney has been unable to increase his support, and thus far, no one else has been able to topple him.

While journalists and political junkies may fantasize about the excitement of a brokered convention, it’s likely that one of the candidates still in the field will win the nomination through the primary process. If it’s Governor Romney, he will be a less than inspiring choice for the Tea Partiers and some evangelicals at the Republican base, but he will have made enough pandering statements to them to fill the ads of his Democratic opponents.

Any of the other Republican candidates would be substantially weaker in a general election. Either way, the Tea Party has had the perverse effect of helping the electoral prospects of its prime target.

GGW (GOP Gone Wild): What's their Real Goal?

Every since the 2010 elections in which the GOP won 60+ seats in the House of Representatives, the GOP have pretty much blocked, delayed, or stalled anything the president puts forward to try to get this economy moving again.

Every since last year's elections, the GOP (Grand 'Ol Party) ideology has harden to extreme levels to the point that "Compromise" is now a dirty word in Republican Circles.

So my question is what is exactly the republican's goal here?

They say its to reduce the deficit (which many agree), cut spending (yep) & reform entitlements (ok), but today’s Republican Party instead is holding our country’s fiscal solvency hostage in order to achieve radical ideological and political goals.

The ideological motivation for hardline conservatives here is that they think they finally have within their grasp their dream of drowning in the bathtub; any portion of government that benefits the middle class, working class, or poor. They have long wanted to get rid (or drastically) Medicare, Social Security, investments in infrastructure and education, and the social safety net, but they know that such steps would be politically disastrous for them. So, Republicans have spent the past 30 years driving up deficits in order to create a situation where voters feel that we “must” destroy government programs in order to restore fiscal sanity.

Now I admit, government has gotten way too big & have made a mess of things here in the U.S. but why would you hit SS, Medicare, things that many are relying on in today's weak economy?

Now I haven't been a been a supporter of the president & some of his policies, but Im going to come to his defense here: Under Republican presidents, they have drove the deficits up during the Reagan and Bush 41 & 43 Administrations by then record numbers & now it seems that the years prior to 2008 didn't exist & now UN-OH look our deficit is spiraling out of control under president Obama. Yes the president has added to a already skyrocketing deficit & debt, but you need to acknowledge that all this got started long before Obama got into the White House.

Rep. Paul Ryan’s Path to Poverty plan devotes all of the “savings” from abolishing Medicare and cutting social programs to further reductions in taxes for the wealthy, rather than to deficit reduction. And that is why the Republicans are opposing a balanced approach to deficit reduction that involves both spending cuts and revenue increases and, instead, pushing for a “Cut, Cap, and Balance” approach that involves $5.5 trillion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and discretionary social spending, and zero in new revenue. The way I loom at it, their priority is destroying government, not reducing the deficit.

The GOP’s pathological intransigence is also motivated by the cold economic calculation that a bad economy bodes well for their desire to defeat President Obama in 2012. That is why from the day that President Obama took office in January 2009, the Republicans have done everything they can to prevent job creation, including weakening the stimulus bill, (who depending who you ask work or didn't work) filibustering TANF and extended unemployment benefits, refusing to approve non-controversial appointees to important positions in the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve, and opposing tax relief to small businesses and a temporary cut in payroll taxes that they supported before Obama was President. And in 2010, the GOP campaigned on jobs, but they still have yet to propose any legislation that would create actual jobs. And then they rattled the economy and the markets by pushing our nation to the brink of having to default on its debt. As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has made clear, the Republicans’ number one priority is not job creation or economic recovery but, instead, is to try to ensure that President Obama is defeated in 2012. Holding the debt ceiling increase hostage in the name of dismantling our government is a critical part of the GOP’s attempt to achieve that goal.

In short, the GOP has walked away from the debt ceiling negotiations because their goals are destroying government and defeating President Obama, not because they want to reduce the deficit. It is sad that today’s GOP has put their ideological hatred of government that helps anyone but the rich, and their dislike of our President, love him or hate him is trying his best!

Lyndon Johnson in '68....Barack Obama in '12?

