The Neowhig

We've moved!

2010-06-17T18:00:00.000-07:00

Come check the latest posts at our new website:

http://neowhig.co.cc/ -- The Neowhig

Thanks for all the visitors over the years!

We Whigs Are Still Here!

2010-05-17T13:34:00.000-07:00

It has been over a year since my last blog post here and a lot has changed in the political landscape since then, not least the ever-growing presence of the Modern Whig Party and the continued expansion of its state chapters.

As we have seen from the rise of the tea party movement, a lot of people are not happy with the government or how our system has been working lately. Not all of us, however, are near-anarchist libertarians prone to credulous parroting of GOP talking points.

So, it seems that the building coalition of moderates and independents who are put-off and disenchanted with the divisive partisanship that has taken hold of the political discourse (which appears to have no end in sight as it stands) has gone unnoticed as the louder, more aggressive swell of extremists have taken center stage in the media.

But the tea party doesn't represent the majority of American political thought. Most people do not want to withdraw from the United Nations or abolish all US tax codes or take us back 60 years into the past regarding women's and civil rights. These are not moderate, run-of-the-mill positions. These are positions far outside the mainstream of the American discourse, and its why most people have a very hard time taking the teabaggers seriously when they say they represent a majority opinion.

So while the bigots and the ignorant and the selfish and the misguided parade and protest about issues most people don't care about and attack the president no matter what he does (seriously, everything Obama has done so far is terrible? This notion is ridiculous, not even Bush was wrong 100% of the time...), the majority of Americans who have found themselves politically dissatisfied have seemingly nowhere to go.

The Democratic party, as it became painfully obvious during the healthcare bill debacle, is far more beholden to corporations and moneyed interests than the public they have been elected to represent. And the Republican party, no less in service big businesses which give little or nothing back to America, have also shown themselves to be cynically dishonest and disgustingly uncaring about the governing process of our nation.

But this situation is no longer intractable. The democrats can continue to pass laws written by corporate lobbyists and the republicans can continue to sit on their hands and be do-nothing obstructionists, intellectually empty and venomously partisan -- this no longer need bother the American people. Because we have, and have had for a while now, a real third alternative - the Modern Whig Party.

And we're not going away and us whigs are not going to be absorbed or annexed or co-opted. So while we might seem quiet, as cool heads and moderate voices rarely get much press, we are not gone. In fact, we are still growing!

Toxic Coal Ash...

2009-01-09T19:12:00.000-08:00

And I thought coal was clean!! Hah!
Found this via my digg front page, this is from yahoo news:

"WASHINGTON – Millions of tons of toxic coal ash is piling up in power plant ponds in 32 states, a situation the government has long recognized as a risk to human health and the environment but has done nothing about.

An Associated Press analysis of the most recent Energy Department data found that 156 coal-fired power plants store ash in surface ponds similar to one that ruptured last month in Tennessee. On Friday, a pond at a northeastern Alabama power plant spilled a different material.

Records indicate that states storing the most coal ash in ponds are Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Georgia and Alabama." ...

----------------------------------

Basically its saying that some kind of ash is kept in "ponds" to keep it from being an air pollutant. However, because of lax regulations on the coal industry, these pools often rupture, spilling this ashy sludge onto things, and it happens to be toxic as well.

I've never even heard of this sort of thing before...

Great article about Neocons

2008-12-31T17:10:00.000-08:00

From the magazine The American Conservative,
titled: "Where Have All the Neocons Gone?"

"Having wrecked the Right, will neoconservatives revert to their left-wing origins or double down on the GOP?"

Great read!

As a Whig I don't really care if they further erode the principles of the Republican party, but they're certainly not welcome roost with the modern whig movement.

MWP Announcements: Project Fairfax

2008-11-25T17:26:00.000-08:00

Hello to all whigs, neowhigs, rinos, dinos and all sort of whiggish characters!

This came across my e-mail a while ago, but as I am lazy and caught up in school work I hadn't the time to mention it on my blog. Well here goes:

------------------------------------

To the members of the Modern Whig Party,

With 2009 just around the corner, a lot is going on with the Modern Whig Party. We continue to attract countless new members from all walks of life and political affiliation. We now are also up to 25 official state chapters. In addition, a team of professional political "heavy hitters" deeply rooted in the process have signed on to assist in some behind-the-scenes efforts to better promote our movement. As such, please expect in the coming months some changes to our national Web site and higher-impact campaigns that will compliment our existing message and longterm strategy.

