Peoria Pundit

Consider the following paragraphs from an Associated Press article:

President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to prohibit the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques by ordering the CIA to follow military rules for questioning prisoners, according to two U.S. officials familiar with drafts of the plans. Still under debate is whether to allow exceptions in extraordinary cases.

The proposal Obama is considering would require all CIA interrogators to follow conduct outlined in the U.S. Army Field Manual, the officials said. The plans would also have the effect of shutting down secret “black site” prisons around the world where the CIA has questioned terror suspects — with all future interrogations taking place inside American military facilities.

The headline above this article: Sources: “Obama ready to ban harsh interrogations.”

Consider the words: “harsh interrogation.” This includes the practice of waterboarding. This includes the practice of shipping prisoners off to other countries, where they get the crap beaten out of them until they say something the interrogator wants to hear. According to the article, this has included: “sleep deprivation and disorientation, stress positions and exposing prisoners to uncomfortable cold or heat for long periods. It’s also believed that some prisoners have been forced to sit in cramped spaces with bugs, snakes, rats or other vermin as a scare tactic.”

Out here in the real world, we call that torture.

But the AP can’t call it that. That word is too judgmental for them. And the AP has to sell its services to news organizations headed, in some cases, by people who have decided that George Bush is a great guy.

And that is the reason for the mainstream media practices “objective” journalism, to make it easier for news organization to sell their products to as many consumers as possible, regardless of ideology. The effect on Democracy is not relevant to this business equation. So we have voters making decisions after being fed story upon story that describe obvious, blatant lies as just another valid point of view.

One of those lies is that torture is “harsh interrogation.”

Feh.

The headline would have been more accurate is it said “Obama ready to ban evil.” Because torture is evil. We can’t protect America by using torture because America stops being America when we embrace that practice. And on the day America as a whole becomes a place where this is accepted, wel that’s the day America might as well go away forever.

But by all means, let’s not be so unobjective as to refer to waterboarding and sleep deprivation as torture.

From The Wall Street Journal, it seems that former Congressman Ray LaHood has found a way raise money from lobbyists in a way that would be illegal after the inauguration.

President-elect Barack Obama was a vocal champion of rules enacted last year that prohibit companies and lobbyists from buying anything worth more than $10 for lawmakers. But well-heeled interests have found a way to circumvent the ban by partnering with “state societies” that are throwing parties to celebrate Mr. Obama’s inauguration.

These Washington-based nonprofits, whose members include lawmakers, congressional aides, lobbyists and executives from a given state, aren’t subject to the ethics law — even though their social and charitable activities are paid for with corporate money.

Mr. Obama’s home state of Illinois, for example, is holding its own inaugural ball on Monday, the night before Mr. Obama is sworn in. It is offering executives of Exelon Corp., and the American Road and Transportation Builders Association a chance to pay big money to dine and pose for photos with Illinois lawmakers and incoming Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who recently retired as congressman from the state. The price: $5,000 to $55,000, event organizers said.

Not to worry, though. LaHood canceled after being contacted by the Wall Street Journal.

My two cents: But still, it’s four years until the next election. Obama hasn’t even taken office yet, and LaHood doesn’t even NEED to run for office again. Can’t these people go one minute without whoring themselves out for campaign cash?

UPDATE: Brad McMillan, LaHood’s former chief of staff, recently was appointed to a spiffy new state of Illinois ethics panel. McMillan was chief of staff while LaHood was letting a group that lobbies on behalf of the nuclear power industry pay for a trip to France.*

* Yeah, I know. Some of the links in this article are broken. They’ll be back up as soon as I renew the original Peoria Peoria site.

I am forced to agree with most of what is said in this article from Truthout. There’s no evidence that Barack Obama or anyone on his team was playing ball with Rob Blagojevich.

In spite of the fact that US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has said prosecutors were making no allegations that Obama was aware of any scheming, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia is on record as saying, “The serious nature of the crimes listed by federal prosecutors raises questions about the interaction with Governor Blagojevich, President-elect Obama and other high-ranking officials who will be working for the future president….” Why does this raise questions when no connection, direct or indirect, has been made? Just as in a time of war, America is in such dire straits that now is not the time for partisan “gotcha” politics of the past.