An unpopular Vietnam War, Partisan Divisions in Congress & among the American People, Economic Woes & the rise of the anti-War New Left & Neo-Liberalism were reasons Lyndon Johnson decided not to seek re-election in 1968

Are a worsening Economy, rising Unemployment, sinking poll numbers, exrteme partisan divide in Congress & among the American People where the word 'compromise' has become a dirty word, deep animosity towards his presidency & the rise of the anti-government Tea Party will be reasons president Obama decides not to run for re-election? Not in a million years, but you have to wonder..........

President Obama: The Least Respected President in our Lifetime?

President Obama will go down as the least respected president in our lifetime.

President Barack Obama wanted to deliver his economic speech to the joint session of Congress next Wednesday. House Speaker John Boehner, told him no. He'll have to do it on the 8th. Boehner cited a scheduling conflict, but the real "conflict" appears to be the GOP presidential debate scheduled for the same date. The president has been forced to capitulate and will now have to compete with the opening night of the NFL season for viewers.

What may seem like a minor slight underscores the crux of the problem in Washington: A blatant, sustained and unabashed disrespect of the president of the United States of America.

And it is historic.

Never in our nation's history has a president been publicly denied access to the chamber for an address, according to the House historian.

This is just the latest in a string of eyebrow-raising and even historic slights..

And for those who want to say it's just partisan politics as usual, or just the kind of thing that goes with being an unpopular president, let's consider a few lowlights:

The "You lie!" shout from South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson during the president's speech on health care reform before the joint session of Congress in Sept. 2009

The recent posturing, walk-outs and tantrums thrown over the debt ceiling debate, which eventually led to our country's credit being downgraded.

Newt Gingrich referring to the president as "the food stamp president" and saying that Pres. Obama "knows how to get the whole country to resemble Detroit


Congressman Mitch McConnell's bold proclamation that he wants to be Senate Majority Leader to make sure that Obama is a one-term president.

Rush Limbaugh saying that he wants to see this president fail. (Note: Limbaugh has modified that statement to say he meant his "policies." But when it was said, it was less than a year into Obama's presidency and he was still cleaning up the mess from the previous president's policies, which Limbaugh had very little to say about during the Bush era).

Former Fox News host Glenn Beck declaring on the air that the president hates white people" and "the white culture."

Television personality Donald Trump's over-the-top taunting of the president, hyping unprecedented demands to see the president's birth certificate.

The shouts of "We want our country back!" by the Tea Party. (Where has it gone?)

And the frequent habit of not calling the president by his proper honorific: "President Obama", rather than just "Obama" -- by quite a few elected officials, pundits and others.

The question among some of us who love this country and want to see it succeed is what is all of this really all about? Because it just seems as if there is a pissing contest going on, but the only ones getting wet are the American people; many of whom are suffering through the worst economy of their lives.

Some may call this obstructionism. But I think there's something else going on here. And despite what many people are saying, there is also a 'Racial Undercurrent" to this as well, make no mistake about it, (so much for a post racial society). But if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...

At the very least it's un-American. Because while all of this is going on, Americans are suffering.
This shouldn't be about President Obama. All 535 lawmakers who were sent to Washington to make a difference must ask themselves this question: is opposing everything this president does for the sake of opposition, or worse for a more insidious reason, helping this nation get back on her feet?

If the answer is no, then they need to knock it off. And if they're not going to do it, it's time for the silent majority to do it for them. Enough is enough!

Is Racism the Driving Force behind all of the Birther/Obama Talk?

I don't dwell on National Politics that often, but I have to give my two cents on this Obama Birther debate

By now, everyone has heard of the birthers, that rabid crop of self-appointed patriots who insist that Barack Hussein Obama is not a legitimate president because he is not really an American citizen. What was once a nasty little rumor in the early days of the presidential race has since evolved into a full-blown conspiracy theory whose proponents, though "viewed as irrelevant by the White House, and as embarrassing by much of the Republican Party,

I would give birthers, those folks behind the oft-debunked claim President Obama was not born in the U.S., credit for being as persistent as they are ignorant. But folks with common sense, a trait birthers not only lack but seem unable to imitate, are helping to make their job easier.

Because really all the Birther movement seeks to do is continue spreading smoke where there was never fire. The longer good folks debunk the claims the further the political winds will spread this smoke.


