Government Fail: America's Image

Two months ago, I wrote a post about how much attention the presidential election was getting overseas.

I have lived in China since August 2003 and one thing that has always amazed me has been the global reach of American politics. For sure, criticism of American foreign policy in the Middle East is to be expected, and I have often found myself in heated debates over the War in Iraq.

SNIP

These days, whenever I find myself in a discussion about American politics, it usually involves the 2008 election. The interest is stunning. Just months into the election of 2008, in April 2007, I found myself in an intense Obama v. Clinton debate (guess which side I took) with an Austrian acquaintance over dinner. We talked about hope, change, experience, symbolism, the war in Iraq.

The world is watching this election closely. The historic primary battle between Senators Clinton and Obama is one reason. But there is another reason. The world doesn't like our president or his foreign policy. A British newspaper nicely summarized the world's reaction to George Bush's relection in 2004:

In the summer of 2006, Pew released a report on how foreign countries view the United States. They compared the results of international polling data going back to 2000. Pew reported that favorable attitudes toward America have declined during the course of George Bush's presidency.

Even in Great Britain, our closest ally, the attitudes toward America have slipped 27 points. In 2006, barely half of the population had a favorable opinion of the United States.

Why have attitudes toward America changed so much? The invasion of Iraq and the arrogant, condescending attitude of our nation's leader. On the second anniversary of September 11th, the New York Times reported that the war had cause support for the United States to deteriorate:

In the two years since Sept. 11, 2001, the view of the United States as a victim of terrorism that deserved the world's sympathy and support has given way to a widespread vision of America as an imperial power that has defied world opinion through unjustified and unilateral use of military force.

''A lot of people had sympathy for Americans around the time of 9/11, but that's changed,'' said Cathy Hearn, 31, a flight attendant from South Africa, expressing a view commonly heard in many countries. ''They act like the big guy riding roughshod over everyone else.''

In interviews by Times correspondents from Africa to Europe to Southeast Asia, one point emerged clearly: The war in Iraq has had a major impact on public opinion, which has moved generally from post-9/11 sympathy to post-Iraq antipathy, or at least to disappointment over what is seen as the sole superpower's inclination to act pre-emptively, without either persuasive reasons or United Nations approval.

Who cares? No matter who is president, things will change and the world will be pleased, right?

Not exactly. For all his talk about how he was right about the surge and how he stood up to the president and his own party, there is no daylight between George Bush and John Mcain on Iraq. When Iraqi leaders came out in support of Obama's Iraq policy, John McCain, channeling George Bush's arrogance, rejected Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's statement that the US needed to set a timetable for leaving Iraq. Electing John McCain means four more years of the Bush Iraq policy: more war and more false attacks on his political opponents.

The United States of America--and the world--cannot afford four more years of Republican rule. On Tuesday, August 26, Hillary Clinton is going to address to the Democratic National Convention. She is going to reiterate her support for Senator Obama and she is going to call on all of her supporters to join her in helping him get elected. That certainly is not the speech that Hillary wanted to give, and it's not the speech this blogger wanted to watch.

But the reality is that Obama is the nominee and we only have two choices in this election--war or peace. Hillary chooses peace. I choose peace. What about you?

Government Fail: The Health Care Crisis (Updated)

(Proudly Cross-Posted to ComputerQueen.Net and MyDD)

In the continuation of our "Government Fail" series, I'd like to take a moment to highlight how Senator McCain would be just as bad, if not worse, than the Bush Administration has already been in regards to health care.

What I find the most troubling, is McCain's stance on Bush's veto of the Children's Health Insurance Expansion. Bush's reason for the veto was that he felt it was a step towards "federalizing" medicine.

McCain's response to CNN's John King:

"Right call by the president.

In short, because they don't want to look like they're federalizing medicine, they have left 10 million children without health care through the vetoed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. What a great way to stand up for our children!

NEXT! ...