Get into the campaign: Groundwork also is being laid for our 2009 campaigns. The first relates to Target Fairfax. Our organization will focus the energy of thousands of service members, veterans and non-military alike as we work to expand this mainstream, non-ideological and common-sense grassroots organization into the Northern Virginia region. We chose this region as our first focal point because it is the most populated county in Virginia and in the shadow of Washington, DC. This means that the media and national political groups and individuals will be paying attention. In fact, this is how we have already attracted our anonymous "heavy hitters."

But to succeed, we will need your help. We are not asking for your money as we are planning some unique and innovative specific fundraising events in 2009. Instead, we are seeking interested members who may wish to offer some tactical support. This means sending emails to select Fairfax County and Washington, DC media outlets. Telling them about our grassroots movement. Explain how the Modern Whig Party was founded by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans as a veterans advocacy organization before spiraling into the mainstream. Inform them that this increasingly-growing national movement is converging on the area. Tell them that we are for common-sense solutions.

Bottom line is that if our national membership can work together to keep up the pressure and exposure, our ground team can work to pull this off. To participate, please contact our Virginia team at virginia@modernwhig.org. Also, certainly contact us if you live in the DC metro area and want to play a localized role.

Candidates: In the near future, please expect an email from our candidates in Virginia and elsewhere explaining their credentials. All of our candidates will work to not only get elected, but also to promote our movement. If any member wishes to run for office in 2009 with the backing of our national party, please contact us.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, so all you Virginians, especially those in Fairfax, VA and the surrounding areas, please contact the Modern Whig Party chapter there in Virginia, the e-mail address for them, again is:

virginia@modernwhig.org

In case you want to help out or have ideas for candidates. I say draft Whigs in Virginia, whoever that third person talking genius is!

Ok Great! Lets get 2009 off to a good start neo-whigs!

Post Election Wrap-up: Who is Uncle Sam?

2008-11-16T18:26:00.000-08:00

Well, first, and foremost - I have to congratulate President-Elect Barack "Barry" Obama. Honestly I never understood why his campaign didn't choose to refer to him as "Barry" as often as they could in their press relations. I mean, it is what most people close to him call him, you know - kind of like how William Clinton is known by friends as Bill?

I mean, I obviously it was to make a point - the name of the President of the United States (POTUS) should not have any significance towards the quality of the holder of that position. It was a Democratic party position, reaffirming the true belief that many campaigns past (both R & D) have done - that anyone can be president.

For instance, Eisenhower is an unusual "American" last name. Of course, there are 10s of millions of US citizens with similar surnames, that is - directly German. There, however, has always been an historic political aversion to Teutonic presidents. This comes out of a traditional reverence to the founders, of English lineage, and thus a kind of presumed aristocratic excellence among the descendants of true Anglo-Saxons. It is of course, blatant racism - of the worst kind - because Uncle Sam, the icon of a fearless, fair, progressive, representational and constitutional Republic, a one time idealist of the Enlightenment, becomes imbued with a specific set of phenotypes.

Uncle Sam is white - but not because he is a white man, but because he is a bust. Nero is white. Nero was of course, olive-skinned and probably fairly dark, hairy as well, but in marble he is white. A bust of Moses, indeed as swarthy as God makes them, is white. The busts of Ethiopian Patriarchs are white, and I hardly think I need to tell you the general color of their skin.

But when you make Uncle Sam a WASP, you destroy any glory the symbol holds, because it is no longer a set of ideals, it is a set of phenotypes mere mortal humans acquire from their parents, whom they did not chose.

So back to the Eisenhower campaign. He had being a Texan in his favor, for sure. He also had a no small part in the winning of WWII. But on the issues, he had little going for him. His platform largely mirrored Adlai Stevenson's, which was a continuation of the New Deal, except with a little more commie hatin'. Adlai was exceedingly eloquent, charming, drew massive crowds to his speeches, and a media darling to the liberal rags.

The media today paints this campaign, if they talk about it at all, as basically, "Eisenhower was fucking fantastic and Stevenson was kind of boring and stuffy."

The media of the time was less kind to Stevenson, who used terms like "intellectual" (as a pejorative *sigh*), "pointy-headed," and called his speeches "purple prose." This was largely manufactured conservative yellow-journalism, the Fox News of its day; however Stevenson surely did not orate well enough for most Americans to care since he lost the election with 44.3% to Eisenhower's 55.2%.