The movement reminds me of the 9/11 Truthers who sought to not just blame President George W. Bush politically for the September 11 attacks but also convince the world that he was involved in the planning of them. The big difference is Truthers weren’t getting elected to state houses.

The comments made by some of these people are ignorant, cruel and vicious, going so far as to even attack the Obama children. Only a &$@#!%&*())EW@!(* would attack a child out of stupidity and hatred making it uncalled for, not to mention unacceptable.

Yesterday President Obama released his birth certificate, which I hope will end this nonsense that started back during the 2008 campaign by a democrat who was supporting Hillary Clinton. But let's be real, if you expect this to end, you wrong. Now expect these same people like Donald Trump for instance to veer in another direction (asking for Obama's college transcripts), while some will think that its a fake certificate.

We've had the likes of State Rep Mark Hatfield (R-Waycross) sponser a bill that would have required the president to show his birth certificate in order to appear on the ballot here in Georgia in 2012, even gov-elect Nathan Deal was in the birther camp while a member of Congress. Is he satisfied with the certificate released by the W.H. yesterday?

The fact remains that Obama is an American citizen by birth. Those who insist on disputing this fact are hiding behind it in order to camouflage their own bigotry and/or hatred. Shameful behavior such as this only goes to prove that the agendas of the Birthers, Teabaggers and other so called Conservatives are not about policy but about individuals that are not white and/or straight and how those who are different are not acceptable to what they deem a perfect world.

Perhaps it is too obvious to say that the birthers’ insistence on Obama’s illegitimacy is based on racism. Even so, why isn’t this collective racism at the heart of the debate?

After all, Americans have seen what happens when people of color dare to suggest that the country is anything but perfect: they are ruthlessly attacked. Take the rage over Michelle Obama’s remark during the presidential campaign that "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country," which was treated as unpatriotic hate speech. Or the controversy prompted by Eric Holder’s remark that we are a "nation of cowards" when it comes to race.

From "Barack the Magic Negro" to e-mails depicting watermelons in front of the White House, to a image of Obama as a witch doctor, incidents like these were common during the '08 campaign. as well as people yelling terrorist at Sarah Palin rallies during the presidential campaign. Mainstream Republicans who wish to look respectable may want (some have) distance themselves from this lunatic fringe.

By now it seems everyone has put in their two cents (and then some) about the birthers. But while most media coverage has treated them as incurable wackjobs, hacks, pushing a conspiracy theory and the larger group of Americans who believed 9/11 was an inside job, the truth of Obama’s birth seems to fall into a slightly different category. Like all conspiracy theories, it springs from the fertile soil of collective denial.

A reader of Peanut Politics mentioned in a email i got that unlike all conspiracy theories, it thrives on a deep-rooted, racist belief that a black man with a foreign name could never have won the presidency in the United States through anything other than trickery, deception, or fraud.

The facts are this" PRESDIENT OBAMA IS A US CITIZEN! HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII, NOT KENYA, INDONESIA OR ANY OTHER FOREIGN COUNTRY! HAWAII BECAME PART OF THE US IN 1959, OBAMA WAS BORN IN HONOLULU IN 1961! CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!

For those who don't believe it, well, I'll just say a prayer for you when I'm in church on sunday.

Obama's Citizenship Status makes it way to the Georgia Legislature

Time to tell it like it is.............

Once again, the President’s citizenship are up for debate, this time by State Rep Mark Hatfield (R-Waycross) who filed a bill yesterday to require the president & vice -president to show proof of their US Citizenship before being placed on the ballot here in Georgia in 2012. And what makes it so sad is that 94 Georgia State GOP Reps signed onto this non-sense! This so-called issue has really worn out its welcome, yet it persists, a tumor that continues to eat away at the President’s legitimacy in the eyes of his detractors. One thing I don’t think anyone would call it is an example of people having a right to their own opinion.

It has been said, many times, that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion but not his or her own facts. The President’s citizenship AND his religious beliefs are what they are. There is no debate here, you may have a right to your own opinion, but to cling to a mistaken notion is to willingly believe something that is not true. In spite of this simple concept, House Speaker David Ralston, said he would not stop committee-level debate of a bill to require President Barack Obama to provide proof of his American birth in order to get on the ballot next year. I should hope that an honest republican elected public official would do his best to set the record straight.