McCain is proposing a health plan that is nearly indistinguishable from President Bush's, including dislodging State insurance regulations:

McCain's plan would allow companies to offer national plans based in states that don't have requirements passed by the vast majority of other states, including emergency care, required by 44 states. "Mr. McCain would also allow people to buy insurance across state lines." [Wall Street Journal, 10/11/07]

Some of the State Mandates that would be overridden would include :

• Emergency Room Care (currently required by 44 states)
• Direct Access to OB/GYN (44 states)
• Diabetes (47 States)
• Colorectal Cancer Screening (23 States)
• Mental Health Parity (45 States)
• Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction (33 States)
• Off-Label Prescription Drug Use (36 States)
• Chiropractors (46 states)
• Clinical Trials (20 States)

The McCain plan would also move away from an Employer-based system.

"The existing tax break for employer-sponsored insurance would be eliminated, taking a step away from the work-based model in place for the last half century and toward an individual market." [Wall Street Journal, 10/11/07]

The NY Times also weighed in:

Health Care

Mr. McCain’s proposal to eliminate tax breaks that encourage employers to provide health insurance for their workers is very similar to one that Mr. Bush pushed last year, to little effect. The Bush plan offered a $15,000 tax deduction for families buying their own insurance, while the McCain plan would give a refundable tax credit of $5,000 to families for insurance whether or not they pay taxes. Both men opposed a 2007 bill to expand a children’s health insurance program for lower- and middle-income families.

I've shopped for insurance - I know that most comprehensive plans for a healthy individual start around $150 per month. And the price increases exponentially for those with pre-existing conditions. McCain wants to claim he's doing this for the little guy, but what little guy can afford to insure his family wihtout the breaks of a group insurance plan, such as the ones that many employers offer. While the current system isn't the best, this plan would only further disadvantage the lowest of wage earners, and give money back to the corporate monster.

And the newest piece to the puzzle - adding ideology into policy.

The Bush Administration recently floated a draft rule to the Department of Health and Human Services redefining how monies are spent. While the basis cited by the Administration was to prevent discrimination in employment based on a medical provider's aversion to abortion, it also gave some new language to what falls under the category of abortion.

Again, from the New York Times:

The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

With all of McCain's quotes about America being founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, it takes little conjecture to see where he will land on this issue.

While I can understand the point of not wanting to bar medical providers from employment based on their personal beliefs, I have to be reminded that Roe V. Wade guaranteed that the Right to Choose rested with the woman, not the doctor.

Additionally, the Hippocratic Oath in short requires a doctor to do no harm, regardless of their personal convictions. If a woman might die without an abortion, the doctor is ethically bound to perform it, regardless of their personal beliefs. Bush's plan would effectively give them a policy based exemption that is ethically and morally wrong.

Also, I'm sure I don't need to go into detail, again, about how Bush has (and McCain will further) tear away at the Ryan White CARE Act.

These are just a few examples of how, in the vein of health care, McCain would seriously be McSame, and how the Republican Controlled Government (read President Shrub) has Failed the American People.

[UPDATE]

Someone just e-mailed me a link to this video that MORE than underscores my previous article in the Government Fail series from C4O ...

So, A BIG thanks to Liberty Balls for the following video:

Just my 2 Cents - comments always welcome

Dizzy

McBush-o-nomics

You know it's true! John McCain = George W. Bush... Especially on economic issues!






H/T to Taylor Marsh for catching this. :-)

Government Fail: The Planet

(Proudly cross-posted at Clark Community Network)

I think we all know by now how horrible George W. Bush's environmental record has been. He's denied the climate crisis, pushed millions of acres of protected public land to be opened to private developers, and called for reckless oil drilling off our coast. Basically, this President has been a complete disaster for our planet. He's failed to be a good steward of our natural resources, and our children will soon pay the price of these Bush failures if we don't act now to reverse them.

So do you know what can make our current crisis worse? As bad as Bush is, there's someone who will only worsen our environmental problems... If we let him.

John McCain wants us to believe he's a "Friend of the Earth". He's green washed his web site. He's fine tuning his "green message" to sway voters. He's doing everything he can to convince us he's the real "green" candidate.

However, all we need to do is his record to see for ourselves that McCain is no friend of our planet. McCain always manages to say the right thing, but his actions are something completely different. He's really no different from George W. Bush in his laissez-faire attitude when it comes to requiring big polluters to clean up their act.