Eisenhower's campaign was largely a reaction against Truman's failure in Korea as a sign of weakness against the threat of growing Communism in the world. But Ike, somehow he got the nickname Ike and used it (unlike Obama), wasn't openly belligerent, he didn't ever intone, in his campaign, that he would start wars or give communist nations causus belli to begin hostilities with America or its allies. He turned the new deal socialist ideal into outdoing them, the Godless Communists, proving to the world at large that Soviet Communism was not as good as The American Way. It was a far different flavor of anti-communism than the McCarthyism prevalent within the Republican party at the time; which was in turn using the moniker of anti-communism to effectively silence radical leftists, with a lot of rather reckless collateral damage left in its wake.

No, Eisenhower was the first turn anti-communism into a truly non-partisan issue. The problem wasn't some with some alternative theory of the value of wealth and the meaning of capital; it was with how it was being twisted to allow authoritarian dictatorships control over nations. And well, hell, everybody hates authoritarian dictatorships, right?

Stevenson's campaign was largely directed against the still looming specter of the failure of Hoover and the success of Roosevelt, attempting to ride on the coattails of the party's recent history. But it didn't work. Because Eisenhower was a progressive (a progressive Republican?!?) at heart, and the public knew he was not going suddenly collapse the established welfare state.

Seems like a pretty dry campaign huh? Not the kind that would deliver a landslide in either direction. With Adlai having no truly new ideas on progress, and Eisenhower alienating his pinko-hating Republican base (although secretly courting them). Well, turns out the election wasn't about communism.

The election was about who is American. There was no question of Adlai's "Americanism," he was as blue-blooded Uncle Sam aristocracy as any candidate. But Eisenhower was different. He was the Wesley Clark of his day - Highly-experienced Well-decorated General, wary of war, a fiend of the space-age and new technology.

This was decidedly German. The Nazis fanaticism, when not racist, was technological. Engineering, architecture, research and development were endlessly promoted and funded under the Third Reich. Of course, the SA and SS cleared out all of the Jewish intellectuals and most of the gentiles as well, so their brain-trust was extremely feeble.

So, there was still the lingering collective ideal of American meritocracy vs. National socialism; with good cause. Patton, was of course, decidedly too Nazi to hold public office (regardless that he was crazy and had already died in Germany in '45). Was this Eisenhower too much like Patton? Too much like our previous and still hated enemy?

The answer was a resounding no, and it was a refinement, of sorts, of what America was against. That is, it was not socialist policies we were against, it was the Soviet state and her allies! America changed fundamentally with Eisenhower. In short, we got technocratic. The OSA was formalized into the CIA, the FBI was beefed up. Interstate highways were built, infrastructure was improved, rocketry was being perfected; the ideal of social progress through science was affirmed by America with the election of Ike Eisenhower.

His name be damned, America loves ray-guns and spaceships and computers and systems and methods and processes! If England invented endless bureaucracy, then we perfected it! (and it creates a lot of jobs, too!)

Now, this current election seems flipped - Obama is the eloquent intellectual populist, McCain is the military man who's platform is almost the same as his competitors, but he has that techno-fiend look in his eye. Surely McCain should have won?

But McCain was fighting a battle that his party already won, the points were moot. And his running mate didn't match his suit. Palin's ultra-conservative ideals largely turned off America. She was meant to be a symbol of folksy can-d0 elbowgrease, but when unwrapped we found her success gilded by corporate interests, her true personality one of lazy sheepishness and disinterest in the world at large, suspicious of science, fanatically religious, against all abortions and even contraception, tinged with corruption. We Americans praise merits and abilities, no matter how nefarious they are - but Palin produced none. Thus we had doubt in McCain's decision making ability, or if not that, we recognized his disengeniousness.

So back to weird names. Barack H. Obama is an Afro-Arabic name. Now, currently America has a beef with terrorism, and radical militiant islamists are the most prolific groups that engage in it currently. They tend to come from Arab nations, and these jihadists have Arab names. This Senator Obama has a similar name! And now the racism and fear cuts much deeper than if the name had just happened to be overtly German. Is Obama too much like these modern day Hashshashins? No, of course not, that is just silly. Buuuut.... he is African-American, kind of. He embraces black culture, attends a black church (recently distanced from), and so on... regardless of his genetic makeup, he is "a black guy."

What race meant in the campaign wasn't examined because it was hardly ever brought up. We didn't want the media to bring it up. Every pundit said this was a bout the issues, polls said race mattered very little. America chose the law professor over the space cowboy because of this --- this, I think, is the mandate America delivered on election day:

"His name be damned, we don't decide elections based on race. Therefore we are electing the pointy-headed speech-maker, who happens to be of mixed race, over the space cowboy this time to prove it!
ps - Obama, you'd better be a JFK-style space cowboy by innauguration, m'kay?"