I consider telling the truth and the ability to educate the public to be valuable assets in a public official.

Again, this is not an objectionable claim (though one could debate whether Republicans have effectively listened to their constituents over the years). But when many loud, obnoxious public figures and angry citizens falsely accuse the President of being a secret Muslim outsider who illegally obtained his position and plans to transform the country into some socialist utopia, one has to wonder when politicians on the right will finally stand up and keep the discourse sensible.

Of course, there is a very real political motive at work here, as such false notions eat away at the President’s clout and motivate an angry hive of potential Republican voters eager to oust the so-called "Manchurian candidate" in 2012. By allowing this false information to persist, Republicans implicitly suggest that the President is lying. The 94 Republican politicians are allowing themselves to go on record as not being part of the insanity of the so-called “birther” movement while still acting as if it is a legitimate alternative viewpoint.

Ignorance should be confronted, and the truth should come first. Only then can meaningful debate occur. But if the goal is to win cheap political victories and to keep real issues out of the spotlight, then the logical thing to do is encourage and advance this ignorance.

Now despite my disapproval with the president on some things he has done as president, President Obama made a big deal out of trying to be post-partisan and uniting the country. Rather than demonize him by using the very same partisan tricks that he made every effort to rise above, perhaps the 94 Republicans that signed on to this bill can try being responsible for once and not even consider such a vote. Keep such miniscule, non-issues out of the public discourse.

By allowing these rumors and misconceptions to thrive, Georgia Republicans are not contributing to a stronger, more united country that stands with its President and can have mature discussions about the issues that really matter. These emotional, instinctive and unsupported arguments distract and divide in a time when the country, as well as the state desperately needs to move forward

This is not the kind of leadership that Hatfield & the 94 republican co-sponsors should be displaying when so many citizens have decided to give his party a chance to turn things around.

Hatfield calls himself a "CONSTITUTIONALIST", NOT A Birther. Mr Hatfield by filing such ridiculous piece of legislation such as requiring proof of citizenship by the president & vice-president (let's keep it real here, this is all about the president & nothing else), you officially make yourself a BIRTHER! Plain & Simple. Bobby Franklin, you are in the same boat.

This man has been president for 3 years 7 we are still talking about whether or not he is a citizen of the US. Obama was born in 1962 in Honolulu, Hawaii. Hawaii became a state (59th) in 1959. So case closed! But for some reason those on the lunatic fringe of the right continue to say that he was born in Kenya, hell some have said that he was born in Indonesia. Enough Already! And you can well expect Hatfield to appear on a few national shows such as Fox News, PBS, CNN, etc.

The Audacity of Republican Hypocrisy

In his book "What's the Matter With Kansas?", which is a must read, historian Thomas Frank described how conservatives use social issues such as gay marriage to divert attention from other issues and drum up popular support for conservative causes. The outcome of the recent midterm provides another chapter in the book. Even before President Barack Obama took office, several prominent and highly paid conservative talk show hosts said that they hoped he would be a "failure." Since that time, they and others have served up an unending frenzy of distortions and fear-mongering aimed at furthering their personal, financial or political interests.

Republicans are attacking Obama for the very positions and policies their party recently embraced

The nation has been told that Mr. Obama is a "socialist" and a would-be dictator, largely on the basis of the so-called "individual mandate" in the health care bill. That ignores the fact that the individual mandate was first proposed by Republicans and the conservative Heritage Foundation as a more market-oriented alternative to a government-run, single-payer system. Back in 1993, 20 Republican senators introduced the Health Equity and Access Reform Act, which the respected, nonpartisan Kaiser Foundation, a health care study group, has shown in a side-by-side comparison to have striking similarities to the health care bill passed last year. Both have an individual mandate. Both ban exclusions for pre-existing conditions, call for insurance exchanges and offer subsidies for those who cannot afford to buy policies.

Even more on point is the insurance mandate program put in place in Massachusetts by then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney. That many polls have Mr. Romney as the front-runner for the Republican Party nomination for 2012 at the very time that the Obama program was being opposed by every single Republican member of Congress is testimony to the intellectual dishonesty created by partisan politics. The four Republican co-sponsors of the 1993 individual mandate who are still in the Senate, and even Mr. Romney (who the libertarian Cato Institute cited as having created the "prototype" for the Obama program) now rail against the same principle they had proposed and that Mr. Romney signed into law. And most recently, the language in the Republicans' Pledge to America used to describe an alternative agenda to the president's could easily have been given in any Obama speech during last year's debate.