Oh yes, and here's an inconvenient truth about McCain that he doesn't want us to know. He may sound "green", but that's all talk. The only green he actually cares about is the "green $$$$" the oil companies are giving him.



Come on, now! Haven't we had enough of Bush doing nothing to solve the climate crisis while doing everything to allow big oil & big developers to ruin our natural resources? Now why the heck would we want more of the same ignoring our planet in peril? Why do we want another President who ignores us to placate his Big Oil bosses?



We need real change. We can't allow our government to continue to fail on protecting our planet for future generations. Let's make sure we have a President who will end the "epic government fail".



Let's support someone who will clean up this epic fail for a change. :-)

Government Fail: The Case for Change

As Clintonistas for Obama, we well understand the hard feelings that remain after the primaries. We were on the front lines for Hillary and like many of her supporters, the process of reaching out to the Obama people and working for unity hasn't always been easy. Since Hillary conceded, there has been a lot of debate over Hillary's role at the convention and in the Obama adminsitration and the possibility of a unity ticket and there's also been--thanks to the media, mischievous Republicans and bitter Democratcs--a lot of re-hashing the primary wars.

In the midst of all of the debate over whether party unity will happen and what form it will take, there's been little discussion about why it is so important that we rally behind the nominee. While many stay focused on past grievances and future power plays, few have been making the case for change. Starting this week, that is going to change here at Clintonistas for Obama. In a new series of posts we call Government Fail, we are going to highlight the greatest failures of the Bush administration and the Congressional Republicans. We will demonstrate that this country cannot afford to send John McCain to the White House to continue the failed policies of George Bush.

Please feel free to leave comments or suggestions in this thread. And stop by throughout the week as the Clintonistas for Obama make the case for change.

Won't Be Neoconned Again

(Cross-posted at MyDD)

I noticed something today. I noticed that something very interesting happened on this day seven years ago. Think Progress reminded me about it.

Today marks seven years since the day President Bush received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” (See the memo here.) At the time, Bush was vacationing at his ranch in Crawford, TX and stayed on vacation the rest of August 2001.

Of course, our nation would be attacked by al-Qaeda terrorists the following month. But instead of investigating the leads provided by these memos given to the Bush Administration earlier in 2001, they did nothing. And have the Bushies even learned from their earlier mistakes as they embarked upon their "GWOT"?

As I was remembering that memo our President received seven years ago today, I was thinking about another massive intelligence failure of this Administration. Specifically, I was thinking of this.

"The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001. It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq -- thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President's Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. There is no link. The letter also mentioned suspicious shipments to Iraq from Niger set up with al Qaeda's assistance. The idea was to take the letter to Habbush and have him transcribe it in his own neat handwriting on a piece of Iraq government stationery, to make it look legitimate. CIA would then take the finished product to Baghdad and have someone release it to the media.

"Even five years later, [Rob] Richer remembers looking down at the creamy White House stationery on which the assignment was written. 'The guys from the Vide President's Office were just barraging us in this period with one thing after another: run down this lead, find out about that. It was nonstop. Of course, this was different. This was creating a deception.'"

Apparently, we have even more evidence that the Bush White House misled the nation into the current failed occupation of Iraq. But really, should we be surprised? Unfortunately, they've developed a penchant for deceiving the American people.

Obviously, we've been "neoconned". By way of a rigid set of thinking that led the Bush White House to ignore real threats to manufacture false threats, we're failing miserably in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh yes, and thanks to all our money being diverted to the failed Iraq occupation instead of being used here at home, our nation is no safer now than it was before 9/11.

So what can we do to fix this mess that the Bush Administration got us into? Well, we can start by not being "neoconned" again. Believe it or not, John McCain is a neoconservative. He doesn't seem interested in ending the Iraq occupation. He'd rather continue pursuing his megalomaniac, imperialist fantasy than focus on our real security crises. Now who does John McCain sound like? Anyone want to guess?




We've been neoconned once before, but we can't afford to be neoconned again. John McCain is just as dangerous as George W. Bush. He wants to continue Bush's "foreign policy" of endless war while continuing to ignore our real security concerns abroad and at home.

So do we want more failure? or are we ready for real change? I think you know what to do.

:-)