Yes, we solemny vowed again that Uncle Sam is a platonic bust of American idealism, and not a White Man. Yet America is not suddenly and magically post-racial, we've simply affirmed that race, that someone's name, is of no consequence towards their eligibility for the position of the President of the United States of America. And thus, in spirit, for any elected position in the nation.

Yet we did it, largely, by basing our decision on who to vote for on their name and race. An ugly, racial catch-22 indeed. Or if that cross is too much to bear, just blame Palin.

Neocon Superbot: Michele Bachmann

2008-10-18T23:10:00.000-07:00

This seasoned fashioner of policy, Rep. Michele Bachmann graces Chris Matthews with her tele-presence to deliver a hearty and intellectual discourse on the definition of Un-Americanism:

Answering questions is just so darn hard!

That concludes tonight's nap time...

2008-10-07T19:31:00.000-07:00

Seriously I'm falling asleep here!

Neither candidate seemed very energized, and they're didn't really contrast very much in this debate. They agreed on the major points and didn't really even bring up the minor ones.

If you're still undecided, I don't think this debate will help you very much. I'm tempted to say McCain lost, because the Townhall is supposed to be his awesome amazing zone of ownage, but really - this was a tie.

Callin' a tie on this here meetin', you betcha!

Why do they keep talking about Small Business Owners?!?

2008-10-07T18:53:00.000-07:00

Christ its like an ad for Vista Business or something. How many people own a small business? I don't know any. I like small business, but come on, it's not like we're a nation of owners - we're a nation of WORKERS!

Also, McCain said that Obama's healthcare plan will have mandates -- that's not true. This has already been hashed out in the primaries. That was the main (if only) distinction between Hillary's and Obama's plans. She had mandates, he didn't. No mandates.

Oh I guess he just said he wanted to have a government mandate insuring children. How horrible! How dare you tell me to have health care for my child! If they break their leg and I don't want it taken care of, that is MY CHOICE! My children should have the freedom to contract polio if I don't want to immunize them!! (I have no children)

About a half an hour in

2008-10-07T18:26:00.000-07:00

What's happened so far:

McCain: Stop spending! No taxes! My friends!

Obama: Some spending! Tax for only 5% of Americans! Ummm, uhh!

That's basically it. Townhall debates are boring as hell..

More Presidential Debate Livebloggin'

2008-10-07T17:19:00.000-07:00

You betcha!

I'll be livebloggin', dontcha know!

Tonight's debate form will be Town Hall, which means questions from the audience and typically a more friendly atmosphere.

We'll see how 'friendly' things get, what with McCain's new campaign strategy of painting Obama as a terrorist sympathizer (while ignoring his own ties to the Council for World Freedom -- the group behind the coup in Nicaragua, the Iran-Contra scandal, Latin America deaths quads and also helped fund the Afghan groups that later became the Taliban).

I mean, that's some pretty heavy stuff. And what dirt does McCain have on Obama? Bill Ayers?!? That's it?! A guy who helped blow up buildings and kill a judge 40 years ago (note: the neowhigs are not in anyway in favor of the activities of the Weather Underground). Whom Obama's "relationship" with consisted of sitting on the same board for some charity in Chicago?

How can McCain bring up Obama's dubious ties when he has far more worse ones of his own? Why is he going there??

It should be an entertaining debate to say the least, even if it is pre-emting tonight's episode of "House, MD."

Oh and I just saw an ad for the Pickens Plan on MSNBC!

The $800 Billion Dollar Load of Bullshit

2008-10-03T18:15:00.000-07:00

Whew... ok.

For the record, I'm not an economist. I've taken a macroeconomics class and an introduction to finance class, and of course had Economics in High School, so I know a little, but I'm no Warren Buffet. But I feel that something has to be posted about this, and as (currently) the sole contributor to this blog, I guess its up to me.

Note: Feel free to correct me in the comments section if I am incorrect on my analysis.

First things first: This whole mess could have been avoided. The Fed screwed up royally letting the credit market go hogwild and the housing bubble inflate to preposterous levels. The banks screwed up by passing bad loans -- going far beyond the reasonable prodding of congress to enact "fair housing" policies. Neocons will wail and say that the democrats are to blame because of this fair housing legislation.

A typical target of blame is Rep. Barney Frank. Barney Frank is a good man. The intentions of these legislative measures were to lower some standards of mortgage lending that seemed to unfairly single out minorities from home-ownership. Of course, we all know where good intentions lead... But the relaxations on credit that the fair-housing movement gave did not create the crisis we face. It may have been the first step, but it didn't end there.