The nation has been told that Mr. Obama is a reckless spender and he is slammed for the TARP program, the auto company bailouts and the stimulus. That the TARP program was created by President George W. Bush, and that work on the auto industry bailout and a stimulus program began in the closing days of the Bush administration, has been lost in the din of battle. Most of the same members of the opposition who denounce the cost of the Obama program voted for the Bush prescription drug benefit that is now projected to cost more than $1 trillion. The Obama program is also now projected to cost $1 trillion, but the Congressional Budget Office "projects" that, unlike Mr. Bush's drug program, Mr. Obama's plan should decrease the federal budget deficit over 10 years. We'll see about that

Remember, too, that the same opposition that warns against the cost of Mr. Obama's health care program approved, almost without any debate, funds for the ill-conceived invasion of Iraq, which is now projected to cost at least $2 trillion to $3 trillion when all costs are taken into account. These same budget deficit hawks became the first in American history to cut taxes in a time of war, funding the wars on borrowed money. They are the same people who inherited a large budget surplus and produced eight successive years of large budget deficits and a collapsed economy, which they handed off to Mr. Obama

Like any government official, President Obama should be subject to criticism. Bringing health care up during the middle of an extreme financial crisis was certainly bad politics, for which principle he and the Democrats are paying a very, very heavy price for. Whether the health care program or the financial regulation overhaul will work are open questions (although the verdicts on TARP and the auto bailout seem favorable). Whether unemployment would be much higher or whether the economy would have collapsed without the stimulus are also open questions.

The political system is, in fact, dysfunctional and in need of massive change, as many of the voices of frustration and outrage rightly declaim. However, if that change is to take the form of a hypocritical opposition that says or does anything to regain a majority, and if public discourse is to be led by those who use half-truths, ad hominem attacks and hysteria, then heaven help us

FEAR: Why the GOP needs it & Why they can't function without it!

Fear is a tool that is used far too often in politics. Both major parties use fear from time to time, but it seems that Republicans use fear way too often as a tool to manipulate us, and more importantly, they lie about what to fear.

They want you to fear the foreign government that is going to come here and kill us. Now this is something that we should always be mindful of as a nation, but we shouldn’t be making widespread lies to strike fear into the hearts of Americans so that we can invade and occupy a nation for a decade that hasn’t done anything to us. They go on TV and tell you that this guy has biological weapons and this guy has nukes and if you don’t elect us, these evil doers will come to your home town and erase it from the map. They used this fear tool so effectively in 2004 & again in 2010.

They want you to fear the Muslims even though they say Islam is not a religion of hate. They talk about Islamic Extremists every chance they get. Do they ever call any other extremist group or terrorist organization by their religion the way they do with Muslims? No. They want to keep making sure that you hear “Muslim” or “Islamic” every time something bad happens to justify their actions in the middle east. They never once referred to Tim McVeigh as a “Christian Terrorist” even though he said after the bombings that he was doing “Gods work”. They never once referred to Dr Tillers murderer as a “Christian Extremist” even though the only reason he murdered Dr Tiller was because of a difference in religious beliefs & plus he was doing abortions. The other reason the want you afraid of Islam and Muslims directly leads to the next thing they want you to fear…..President Obama. Now Im not defending all the president has done, some things I agree with him on, some things I do not agree with, but this whole thing about fearing the president is getiing old & its getting old fast.

They constantly try to tie Obama with Islam because if they already have you afraid of Muslims, and they get you to believe Obama is a Muslim, (even with all of the evidence that he is no muslim, he a christian) then you will naturally fear him. What amazes me about the fear tools they use when it comes to the President is that they equate him to a Muslim because they know they have you all ginned up on Islam, but then they say he’s a Communist or a Marxist.

How many Muslim KGB agents do you ever recall hearing about? They, when it comes to Obama, want you to fear any number of things that aren’t true.

Fear that he’s a Muslim. Not true!

