www.nationalview.org and Note From a Madman brought to you by

Greenberg Consulting

for your Information Technology needs

owned and operated by Noah "The Madman" Greenberg

This Is What Democracy Looks Like

www.NationalView.org's Note From a Madman

July 27, 2008


You Might Just Be a Racist

If you're a Democrat and are absolutely not going to vote for Barack Obama, you need to ask yourself one question: Why? If the answer is because he's a black man, then you're a racist.

It's just that simple.

I'm not saying there aren't just reasons to vote for someone else, even John McCain (if you're so inclined) in the upcoming election. However, if you can't think of one and still look at the color of a man's skin as an "issue" then, to borrow from Jeff Foxworthy, you just might be a racist.

There are those of us on the Left side of the aisle who think that Senator Obama is moving a little too far to the center for their liking. But thinking that he will ever move as far to the Right as McCain has positioned himself is surely ludicrous. McCain, for his part, has been moving further and further to the Right in order to keep the true Bush "base of haves and have mores" in the fold (not to mention his hope in getting a Bush-like turnout from the Bush "Morals Voters".)

Many of us held our noses and voted for - as well as worked for - John Kerry in 2004 without even thinking about the many reasons to do so. Those of us who supported other candidates in the 2004 Democratic Primary flocked to Kerry in an effort to get those who are killing our nation out of the White House. Even though we failed, is there one of us who actually think that placing Bush back in office was a good thing?

I doubt it.

During the heated primary battles of 2008, many of us who supported the other Democratic candidates such as John Edwards (me included), Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, etc, were already giving Hillary Clinton our "Second Choice" support. We said things like, "I'm an Edwards supporter, but when Hillary wins the nomination, I'll support her."

Senator Obama is not getting that benefit of the doubt from us all.

On every major, and probably all the minor issues, Senator Obama is closer to our values than anyone who seriously thought of being the GOP nominee would ever be. Obama's base is not the Bush "base of haves and have mores" but a base of ordinary Americans looking for someone to step up to the plate and take a swing for us. To think that the only reason some of us won't vote for him is because of the color of his skin is not only upsetting, it's terrifying.

What are the reasons you're going to tell you children or grandchildren that you didn't vote for "the black guy"? We know that the only real chance Universal health Care has comes in an Obama White House. McCain thinks "the Market" is the only answer. And when the health care industry raises your premium rates another ten, twenty, thirty percent, forcing you out of your plan, what are you going to tell your sick child is the reason he or she isn't getting the medical attention they require?

"Sorry sweetheart - but Daddy couldn't vote for the man with the dark skin. Here - Take an aspirin."

As outsourcing, in its current form, continues in a McBush-like manner and when more and more jobs leave our shores to India and China without even a whimper from the next GOP-led White House, what are you going to tell your recent High School or College graduate when they can't find a job?

"Don't worry kid - we'll fix up the basement for you. After all, Mommy couldn't pull the handle for that black man."

And when your son (or daughter) joins the Army because there are simply no other options for him here at home, and you watch him leave on a plane for McCain's hundred-year war in Iraq, what are you going to write in the letters you send him?

"Sorry Johnny - but it's better that you fight in a war for oil than my voting for a black guy."

Perhaps Obama won't be the next greatest thing since sliced bread. Maybe you simply don't believe the message of "Change" which has convinced so many who never voted before to get out and vote - and even volunteer - for the first time in their lives. Perhaps you truly believe that McCain is the answer.

But ask yourself this one question: Will we be better off with a McCain presidency or a Barack Obama Presidency?

-Noah Greenberg

Why the GOP is Responsible for Keeping Oil Prices High


Have you been wondered why oil prices been falling lately? Simple reason, the Democratic Congress planned to pass a bill to release 10% of the strategic oil reserve (SOR).

-The affirmative vote of 268-157 was along party lines and was not enough for the supermajority needed for approval.
-The bill was seen as part of a move by House Democrats to prevent passage of Republican measures to allow offshore drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
-The White House had threatened a veto of the Strategic Reserve bill had it cleared the House and Senate. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the Reserve was established as "the nation's energy insurance policy. We don't think it should be weighted for purposes to try to manipulate price. It hasn't worked."

So, what was the net result and has it worked in the past?

Oil prices reversed course and moved higher Thursday in U.S. trading after a move in Congress to tap into the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve was defeated. ... At a press conference before the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, pointed out that previous releases from the oil reserve had knocked down prices, sometimes significantly: 33 percent in 1991, 19 percent in 2000 and nine percent in 2005.


The next time the GOP complains about drilling, point out that they defeated a short term measure that would have worked. Barack Obama is in favor of releasing part of the SOR to drive prices down; McCain is not. Instead, McCain has a goof ball idea of a gas tax holiday. Historically, such measures do not drive down prices. It's clear who is the better choice for President - Barack Obama - Yes We Can.

-Robert Scardapane

Politicizing Government

As you may know, Obama held a major rally in Germany this week attended by over 200,000 people. What you may not know is that our State department forbade their workers from attending it:

-Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. Embassy in Berlin "instructed Foreign Service personnel stationed there not to attend Sen. Barack Obama’s [D-IL] public rally" in Tiergarten Park because the event is "‘partisan political activity‘ prohibited under its regulations for those serving overseas."...

