Christmas and the Troops

In the spirit of the season of giving this Christmas post is dedicated to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces around the world in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Also in the spirit of the season it should be made clear that goodwill toward men is a phrase that requires setting aside other matters if only for a moment as dictated by circumstance. With that in mind you may still find it a little peculiar that there would be a kind word for an outfit like MoveOn.org. But hey, it's Christmas and regardless of anything else and that things may change shortly, one should give credit where credit is due. Assuming this is not a hoax and ignoring the natural tendency to comment on items outside the scope of the story, Stanford Matthews from the Blog @ MoreWhat.com would like to go on record thanking those at MoveOn.org for raising a serious six figures for the troops at Christmas. Even The Grinch Would Like This: MoveOn Raising Money For Troops By Martin Kady II Dec 21, 2007 (The Politico) Remember that whole "General Betray Us" advertisement back in September that criticized Army Gen. David Petraeus? Well MoveOn.org, that scourge of the right wing, is raising money like crazy for a Christmas gift for the troops. In the past 24 hours, MoveOn, perhaps the most powerful liberal advocacy group in the country, has raised $275,000 for the United Services Organizations (USO) for calling cards for U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The USO may be most associated with Bob Hope-type visits to troops overseas, but the non-partisan organization is clearly comfortable partnering with MoveOn if the cause helps soldiers stationed overseas during the holidays. It is not a surprise that President Bush would again remind the country of our troops and their families for the incredible sacrifice and commitment being contributed daily. At the very least we can remember them in our prayers and spread the word so they know we are thinking of them and exceedingly grateful for their service. The President's weekly radio address included an often repeated sentiment for the troops as reported by VOA. Try to ignore the remainder of the report about someone else's take which is not so pleasant. President Bush Praises US Troops, Their Families By Sean Maroney Washington 22 December 2007 In his weekly radio address, President Bush thanked U.S. troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families for their sacrifices. "This Christmas, many will sit down for dinner thinking of their loved ones half a world away. These families deserve the thanks and the prayers of our whole nation," he said. There are news reports of generous efforts being provided by the public and various organizations to help the troops have some kind of Christmas away from home. If you want to help there are nearly countless ways to pitch in. If you have no idea where to start, simply use google and type the words troops and Christmas. Plenty of results will point you in the right direction. Or of course you can check with the DOD, any of the armed services, the USO or your elected representatives or the VA or someone. And finally, let's make that annual effort to extend the good we think of during the holidays so the New Year can bring the kind of solutions needed to solve some of the world's problems. If we all try again and keep repeating these sentiments to each other long enough, we might finally succeed with some major improvements. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year or whatever sentiment does it for you. Cheers. Stanford Matthews Blog @ MoreWhat.com (the link just above takes you to a good Christmas story)

What's Missing in Politics?

