Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia announced that he will not seek a sixth term in the 2008 election. Warner was first elected in 1978 and is now 80 years old. While Warner claims he currently feels good enough to run for Senator again, he doesn't want to make a six year commitment to the people of Virginia and then not be able to fulfill it:
"I want to be fair to this wonderful state, which has been eminently fair to me all these years. You’ve given me my best shot, and I’m quietly gong to step aside and make way for others."
Warner, I must say, has my respect. He, unlike many Republicans, has stood up and questioned the President and his administration on several issues, most recently stating that he feels we need to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. Warner stood up for what he believed in and for that, I salute him.
But then there is of course the question of who will run for Warner's vacant Senate seat. If Warner ran again in '08, he would have been hard to defeat, but now the democrats have an excellent chance of winning another seat in the Senate. The most likely democrat to run is former Governor Mark Warner. Former Republican Governor, and former presidential candidate, Jim Gilmore, has stated his interest in running for the Senate as well. If Mark Warner and Gilmore are the two going head to head in the general election, I would bet that Mark Warner would score the victory. His popularity has lasted since he left the Governor's Mansion and Warner has always found a way to connect with voters. Expect to see the democrats jump on this opportunity and score a Senate seat victory.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
People unhappy with Guiliani 9/11 ceremony role
This year, at the annual 9/11 commemoration ceremony in New York City, former Mayor Rudy Guiliani is scheduled to speak. Some people though are very unhappy about this:
-“I think it’s disgraceful that he’s going to be there,” said James Riches, a deputy fire chief who lost his son Jimmy in the attacks, and who said that he faulted Mr. Giuliani as not giving firefighters the proper equipment before or after the attacks. “It’s a photo-op for him.”
-Sally Regenhard, whose son, Christian, a firefighter, was killed in the World Trade Center attack, said: “I’m still very shocked and I’m very, very upset, for two reasons. Number one, the majority of firefighters and their families have made it clear how they feel about Mayor Giuliani. The second reason is that it’s totally unorthodox to have someone running for major elected office in the United States to have a forum like this.”
I must agree with the above sentiments. Rudy Guiliani has no place reading at the ceremonies. It is indeed nothing but a photo-op for him, a chance for him to make people remember his supposed heroic efforts on 9/11. Firefighters and policeman do not want the former mayor there. They were there on 9/11 and say Guiliani had left the FDNY and NYPD completely un-prepared for such an event. They also criticize his recovery efforts, stating that Guiliani used the tragedy to further his political career. The most disturbing piece of information that the firefighters present is the fact that Rudy called off the search for the remains of their lost friends as soon as he had found a vault with silver and gold in it that he had been looking for. Coincidence?....one would think not. Perhaps my favorite quote about Guiliani's "legacy" is when a New Yorker was asked by a conservative radio personality: "do you support Rudy Guiliani for president?" The man responded "no." He was then asked, "Why not, you're a New Yorker, you know what he did on 9/11" In reply, the New Yorker said, "Thats exactly why I don't support him, I am a New Yorker, I know what really happened"
-“I think it’s disgraceful that he’s going to be there,” said James Riches, a deputy fire chief who lost his son Jimmy in the attacks, and who said that he faulted Mr. Giuliani as not giving firefighters the proper equipment before or after the attacks. “It’s a photo-op for him.”
-Sally Regenhard, whose son, Christian, a firefighter, was killed in the World Trade Center attack, said: “I’m still very shocked and I’m very, very upset, for two reasons. Number one, the majority of firefighters and their families have made it clear how they feel about Mayor Giuliani. The second reason is that it’s totally unorthodox to have someone running for major elected office in the United States to have a forum like this.”