The problem is that when McCain visited Canada, the same rules were not applied:

-.. But the ruling ... appears to indicate a double standard from the State Department. Last June, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) delivered a speech to the Economic Club of Canada in Ottawa. The event was reportedly organized in part by U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins, whom President Bush appointed in 2005. But more than that, the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa confirmed to ThinkProgress that Wilkins also attended the event.

-Not only did McCain make clear references to and critiques of Obama’s policy positions in the speech, but he also referred to his own presidential campaign six times.

This is the sort of disgusting politicization that has gone on throughout the government since the GOP held the White House. It's another argument for electing a Democratic candidate to office. The Democratic Party just does not believe in politicizing the government.

-Robert Scardapane

My Problem

We are occupying a country in a civil war. The whole “surge” concept and execution is based on a book written by the General in charge. The concept is based on the model of Vietnam, which is a different situation. The argument should be: can we use the same tactics, to thwart an insurgency from a foreign country, in the Iraq civil war? Can we stop the fighting and secure peace by using tactics designed for a different manifestation? Maybe we can maybe we can’t. But no one in the media is debating that. And to me, that should be at the forefront.

My guess is the Vietnam model can be used only so far. Then other actions must be taken before a secured peace. Even if the media took up the debate I doubt if the real issue would be addressed. How do you stop two factions who are religiously zealot over who the tooth fairy likes best (for the non-conceptual out there this is a sarcastic euphemism)?

-Keith A. Dewey

In the ongoing Obama for President debate, Kelly Taylor writes:

Obama did NOT vote against the war in Iraq He couldn't vote because he was not in the Senate yet! (A lot of people make this error.) That crucial vote was taken before he became a senator. And once he became a senator, Obama voted consistently to FUND the war every time it came up for vote in the Senate (you can check the Senate voting record
- its all there.) It's important to get one's facts straight, with all due respect.

And, as for Ginger's comment about questioning one's authenticity as a Democrat because they criticize Obama:

Gee, I though questioning and debate were part of being a "Democrat" in our democratic way of life. And just for the record, there are lots of us out her who are sick to death over what our Democratic Party has allowed to happen over the last 8 years. Scores of Democrats in the House & Senate have aided & abetted the Bush Administration by voting WITH the Right Wingers on extremely crucial issues. (I trust you've heard the expression, "Bush Democrats".) So Democrats have INDEED helped shred the Constitution, and Obama just did his bit by kicking the Fourth Amendment in the teeth with his "yes" vote for the FISA bill.

That is our precious Right to PRIVACY, my dear, and we don't "give someone the benefit of the doubt" when they are screwing with our Constitutional rights. That is pure naiveté. I mean what price the Presidency?! So it's horrible when the Bushes threaten our Constitution, but OK when Obama does it? (This is "Obama for Change" mind you.) And bringing up Hillary's past votes is totally moot. She ain't the one running for President right now. Obama is!

And Victoria Brownworh writes:

Give Obama the benefit of the doubt for VOTING FOR BUSH'S BILL????????? I'm sorry, but that's pure and unadulterated insanity. And please, stop perpetuating the BOLD-FACED LIE that Obama voted against the war. He held no office whatsoever when the war vote was cast. He never voted against the war because he wasn't elected at that time. He said he was against the war, but while in office his votes have not reflected that.

As for all those people who say Hillary Clinton voted for the war, yes, she did. As did John Kerry and John Edwards and a host of other presidential candidates WHO WERE IN OFFICE. The fact is, 82 percent of the Congress voted for the war. Some have revisited that vote, like Clinton, others have stood behind it, like McCain.

But the whole excuse Obama for everything he does wrong attitude is dangerous. That's how we got two terms of George Bush and look how that turned out. Take Obama to task NOW. Because once he's president, which the press and himself have already anointed him, there will be no controlling him at all.

And Madman responds:


In fairness to then-Senatorial candidate Barack Obama, he did, repeatedly, state his opposition to the Iraq war while running for his seat. Note the following excerpt from Politic.com:

"Obama's opposition to the Iraq war in 2003 is unquestioned. But what was a sharp anti-war line on the campaign trail in 2004 – when he said he favored voting against funding the war – turned into a more pragmatic Senate performance, where Obama has taken a less aggressively anti-war tack than fellow Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.), Russ Feingold (Wis.) and others.
"As a review of their votes by the website TPMCafe showed last week, Clinton and Obama have almost identical voting records on Iraq in the Senate; they cast different votes just once, when Obama voted to confirm Gen. George Casey as the Army chief of staff and Clinton voted against his confirmation."
-Ben Smith in Politico.com, April 3, 2007 (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3414.html)

Both opposition to, and support of Senator Obama are valid. However, not voting for Obama in the hopes that Senator Hillary Clinton will be the nominee in 2012 plays right into the hands of the GOP.

And this ends this particular thread.

Send your comments to: NationalView@aol.com

-Noah Greenberg