No doubt those who support Hillary Rodham Clinton view anyone who does not, or worse yet publishes their rejection of her on a blog (hint,hint), as part of a right wing conspiracy, vast or not, or they are fully aware of her past, her record and that of her husband, former President William Jefferson Clinton, and are willing to ignore the ugly facts and support the Clintons for reasons unknown but suspected. To help the liberal among us understand the author of this post and avoid some mistaken assumptions, a little background may be useful providing it is not ignored. I claim to be poiltically independent but you of course can draw your own conclusions even if they are incorrect. This first fact may lend support to the notion that if you are in your twenties and not liberal you have no heart and if you are in your forties and not conservative you have no brain. Not a verbatim quote and credited to Winston Churchill but you get the point, right? I did not vote for Richard Nixon in 1972 and could not in 1968. I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976. I would have voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 but that was the year of calling an election before many people had a chance to vote and my protest vote was cast for Jimmy Carter against my personal criteria. Even after reviewing the data to jog my memory, I can honestly say I don't remember who I voted for in 1984. I voted for George HW Bush in 1988, Perot in 1992 and no major party candidate since. You may criticize the 'other party' votes as a waste or by default helping one of the majors. But principle determines the responsibility to vote and conscience did not allow selecting from either major political party. In recent years I am proud to say I did not vote for a Clinton. While the current President Bush has done things that annoy me or worse there are some things I respect. As his approval rating witnessed most Americans were quite satisfied of his handling of matters after the terrorist attacks in 2001. The following year is a toss up and after that it has been a bumpy road to say the least. Call him a cowboy if you want but whatever it is he has rarely deviated from his positions and is not deterred by polls or ratings. The last time he made me nuts was last summer and the amnesty thing. Enough about Gee Dubya this is getting too long. If you fell asleep during that the important point I did not vote for Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. They were both big question marks for the initial elections and quetions were not erased in each one's 2nd term bid. Insult the 'other party' vote I employed but I have no regrets. To the current day then, there were two debates this week. In the Democratic party debate last night was the first time I was able to say something positive about the left since I don't remember when. Both Senator Biden and Senator Dodd responded to direct questions and gave especially good answers. For Biden, it was answering to the part of his reputation that he may speak badly about people or issues involving minorities. He pointed out what got him into politics and the response of minorities in his state electing him with 95% of their voting demographic. A claim that those who know him understand and accept his positions on this. Senator Obama supported Biden and his record on minority issues. Senator Dodd was asked about his father's 1967 censure related to campaign funds and how that affected his choice for public office. The part of the answer supporting his career choice echoed a sentiment that while lawyers and doctors can only help a limited number of clients, in public office one can help millions of people. Both responses were perhaps the most eloquent of the campaign season on either side of the poiltical fence. This comment is only tempered by the fact that this was a debate and this is a campaign so things aren't always what they seem. The statements of Biden and Dodd and the accompanying gesture by Obama were highlights that point to what is missing in politics. Is it that politics viewed by younger, more idealistic and vulnerable minds recollect in later years that there once was a time when those in or seeking election to public office were genuine and good for the country? Is it in those later years that the wisdom of experiencing a long history of broken campaign promises or simply failures in office or worse that we settle for what is available and our reluctance to engage the process honestly and effectively in sufficient numbers fails to produce quality leadership and results in public office? The current presidential campaign has but one candidate who once lived in the White House. Well, two if you are counting spouses. And before the final comments in this post are offered, a reference to an opinion piece is worth presenting in support of other similar complaints about this one candidate. Yes, the author of the piece definitely can demonstrate a distinct leaning to the right. But that does not automatically dismiss the value of the opinion nor the points about record that are relevant.

Revisit the Clinton Record? Wed Dec 12, 3:00 AM ET Brent Bozell III How easy it would be to make a list of all the things the press could do to clear the cobwebs with thorough investigations (as opposed to the infrequent and incomplete spurt of a few negative stories). Reporters could draw up a quick list of "old news" about Hillary Clinton's record of public malfeasance that Bill knows full well have never been resolved: 1. Hillary ordering around the White House staff to fire seven workers in the White House Travel Office for financial mismanagement, with Billy Dale accused of embezzlement. Hillary then lied to a grand jury about how she was not really involved in the firing scheme, even though staffers were writing there would be "hell to pay" if they didn't do Hillary's bidding. Billy Dale's life was ruined. Two years later, it took a jury two hours to acquit him of all charges. Why did she do that? What would voters think, Mr. President?

That was the first in a list of 'old' HRC business that is one example of what the media and certainly Clinton supporters regularly ignore. If you object to reviewing the Clinton record then you refuse to 'vet' this candidate to make an informed decision at the polls. Or you admit you are willing to ignore any and all facts about this candidate that indicate she should be rejected. The most recent example of Hillary Rodham Clinton's tendency to shield her past is not allowing public view of her record as First Lady until AFTER the 2008 election. There is a great deal more in her record that reasonable people will view as sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation. For those who currently support Hillary Rodham Clinton for President a reminder from a voter who has selected candidates on both sides over the years. While you may not be able to see your way clear to vote for a Republican candidate, you have at least two other choices on the Democratic side who have a chance to win. Then there is always what amounts to a protest vote. Point is, you have other options to support your views. Choosing a candidate that has a track record like Clinton suggests your reasons for support will not be honored. Think about that. Stanford Matthews Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Maggie's Bio Pic