In spite of the fact that Blagojevich himself is on record having said, “they’re (the Obama team) not willing to give me anything except appreciation,” Robert M. “Mike” Duncan, chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), states “President-elect Barack Obama’s comments on the matter are insufficient at best.” President-elect Obama has stated, “I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so I was not aware of what was happening” and the US attorney has made no allegations to the contrary. What else is Obama to say? The truth is its own defense.

I’m not saying that Democrats haven’t played this game themselves. Hell, the way Obama sounded during the campaign, Sen. John McCain and George Bush might have been joined at the hip). But it’s certain that the GOP is trying to lay some of this on Obama’s doorstep, were there’s no evidence it belongs there except by way of insinuations and guilt by association.

Feh.

There are plenty of legitimate policy matters on which to criticize Obama. Stick to that.

And everyone ought to quit with the guilt-by-association nonsense, m’kay?

Hat tip: Bill Knight.

I don’t mind waiting 45 minutes to get into the booth. But I do mind having to use this funky system that requires use of a dial that resembles a “See and Say” toy.

This device nearly ruined my vote in the presidential race.

I cast my vote for Obama and Biden and moved on, casting my votes for other races in exactly the same way.

When I got to the end of the process, I start to cast my ballot and notice that my choice for president is … no choice. And the entire list was in small print and a barely noticed it in time. Fortunately, I was allowed to go back and cast my vote AGAIN. That time it took. At least, I think so. How can one tell with electronic voting?

Feh.

UPDATED: This little post got picked up by this site, suggesting there’s some fraud going on. Folk, I know Tom Bride, the guy who runs things at the election commission. He’s an honorable guy. I’m sure this is a glitch. And THAT is my beef with these machines is that they are capable of  making mistakes no one would notice.

My apologies for this post. Apparently, I had heard an edited version of Barack Obama’s “lip stick on a pig” comment, and thought that he was specifically referring to Sarah Palin. I just looked at the clip in context, and it’s obvious he critiquing John McCain’s record.

So, I’ll go back and update that post. Meanwhile here is the clip:

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.

Gov. Palin isn’t even mentioned. And for the record, here’s Sen. McCain talking about Hillary Clinton’s health care proposals:

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.

Again, he’s not talking abut Sen. Clinton, but her proposals.

So I have to side with Sen. Obama on this one. This is a manufactured outrage.

I’ve heard enough (anything at all seems too much) about pregnant teenagers and flag pins. Let’s talk about the issues.
According to Time magazine, this is what John McCain and Barak Obama have to say on particular issues.

First up on the block is the only other thing in life that is cetain, besides death – TAXES.
What have the candidates said about this issue?

McCain said he would:
• Keep taxes low and cut them where he could.
• Double the child tax exemption from $3,500 to $7,000.
• Cut the business tax rate to help American companies compete and keep jobs from moving overseas.

Obama said he would:
• Cut taxes “for 95 percent of all working families.”
• “Eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses” and start-ups “that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.”
• Advocate “a tax code that doesn’t reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.”
• “Stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas” and “start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.”

Anon E. Mouse Analysis:
Mr. McCain offers up, perhaps, the only actual objective “promise” out of the convention oratory. Doubling the Child Tax Exemption from $3,500 to $7,000. Keeping taxes low is important to many folks who look at the difference between the gross and net numbers son their paychecks every week and want to cry. Please tell me how you are going to make sure that your new tax breaks for corporations are going to keep jobs in the USA and not just line pockets of the big shots that sit on the Board of Directors.

Mr. Obama*, at least in this analysis, offers up rhetoric. What does he mean when he says “95% of all working families”? This sounds great but please define “working family.” Also, please define “small business.” Please cite examples of the tax code you wish to change – especially examples of those that seem to be written by lobbyists. I have no doubt they exist, but it just sounds awfully vague.

*I know my criticisms appear a bit one-sided. On this subject, I believe they are warranted. As this series progresses, you should see that I criticize both candidates for being vague or having nothing to say at all on some subjects.