I must agree with the above sentiments. Rudy Guiliani has no place reading at the ceremonies. It is indeed nothing but a photo-op for him, a chance for him to make people remember his supposed heroic efforts on 9/11. Firefighters and policeman do not want the former mayor there. They were there on 9/11 and say Guiliani had left the FDNY and NYPD completely un-prepared for such an event. They also criticize his recovery efforts, stating that Guiliani used the tragedy to further his political career. The most disturbing piece of information that the firefighters present is the fact that Rudy called off the search for the remains of their lost friends as soon as he had found a vault with silver and gold in it that he had been looking for. Coincidence?....one would think not. Perhaps my favorite quote about Guiliani's "legacy" is when a New Yorker was asked by a conservative radio personality: "do you support Rudy Guiliani for president?" The man responded "no." He was then asked, "Why not, you're a New Yorker, you know what he did on 9/11" In reply, the New Yorker said, "Thats exactly why I don't support him, I am a New Yorker, I know what really happened"
Larry Craig: A new day, a new scandal....for the GOP
Larry Craig is a Republican Senator from Idaho and like Mark Foley, David Vitter, and others, Craig exemplifies the hypocrisy of the Republican Party. Craig, an outspoken critic of gay rights, had voted against civil unions for homosexuals, against gays serving in the military, against a bill that would stop discrimination against gays in the workplace. He has run on high moral values and preaches the conservative issues, even going as far as calling President Clinton, "a naughty boy" in 1999:
"Bad boy Bill Clinton, your a naughty boy, the American people already know Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy, I speak for the people of my state who probably even think Bill Clinton is a nasty, bad, naughty boy".
Wow, I must admit that statement is the gayest thing in politics I have ever heard, but in all seriousness, if your wondering what hypocrisy on Larry Craig's part I'm referring to, its the fact that he plead guilty to "lewd conduct" in a men's restroom in a Minneapolis airport. Here's a report from an undercover policeman who was in the stall in the bathroom trying to catch people like Sen. Craig, as the bathroom is apparently a public place where homosexuals go for homosexual activity:
"At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot.... The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area. Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times." Craig then handed the undercover officer his business card and said, "What do you think about that?"
As I stated, Craig plead guilty to disorderly conduct, but now says that all this was a lie, a misunderstanding, and he blames, get this, gay people and the newspaper that broke the story, The Idaho Statesman. My only question is can hypocrisy go any further for the Republican Party? Craig is the second man this summer, after Republican Louisiana Senator David Vitter, to be involved in a sex scandal. While I do believe what is a person's personal life, should stay a private, when someone runs a campaign on his conservative values, in this case that involves being anti-gay, that candidate brings his private life into the public. If your going to run on your conservative family values, fine, but then you need to show that you embody those values. I'm hoping that Americans are realizing that the Republicans are not the good, ethical, squeaky clean, family value candidates they portray themselves to be. They are hypocrites who lie to the public to get elected and hopefully in '08, America will send them a message loud and clear and not re-elect them----showing them that no politician is going to get away with lying anymore!
"Bad boy Bill Clinton, your a naughty boy, the American people already know Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy, I speak for the people of my state who probably even think Bill Clinton is a nasty, bad, naughty boy".
Wow, I must admit that statement is the gayest thing in politics I have ever heard, but in all seriousness, if your wondering what hypocrisy on Larry Craig's part I'm referring to, its the fact that he plead guilty to "lewd conduct" in a men's restroom in a Minneapolis airport. Here's a report from an undercover policeman who was in the stall in the bathroom trying to catch people like Sen. Craig, as the bathroom is apparently a public place where homosexuals go for homosexual activity:
"At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot.... The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area. Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times." Craig then handed the undercover officer his business card and said, "What do you think about that?"