Fear that he’s a Communist. Not true!

Fear that he will take your guns away. (Well, I'm still skeptical about that when it comes to the president).

Fear that he will tax you into the poor house. Not true! (Although there's no doubt that he wants to raise taxes in order to help pay for the controversial Healthcare Legislation & pay down this debt & deficit).

Fear that he will crush small businesses with his policies. Not true!

But in the Republican world, it doesn’t matter if its true or not. All that matters is if they can get you to fear it, because if they can get you afraid of it, you will vote against it. And if you vote against it, they will have the power.

They want you to fear the economy. How many times does Glenn Beck push gold right after telling you that the Democratic government is destroying the dollar and your bank accounts will be worth nothing in the very near future? They tell you the economy is going to completely collapse and that you need gold as a purchasing tool, and an emergency seed stash to plant a garden for when the supermarket shelves will be bare. The fear is based on the one thing everyone wants and needs…money. The ironic part is that while Glenn Beck is telling you the economy is collapsing, he is getting richer… off of fear. And I used to like & watch Glenn Beck, when he was on CNN Headline News before going to Fox where he has gone off the deep end, I guess to get ratings & to cater to the fringe of the GOP.

They want you to fear that which isn’t like them… homosexuals, women who have thoughts of their own and anyone who doesn’t long for the good old days of the 1950s. They want you to fear that if a homosexual couple gets married, then your marriage won’t mean anything. They want you to fear that if homosexuals adopt kids, then those kids will be homosexual too. Now I don't support those of the same sex getting married, nor civil unions, but there are better things they need to be doing then to ostracize the Gay & Lesbian Community. They want you to fear a woman’s right to choose, and to be honest with you, I can’t figure out why. Regardless what people like myself who are pro-life think, its a woman's right! Its her body & only she knows what's right her, not us. They want you to fear anyone who doesn’t think like you because apparently the last 400 years hasn’t shown them that different groups of people that do not have anything in common other than a desire to be free can come together to live in peace and prosperity.

They want to use fear to keep you from voting against them. They want you to believe that they have all of the answers and the Democrats do not so you should fear the Democrats. Democrats use fear as well. The difference between what Democrats tell you to fear and what Republicans tell you to fear is that the fear the Democrats speak of is real. Democrats want you to fear putting a party back in power that took a record surplus and turned it into a record deficit, led us into the worst recession in 80 years and was the cause of millions of jobs being lost in this country.

That is real fear when it comes to the economy.

Democrats want you to fear putting a party back in control that wages war for its friends to be able to profit, costing thousands of American lives and billions of American dollars. Think if the GOP where to win back the senate in 2012, along with the White House, LORD HAVE MERCY! That’s is real fear when it comes to foreign policy. Democrats want you to fear putting a party back in power that oppresses homosexuals, women and minorities. That’s real fear on the domestic front, not that the President is this Muslim Communist born in Kenya, which the birthers want you to believe, which is untrue, with radical Christian views on social justice. Which, by the way, doesn’t make sense at all.

Don’t buy the fear the Republicans are peddling. Now let me say, all republicans do not use this tactic. I have friends who are republicans who are more centrist-oriented & they don't say or do the things some republicans love to do. But back to what I was saying, they want you to be afraid so you will vote them back into power. The real fear that Americans should be feeling is about returning to the ineffective, destructive policies and actions of the last 8 years… or even worse… if the next wave of Republicans are even more right wing than the last bunch that just got elected last year. Those would be known as the Teapartiers… and that is what I really fear.

There was a fear that the country was going to veer to the hard left after the 2008 elections, now there is a fear that a select group of republicans are trying to veer the country off to the far -right & that's something that doesn't need to happen. The U.S have always been a center/center-right country. No need to cater to the extremes of both parties.

Angry GOPers

This can be applied to democrats as well, but I wanted to focus on the GOP for a minute.

Anger! Everyday whether its on the television, radio internet, blogs, newspaper editorials, that's all I see/hear at the moment.

So why are republicans so angry? Why do they sound so angry, despite regaining control of Congress?