Then Bush came into office, at the start of a recession because the tech-bubble was collapsing. Desperate to keep the economy going strong, the Fed lowered interest rates. Then Phill Gramm pushed forward further deregulation of mortgage lending. Then we started the war in Iraq, and piled up massive deficit spending to wage it. Again, interest rates were lowered to keep the economy growing. So then there was a lot of easy credit to be had, and we were very willing to gobble it up. HSBC wanted to give credit cards to everybody, Capitol One's actual mission statement is "to get every single American to have a Capitol One credit card." Chase was no better.

So everybody had tons of credit, and with the relaxed mortgage market, everybody could do weird things like borrow against their equity or reinvest it into weird new securities and such. Meanwhile the Fed kept pumping new money into the system to continue paying for the war.

Well, as you can imagine, such a state of affairs is unsustainable. When things started to go south, however, everybody ignored it. Not EVERYBODY, but the people in power who could regulate us into a soft landing did nothing. Bernacke fiddled with the interests rates, lowering them a little bit, raising them a little bit - to stave off the inevitable collapse of the housing market.

So the banks tried to figure out how to deal with these bad loans they never should have extended in the first place. They repackaged them, and sold them off to other banks. I don't quite understand how you can get people to buy debts that will most likely never get paid off, but somehow they did it. Of course, it didn't work. Putting a bow on a pile of shit doesn't make it a christmas present.

Then, the same thing happened in the credit market. People don't tend to read the fine print. Its just a fact. You might think you're smarter than some dumbass like me who got an HSBC card my first year in college, and you might be. But the predatory lending was real, and a lot of people who are not moronic hicks got snagged by it. Interest rates suddenly skyrocketed to like 18-24%! Millions of Americans could barely pay the minimum balance due on their credit card bills, let alone try to pay down the interest.

Then the neocons decided it would be a good idea to make it harder for people to bankrupt and default on their debts. It was a double-whammy. Of course, that didn't change the fact that millions were hopelessly in debt they couldn't pay, and that debt had to be absorbed by the banks. So then credit tightened. It became harder for banks to be able to borrow money from other banks and from the Fed. And faced with all these ridiculous "mortgage backed securities," they couldn't hold up any more.

Countrywide was the first to go. Then Bear Sterns. It started a chain reaction. So far this year 12 banks have outright failed. Washington Mutual had to get bought out. For god's sake AIG needed a bailout! Morgon-Stanley got bought out! These are some of the biggest companies in the WORLD, let alone the USA!

So yes, we're in a terrible mess, and we need to do something about it. So here comes Secretary Paulson (diehard neocon) to the rescue! The government will buy up all these bad loans! But that wasn't it, he wanted the Treasury department to be free of oversight from any and all regulatory organizations, including the justice department and congress. He thought he was gonna get it too, with all his blustering and scare tactics.

But it didn't work. The democrats came up with a set of guidelines, and the republicans agreed with them -- and oversight was one of them. The House crafted a bill centered around these principles, and it failed to pass -- the cats weren't so easily herded...

So the Senate took the SAME BILL (which is improper at best and outright unconstitutional at worst), and loaded it up with $100 billion extra in pork to make the republicans happy. They passed it cheerfully --- Senators McCain and Obama both voted yes.

And now the House, even though most representatives reported a constituancy call-in of about 100-1 against this bill, passed it through. Surely Bush will sign it into law eagerly. And this bill is 451 pages long! Its one of the biggest bills ever passed by the legislative branch! Nobody knows all the little surprises that could be in it.

Meanwhile the Fed went ahead on its own and pumped about $650 bllion new money into the financial systems, while still hammering away at the nessecity of the $700-billion, now $800-billion bailout bill. That's a total of $1.45 TRILLION dollars in magical new fiat money.

Look, I'm not a Ron Paulite. I don't own a "Gold IS Money!" t-shirt. I don't think the government is trying to destroy the yankee dollar to replace it with the mythical Amero...

But do you honestly believe that over a trillion dollars in new currency injected into the economy in one week is not going to have a serious negative impact on the value of the dollar? A lot of armchair economists on the web say the bailout is a dire necessity, and that the inflation that will come with it is better than the alternative -- which is, they say, a total credit freeze and melt down of the banking system.

I've never been convinced of this -- most real economists seem to be suggesting that the government should be engaging in a careful purchase of these bad securities, along with major new regulation on the financial industries.