As I stated, Craig plead guilty to disorderly conduct, but now says that all this was a lie, a misunderstanding, and he blames, get this, gay people and the newspaper that broke the story, The Idaho Statesman. My only question is can hypocrisy go any further for the Republican Party? Craig is the second man this summer, after Republican Louisiana Senator David Vitter, to be involved in a sex scandal. While I do believe what is a person's personal life, should stay a private, when someone runs a campaign on his conservative values, in this case that involves being anti-gay, that candidate brings his private life into the public. If your going to run on your conservative family values, fine, but then you need to show that you embody those values. I'm hoping that Americans are realizing that the Republicans are not the good, ethical, squeaky clean, family value candidates they portray themselves to be. They are hypocrites who lie to the public to get elected and hopefully in '08, America will send them a message loud and clear and not re-elect them----showing them that no politician is going to get away with lying anymore!
Monday, August 27, 2007
Gonzo Gone!
It is official: current U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will vacate his position on September 17. There is of course speculation on whether it was actually Gonzo who resigned on his own will of whether it was the President who asked Gonzales to resign. Here's my take on it:
Alberto Gonzales has come under scrutiny from both democrats and republicans on the way he handled the firings of the U.S. attorneys as well as warrantless wiretapping. I think Gonzales finally cracked. He knew he was cornered when Congress came back in September and to try to further defend the administration's actions could lead him to either have to tell the truth(and damage the Bush administration even further) or commit perjury(which by the way I've argued that he indeed did lie under oath). Gonzales knew he could no longer do any good for the president so why continue to serve. The argument that it was actually Bush who "fired" Gonzales just does not convince me. Bush is loyal, to the point of being stubborn, when it comes to his friends.
I do hope when it comes time for a replacement to be named, that the Senate has a set of qualifications that the nominee will need to abide by, obeying the law would be a good start. The Senate does not need to give Bush a blank check, and I don't think they will this time.
Alberto Gonzales has come under scrutiny from both democrats and republicans on the way he handled the firings of the U.S. attorneys as well as warrantless wiretapping. I think Gonzales finally cracked. He knew he was cornered when Congress came back in September and to try to further defend the administration's actions could lead him to either have to tell the truth(and damage the Bush administration even further) or commit perjury(which by the way I've argued that he indeed did lie under oath). Gonzales knew he could no longer do any good for the president so why continue to serve. The argument that it was actually Bush who "fired" Gonzales just does not convince me. Bush is loyal, to the point of being stubborn, when it comes to his friends.
I do hope when it comes time for a replacement to be named, that the Senate has a set of qualifications that the nominee will need to abide by, obeying the law would be a good start. The Senate does not need to give Bush a blank check, and I don't think they will this time.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Huckabee's Charm
I've always said that even though I strongly disagree with his ideas and principles, I truly like former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee, as a human being. While all the other GOP candidates seem stiff and unpleasant, Mike Huckabee comes of as a warm guy who one would just like to hang out with and have fun. Well now it seems that I'm not the only democrat who finds Huckabee likable:
"Is there a Republican in the field you admire, who you think might do a nice job?" Comedy Central host Jon Stewart asked Obama during his Wednesday night appearance on the program.
"I think some of these folks are decent people," Obama said. "I mean Mike Huckabee..."
Stewart then remarked, "Worst backhanded compliment ever!" - a remark that drew laughs.
"No, no, no," Obama insisted. "I think there are guys like Huckabee who I think are sincere and decent."
"Sincere and decent". That is indeed exactly how I would describe Huckabee. You might not agree with his positions, but you can tell that he truly believes in what he says and would always do what he feels is in the country's best interest. His appeal could have some real implications in the 2008 election as well. Once republican primary voters get to know Huckabee and get to see a little more of him, he could really pick up some momentum. I've said before that I think the Iowa caucus was his first chance to shine and he sure did. My advice to Guiliani, Romney, Thompson, & McCain: watch Huckabee, his like-ability might take him further than you think.
"Is there a Republican in the field you admire, who you think might do a nice job?" Comedy Central host Jon Stewart asked Obama during his Wednesday night appearance on the program.
"I think some of these folks are decent people," Obama said. "I mean Mike Huckabee..."
Stewart then remarked, "Worst backhanded compliment ever!" - a remark that drew laughs.