Coming up next: Education

Tony the Tiger decided to go with the Dem ticket:

This follows Cap’n Crunch’s endorsement of McCain/Palin.

Next up, a probable endorsement for Ron Paul and/or Bob Barr:

Perhaps. Andrew Sullivan thinks it’s not about experience, but about skills:

So ask yourself: could Sarah Palin have run a national election campaign against, say, a machine as powerful as the Bush family, and won? Does she have the skill set to construct a campaign that would actually have brought her to the nomination herself? I find the comparison with Obama ludicrous. But it will be made. Palin looks to me like a lovely person and a good local politician, with some inevitable rough spots. I’d be delighted if she took a leadership role in the GOP in the future. But in the same league as Obama? Do Republicans really think that little of him?

John McCain chose Palin for several reasons. She’s a social conservative. She has a compelling personal story. And, oh yeah, she’s a woman in an election where there are a lot of women ready to bolt the Dems because Hillary Clinton didn’t get the nomination.

But is Palin ready to lead the country, if the need arises? She’s been a governor about half the time Obama has been a senator. There’s some truth to the contention that governing a state is better preparation for the presidency than being one of 100 Senators.

But presidents are leaders only in as much as they can convince others to follow them. That is the beauty of campaigning for the presidency. If you don’t have the skills to capture your party’s primary and then win the general election, how can you hope to guide your agenda through Congress?

But then, who would have thought that Obama could win the Democratic primary, considering the cakewalk that was his election to the Senate in 2004.

Hat tip: Eric Zorn’s blog.

You’ve all heard the name Sarah Palin by now.

Already the pundits are at it, praising and bashing the choice, spinning their hearts out, slanting the news to suit their particular interests in the campaign. For now, let us set that aside.

Looking at the race as it now stands, with tickets for each side filled out, we are now destined to have a historic result come November. I already left a comment over at CJ’s Peoria Chronicle but I’d like to expound on it a little more. A historic outcome is probably going to be accompanied by an unprecedented campaign.

You can bet the Republicans have studied the Hillary Clinton campaign. The HRC campaign for President will serve as a trial balloon for the Sarah Palin campaign for Vice President. They will also apply the lessons to their approach against Barack Obama.

The tickets really do resemble each other is many ways.

• Each ticket has a traditional candidate (old/white/male) who has been in the Senate for quite some time and whose strength is in foreign policy.
• Each ticket has a non-traditional candidate (not old/white/male) who has little or no Washington experience. They are relatively good looking and focus on more domestic agendas.
• Each ticket represents and advocates a “Change” theme.

Say what you will about any of the four candidates, none have changed the race like the addition of Palin. Biden was the safe, insiders choice. One wonders who will actually be able to wave that “Change” banner most honestly.

Say what you will about any of the four candidates, none have changed the race like the addition of Biden. Palin is the freshest of faces. One wonders who will actually be able to wave that “Experience” banner the truest.

The debates will be more important than ever. Much like we (those of us that talk about such things) still talk of Lincoln-Douglas and Kennedy-Nixon, I think Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin will be spoken of long into the future. There has never been an election like this one.

One thing is for certain, the game is afoot.

Via CBS4 in Denver:

Law enforcement authorities have arrested two men and several law enforcement sources say the investigation is looking into whether the men intended to harm presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.

According to multiple sources, Aurora police made a routine traffic stop Sunday morning at 2:38 a.m. and arrested 28-year-old Tharin Gartrell. Sources say he was driving a rented pickup truck. The Secret Service says two rifles were found in his truck along with methamphetamine. Another law enforcement source says he was told at least one of the rifles was a “sniper rifle.”

A second source told CBS4 Investigator Brian Maass authorities told officers they are concerned they may have come upon a possible “assassination plot.”

I did a Google Search for “Tharin Gartrell” and “WCOTC,” “Matt Hale” and “Peoria.” There no results showing a link between this guy and now-jailed racist leader and his fake church. So, I’m thinking we probably don’t need to worry about Central Illinois being dragged through the mud again.