But, oh well, its over and done with now. We're buying everything up now and sorting it out later, with no major sanctions on the banks and financial institutions that engaged in this predatory lending and lack of risk-assessment. And while we're at it, we're giving tax breaks to rum companies, toy manufacturers; basically a legislative orgy of special interest kickbacks.

So for you TL;DR folks: Our government fucked up the free market through interventions, and now it is attempting to fix the free market with interventions.

Oh, and our kids will foot the bill. Even though most of America didn't want this damn thing anyway. Hmm, I remember a saying I learned as a child when I was in social studies... how did it go? Oh yes,

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!

A Surge Won't Work in Afghanistan

2008-10-02T21:28:00.001-07:00

Looks like my earlier foray into military analysis was correct. Newly-appointed commander of the war in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan (whom Palin referred to as "McClellan" in the debate), had this to say about the surge strategy:

“The word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge,' ” McKiernan emphasized, saying that what is required instead is a “sustained commitment” to a counterinsurgency effort that could last many more years and would ultimately require a political, not military, solution.

Yet in the debate tonight Gov. Palin said, and I'm paraphrasing, "A surge or a similar strategy like that is what is needed to win the war in Afghanistan."

So does the McCain camp want to listen to and act on the advice of the Generals, which McCain has stated is his policy, or not?

Remember, one of the major reasons we've been fighting in Iraq for five years is because of the power vacuum created by the interim government's decision to ignore the advice of the generals and disband the Iraqi army.

Why do the neocons profess to support the troops so vehemently when they consistantly undermine them by ignoring the advice of military leaders, vote against bills for veterans' benefits, reward Haliburton with no-bid contracts to build extremely sub-par barracks and mess halls, and fail to supply the troops with the equipment and armor they need?

Maybe they just don't know what the word "support" means. I think this calls for another entry in the neocon dictionary:

SUPPORT THE TROOPS: To use the US Military as a pawn in furthering political and ideological desires.

Sarah Palin isn't "regular folk," she's a MORON!

2008-10-02T19:23:00.000-07:00

Watching the Vice-Presidential debate was a very painful experience. I missed the first 20 minutes, so maybe Gov. Palin made some brilliant comments then, but I highly doubt it.

What I saw was Joe Biden being unusually sedate, which was kind of a bummer. I also saw him lay out policy positions, attack McCain's inconsistent voting record, show how his own voting record backs up his current statements and positions, and give clear and straight answers to the questions.

What did I see from Palin? She must have said 'Alaska' over 100 times, she deflected questions, made outright lies about her administration as Governor, constantly quoted Reagan, and misquoted Regan -- atributing "a shining city on the hill as a beacon to the world" to him. Those are not Regan's words... He might have said that once, but that quote is from John Winthrop, a puritan reverend speaking about the newly formed Massachussettes colony and how it should be an example of a proper Christian community.

She was glib, silly, and several times acted like she was on some kind of awards show - giving shout-outs to school kids "back home" and mentioning that her father was in the audience. It was ridiculous!

Even worse she maintained that the "surge strategy" should be implemented in Afgahnistan. This is just plain wrong. I don't want to be an armchair general, but surely the proper tactics in Afghanistan would be mainly search-and-destroy excersices. There's no insurgency to quell, what the fuck would a surge do?

All in all, she didn't screw up that badly. She didn't make any major gaffes, but she came off as shallow, uninformed and her style of speech is very grating to me. While I assume she is trying to maintain the image of being a regular American without pretentions, to me she sounded like an idiot. Bad grammer, obnoxious accent, cliche's aplenty, empty talking points...

A definite win for Biden.

1:30:00 + injury time

2008-09-26T19:34:00.000-07:00

Obama continues to make bold statements on a comfortable and well-thought out plan for the future of our nation...

Then McCain nitpicks and attacks his senate record...

Of course, Obama has done his share of nitpicking about voting records -- but that is not all he is doing. McCain may already be stuck on a tailspin... I think he's running out of steam, he's restating things he already said in an attack against Obama's "lack of understanding" about the Georgia/Russia situation...

and of course, McCain's subliminal intonations that Obama wants us to lose the war in Iraq, after already stating earlier in the debate that we are winning the Iraqi war a it stands right now and supports timely troop withdrawals... Ugh!!

Oh, and Obama made a last minute pro-Nuclear Power statement and both candidates will support research and development of a Missle Defense Shield.

I'm giving the victory to Obama on this one, strong showing by both early on, but McCain ran out of steam and had very few constructive arguments regarding our policy with enemies and is waaay to hawkish on the question of Russia for my tastes.