They just don’t argue with Democrats; they vilify them. Instead of disagreeing with President Obama’s policies, they call him a Hitler, a Stalin, a terrorist, a socialist, a communist, the anti-Christ, someone who hates whites - the list is endless. Republicans spew the same kind of ravenous rage towards Nancy Pelosi (who Im no fan of) and other prominent Democrats.





Why?



People say politics is a contact sport. Maybe it is. But the way Republicans approach it it is not a sport. In athletic sports we insist you follow the rules and that you respect the winner. Well, the winner is Barack Obama. At the very beginning of this administration, Rush Limbaugh, the titular hear of the Republican Party, said he wanted Obama to fail. Even the luminaries on Fox News immediately followed his lead, spitting daily invective against Obama, Democrats and anything even remotely related to Democrats. Republican legislators in Congress followed suit.



Pundits say it has always been this way. No, it has not always been this way. Sure, during election season the parties would throw dirt at each other. But after winners were chosen, the mud-slinging would diminish. There was a certain amount of respect each side had for the other side.



But in the last decade or so, Republicans have become emotional and irrational. Since Obama's election, Republicans have become hysterical. Just listen to the ridiculous stuff spouted by Limbaugh's lieutenants: Palin, Beck and Bachmann.



Why are Republicans hysterically angry? Why do people, in general, get angry? Because things do not work out the way they expected. Or because they don't know what to do in a crisis. Or because they realize that what they believed all their life is not true; this is sometimes called congnitive dissonance.



It seems to me that Republicans are faced with cognitive dissonance. Ever since Reagan, they believed in 2 immutable "laws":



1. Deregulation will produce a booming economy.



2. Tax cuts will increase government revenue





That's it!

Do deregulation produce a booming economy? In some cases yes & no.

So I did a little research & I found that the telecommunications and airlines industries were more successfully deregulated. This allowed more competition, and eventually lower prices for these services. However, many companies that could no longer compete went out of business, which had a negative effect on the economy.

On the other hand however, fraud occurred with a company called Enron, which essentially ended any further efforts to deregulate. Enron's fraud also hurt investors' confidence in the stock market, and led to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

But back to the topic:

Although they may not admit it, some Republicans who have a brain can see that neither of these two "laws" is true. It should be obvious to them by now that sticking to these two "laws" was a big cause, perhaps the most important cause, of the current terrible economic depression, the worst since the 1930s. When Democrats denounce deregulation and tax cuts for the rich, Republicans have no rational retort. Their emotions run wild and crazy. They go ballistic criticizing Democrats.

To my angry Republican friends I say, Calm down and start using your head. It may help you build a more rational Republican program. If they took some of the anger out of their rhetoric maybe it'll increase their chances of picking up more African-Americans & regain the trust of the Hispanic Vote because they don't realize it, but that kind of spewing rhetoric makes some folks uneasy about becoming a republican, let alone voting for a republican

Look & Listen very closely to Deal.

We all know that Deal is a Birther, something he denies. Here's one of the mailings that Deal says is a negative attack on him. Well if you put 2 & 2 together, you'll see that the dots are connected. Look at the mailing & the youtube video in which he questions Obama's place of Birth.

Gallup Poll: Bill Clinton More Popular Than Barack Obama

Former President Bill Clinton is currently more well-liked by Americans than both of his successors. Sixty-one percent view him favorably, compared with 52% for President Barack Obama and 45% for former President George W. Bush.

Bill Clinton 61% Overall, 30% Republicans 60% Independents 89% Democrats
Barack Obama 52% Overall 17% Republicans 50% Independents 86% Democrats
George Bush 45% Overall 85% Republicans 37% Independents 22% Democrats

Democrats view Clinton and Obama similarly, but independents and Republicans have more positive views of Clinton than of Obama. Partisan impressions of Bush and Obama are mirror images. Independents, however, view Bush less favorably than Obama (37% vs. 50%).

This is the first time in Gallup polling that Clinton's favorable rating exceeds Obama's. Clinton's rating has increased considerably since the 2008 presidential election campaign (and before Hillary Clinton assumed the role of secretary of state), rising to 61% from 52% in August 2008

So if you Mike Thurmond, Roy Barnes, Carol Porter, Doug Heckman, Russell Edwards, it'll be wise to enlist the help of the former president in your bids for office.

President Obama continue to sink among his Liberal Co-Horts.