Well, that's my take!

almost an hour in...

2008-09-26T18:26:00.000-07:00

Ok, so, a lot of good verbal sparring has occurred...

McCain is coming in stronger than I expected, but Obama is certainly holding his ground well.

After a little fluff attacks based on voting records and domestic spending we got to the meat of the debate:
Iraq, Afghanistan, and I assume we will be touching on Iran soon...

Anyway, apart from McCain's rousing defense of Nuclear Power, he seems to be offering little in the way of change or progressive movement forward...

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to be drawing down troops in Iraq (we should have started a few months ago) and then slowly (no more of these year long deployments and whip-lash re-ups) rebuild our forces in Afghanistan to clear out the Taliban, and the Mujaheddin-supporting warlords that control much of the country. That will be a decisive moral and objective victory for the US that the majority of world powers are behind us on.

Obama recognizes this, McCain deflected into an attack on Obama's support of eleventh-hour military action within the border of Pakistan without informed consent by the government...

McCain doesn't seem to understand that Pakistan is sliding into anarchy on a daily basis and their government is already largely seen as illegitimate.

Anyway, more to come soon...

I will be liveblogging the debate!

2008-09-26T17:16:00.000-07:00

Its on! Both Senators McCain and Obama will be present for the first of three presidential debates, to be held tonight @ 9:00 pm EST - so in about an hour according to my time zone calculations.

Now - here's my preliminary thoughts. Obviously, the Government bailout of the financial sector, which will plan on buying up all of these ridiculous mortage-backed securities and derivatives has taken up almost the entire news cycle this week, with late night debates yesterday evening and then a complete disintegration of bipartisanship efforts to dress up this very poison-pill of an expenditure.

So, pardon me if I am a bit "worn-out" by all this bickering about the economy. The market was up over 100 points by the closing bell - obviously the passing of the bill is not as time-crucial as Treasury Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernacke have painted it, it seems more like the classic Bush-style panic-plan. Obviously we need to do something dramatic, and do it soon - but I read the bill in its original form - it was blatantly unconstitutional - giving unprecedented amounts of power to the Treasury department and immunity from all congressional and judicial oversight... blatantly unconstitutional, as I said...

Anyway, I'm just sick of hearing about it and trying to think about it. Obviously, it will have to come up in some way or another - we can't just ignore it... but I am really really hoping this isn't going to be 2 hours of "debate the banking crisis."

Indeed, it would be very refreshing to hear about foreign policy, troop reduction plans, especially I am interested in the seeing the reserve both men have for continuing and making headway into the bitterly neglected Afghanistan operations.

As many neowhigs have direct and first-hand knowledge of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our so called "Global War on Terror" - as soldiers, marines, pilots and players of the PS2s in the Blackwater chill-tents, you know - heroes.

(Please, no hysterics - and please do not confuse me as someone who is not proud of our troops for slight sarcasm) -- the troops, indeed, are generally of my age and my socio-economic group (yeah, I'm poor, ok?). I know this is an oft-cited chickenhawk cop-out to why they themselves don't enlist -- "well, health problems..." but if I didn't have massive congenital heart defects I would be in special training in a nuclear submarine right now.

Anyway, I seem to have lost track of my point. Ah yes, we are very proud, in the Modern Whig Party, of being the party that is not only "for the troops," but is fundamentally comprised of the troops.

Of course, I would like to really learn what they feel the role of the US military is in the 21st century, where the future of conflicts might be headed, where developments need to be made and hopefully places where bloat can be cut.

Now I think they will both have a bit of hard talk towards Iran, as well as the now crumbling failed-state-with-nukes Pakistan. However, I fear McCain will demonstrate no real leadership - I imagine "listen to the generals; situation on the ground determines actions..." will be a common line of reasoning with McCain.

Unfortunately for McCain, Americans tend to like new ideas over old ideas that are largely unsuccessful. Obama may be able to provide new answers to the old problems we're saddled with these days (thanks Dubya!).

Oh crap its about to start! Be Back Soon!

So what is a Neowhig?

2008-09-20T17:29:00.001-07:00

Well, pretty much a neowhig is an old whig who is no longer so concerned with the annexation of Texas or where to relocate the tribes.

Its a similar situation to neoliberals, who are classical liberals that don't delve too much into exactly how much sweat from one's brow is needed to obtain property.

But very dissimilar to neocons, who aren't conservative, even though they might be "new."

And we are certainly not the neowhigs of neowhig.org, which is a political joke site (and is not actually funny, either).

Also, neowhigs are not in anyway related to the party currently named "The American Whig Party," which isn't very whiggish at all and more in line with the vast swath of ultra-conservative fringe parties such as the Constitution Party (which is not very beholden to the constitution).

Oh, and if the site for the American Whig Party is down worry not - it only means that there's currently a dispute between the three members of that party as to whom should be the leader.

No, most neowhigs are more likely to gravitate towards the Modern Whig Party, which is currently mostly just a website, albeit a website with 16 state chapters and some 12,000 members. Check it out, they don't bite (I don't think?).

Still, that really doesn't define us. So here's some adjectives:
Pragmatic, intellectual, rational, progressive, moderate, traditionalist.
Those are a few I think we can get behind.

Unlike neocons, we don't have distasteful ideals we have to couch with newspeak, such as "spreading democracy," which of course means forcing countries to trade with us, a form of Imperialism and not Democracy.

And what of big-D Democracy? Well, its a great ideal, but a Constitutional Republic (such as the one we live in) is much better at controlling the tyranny of the majority, even if it seems pretty bad at it.

A neowhig is not a "centrist," nor an "undecided," - but probably is "independent." We are not nationalistic, but surely we are patriots.

As for me, the one who is royalizing the we all over the place here... I like using neowhig because I want to fight the neocons. Preferably in deuls, with pistols.

Probably more people would self-identify as something else, even though they may share the same views as a neowhig. And that's fine, I suppose. For now... bwahahahahaaa!

Hmmm, where have we heard this before...

2008-09-20T14:49:00.000-07:00

"The president needs to be stripped of these imperial and unconstitutional powers!"

"The government needs more transparency!"

"We need to protect our American manufacturing jobs!"

"We need to get these special interests out of congress!"

"Our infrastructure needs to be rebuilt and revitalized!"

"Whatever happened to public works?!"

"Whatever happened to the 'big tent' philosophy?!"

"Why are we fighting these repugnant 'wars' that have no goal or end?"

Where have these views been given voice before?

THE WHIG PARTY! That's where!

And with the ever growing threat of the fascistic and grossly immoral neoconservative movement, we need to counter.

However, before we go into exactly why the neocons are both wrong and evil, let's take a look at the issues shall we?

On Healthcare:

- The Democrats want to make health insurance less expensive by moving around some taxes.
- The Republicans want to make health insurance less expensive by moving around different taxes.

On Taxes:

- The Democrats want to give tax breaks to the middle class.
- The Republicans want to give tax breaks to the middle class.

On Energy:

- The Democrats believe in magical solutions like "biofuels."
- The Republicans believe in magical solutions like "clean coal."

On the Economy:

- The Democrats pay lip service to fair markets.
- The Republicans pay lip service to free markets.

On Government Spending:

- The Democrats increase taxes so they can spend more.
- The Republicans increase the deficit so they can spend more.

On International Interventions:

- The Democrats spend billions on foreign aid.
- The Republicans spend billions on foreign wars.

On Social Issues:

- The Democrats like to heavily regulate movies, video games, the internet and other scapegoats.
- The Republicans like to heavily regulate sex, drugs, the internet and other scapegoats.

On Civil Liberties:

- The Democrats passed the PATRIOT Act.
- The Republicans passed the PATRIOT Act.

Vast canyons of difference separate these two parties, don't they now? Well, no, of course not. They have the same ideology, only different targets; and they answer not to the people, but to corrupt corporate masters.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now lets bring in the neocons, the self-proclaimed saviors of American conservatism... What do they believe in? Well you can't listen to them, they won't tell you the truth! Here's some definitions for you from the neocon wordlist, in case the neocon meaning confuses you:

FREEDOM: Trade with America

DEMOCRACY: Trade with America

LIBERALS: Communist strawmen

INTERROGATION: Torture

UNAMERICAN: Not Neocon (see LIBERALS)

WEALTH: Corporate wealth

POVERTY: (No entry)

CORRUPTION: Independence from the American sphere of influence

TERRORISM: Unsanctioned terrorism

FREEDOM FIGHTERS: Neocon-approved terrorists (see PINOCHET)

THE PRESIDENT: Our Majesty

We've witnessed this kind of maniacal distortion of American ideals before, with Andrew Jackson.

Only, instead of the war in Iraq, it was land grabs in Texas and Mexico.
Instead of Hurricaine Katrina, it was the Trail of Tears.

And we're sick of it! Get businesses out of government and government out of businesses. Get our lost jobs back! Get rid of these ridiculous "executive orders."

And get rid of the two party system!!