BUYER'S REMORSE FOLKS, BUYER'S REMORSE!


The Blog Middle Class Populist, a blog run by a Progressive, Independent Liberal Democrat is critical of the president for cuddling to republicans & destroying the mandate given to him by the "Silent Majority".

This is the death of your Presidency and the agenda of we the middle class who put you in power, says blogger Brian at Middle Class Populist.

Here are some of the chiefs complaints:


Letting right wing nut cases go on and on about death panels without pointing out the agenda of their corporate masters earned you the low numbers you have Mr. President!

Making a milk toast attempt at Green Technology while giving AIG 180 Billion. We only put 45 Billion in infrastructure repair.

Allowing right wing idiots to STEAL the “golden goose”, that is the behavior of Goldman Sachs and friends and making Democrats perceived to be their friends while Republicans play the ally of Main Street! My God that takes real stupidity Mr. President. But then again you have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid at your side. We should have had non-stop Congressional hearings to rouse public indignation! Oh no but we want to sing Kumbayah with the Republicans!

Republicans are acting like they are the ones who can create jobs! But today they stopped dead an extension of unemployment insurance. This could be a great teaching moment for Obama to take to the waves! But oh no we would not want to do that now would we Mr. President!


Americans want a President who if he cannot fix the problem immediately then at least acts with emotion and kicks some corporate asses! If he survives to a second term and we Democrats maintain the operation of Congress then in his last year or two he can be more above the clouds. At least unleash Vice President Biden to blast the right like Nixon’s VP Agnew blasted the left.

Well there it is! If he's losing his base, then he's as good as gone unless things turn around quickly. I say he gets challenged in 2012, or he decides to forgo re-election altogether. This is too much, too fast for the president. When you elect a unknown to the highest office in the land, you better hope things work out for the best. I bet if most of these democrats had to do over, they'll elect Hillary Clinton over Presdient Obama. Privately I bet Bill Clinton is saying "I told you so"!

Barack Obama on Rural and Working Class America back in 2004

Barack Obama on Rural and Working Class America back in 2004

Pres. Obama unveils plan to help Small Businesses.

Kudos to President Obama: President Barack Obama on Monday offered a fresh package of aid to small businesses — "the heart of the American economy" — in an aggressive push to get big banks that got federal bailout money to do more lending to these struggling entrepreneurs. With Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner by his side, Obama said the nation has small businesses to thank for many of the new jobs, roughly 70 percent.

The White House announced a series of moves to get credit flowing to small businesses. The measures include boosting bank liquidity with up to $15 billion aimed at unfreezing the secondary credit market, reducing lending fees and increasing loan guarantees, and easing the tax burden. The administration also announced that the 21 largest banks receiving government money must report monthly on how much lending they do to small businesses.

The goal is to help those businesses make payroll, buy equipment and maintain
or even expand employment as the nation's economy is bleeding jobs.

"As president I will continue to do everything in my power to ensure that you have the opportunity to contribute to your community, to our economy and to the future of the United States of America," Obama said.

Geithner made a direct appeal to community banks to start lending again.

"When banks individually pull back out of a sense of prudence and caution, the collective impact of those actions will make the economy weaker and make each individual bank worse off," Geithner said. "By pulling back on credit, you push businesses to pull back, and this dynamic can feed on itself."

Geithner also ordered the Internal Revenue Service to issue a series of new rules for temporary but significant tax breaks, meaning that small businesses:

_That earn up to $15 million will be allowed to claim losses for the past five years in the current tax year;

_May write off up to $250,000 in investments this year.

_Can reduce estimated tax payments to 90 percent of the previous year's filings.

_Are allowed to take larger depreciation deductions within the first year of property purchases.

_And will see 75 percent of capital gains excluded for those who invest in small businesses.

The administration plan includes $730 million from the stimulus package to immediately reduce small-business lending fees and to increase the government guarantee on some Small Business Administration loans to 90 percent.

The plan comes amid Republican efforts to cast doubt about Obama's ambitious budget, in particular the proposal to raise taxes, starting in 2011, on individuals earning more than $200,000 and on households earning more than $250,000. Those provisions also hit small businesses. Now the question is what are the republicans going to say now that small businesses are getting much needed help from the Obama administration?