"No, no, no," Obama insisted. "I think there are guys like Huckabee who I think are sincere and decent."
"Sincere and decent". That is indeed exactly how I would describe Huckabee. You might not agree with his positions, but you can tell that he truly believes in what he says and would always do what he feels is in the country's best interest. His appeal could have some real implications in the 2008 election as well. Once republican primary voters get to know Huckabee and get to see a little more of him, he could really pick up some momentum. I've said before that I think the Iowa caucus was his first chance to shine and he sure did. My advice to Guiliani, Romney, Thompson, & McCain: watch Huckabee, his like-ability might take him further than you think.
Hillary's Top 10
Here is an interesting list I just noticed on Sen. Hillary Clinton's website. It is an outline of presumably the top ten things she will accomplish if elected president:
1) End the Iraq War
2) Achieve affordable, universal healthcare
3) To create jobs for middle class Americans with the right investments in infrastructure and in new, clean, energy-efficient technologies that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and will combat global warming
4) To provide world-class education, from universal pre-kindergarten to affordable college for all
5) To promote 21st Century scientific innovation such as stem-cell research
6) To return fiscal responsibility, balance the budget, and safeguard Social Security and Medicare for future generations
7) To restore competence and eliminate cronyism in the government with a president who cares about and works for people who have been invisible to this president
8) To fight terrorism, strengthen our military, and care for our veterans
9) To restore America's standing in the world and rebuild our alliances
10) To build a more tolerant America, working together to achieve big goals with a president who is ready for change and ready to lead from day one
This is indeed the top 10 things every presidential candidate in this day and age should promise to accomplish if elected president. Hopefully if Sen. Clinton is elected president, she will accomplish all these things and more. For whomever can successfully tackle the above 10 issues, they might just go down in history as one of the greatest leaders of all time.
1) End the Iraq War
2) Achieve affordable, universal healthcare
3) To create jobs for middle class Americans with the right investments in infrastructure and in new, clean, energy-efficient technologies that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and will combat global warming
4) To provide world-class education, from universal pre-kindergarten to affordable college for all
5) To promote 21st Century scientific innovation such as stem-cell research
6) To return fiscal responsibility, balance the budget, and safeguard Social Security and Medicare for future generations
7) To restore competence and eliminate cronyism in the government with a president who cares about and works for people who have been invisible to this president
8) To fight terrorism, strengthen our military, and care for our veterans
9) To restore America's standing in the world and rebuild our alliances
10) To build a more tolerant America, working together to achieve big goals with a president who is ready for change and ready to lead from day one
This is indeed the top 10 things every presidential candidate in this day and age should promise to accomplish if elected president. Hopefully if Sen. Clinton is elected president, she will accomplish all these things and more. For whomever can successfully tackle the above 10 issues, they might just go down in history as one of the greatest leaders of all time.
Maliki lashes out at Clinton & Levin
The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, lashed out today against the Democratic party here in the U.S., namely Senators Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin:
"There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. This is severe interference in our domestic affairs. Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton are from the Democratic Party and they must demonstrate democracy. I ask them to come to their senses and to talk in a respectful way about Iraq."
Wow, I'm not sure what to say about the Iraqi Prime Minister's remarks. One would have to suppose these remarks stem from the fact that Clinton and Levin, among others, have called for the removal of Maliki from the position of Prime Minister of Iraq. This is the second worrisome statement made by Maliki this week, earlier insisting that if the U.S. won't help him, he'll find other friends(Syria) who will. After all the U.S. has sacrificed for Iraq and after all we have done to assist Maliki, its scary that, since I guess Maliki can't manage politics in his own country, he has to resort to interfering in American politics by attacking the democrats.
The reason the democrats, including Clinton and Levin, want Maliki gone from Iraq is because of his complete lack of leadership. He has been in office for quite a while now and has done more harm than good in respect to the progress in Iraq. He has led to further division in the Iraqi government, with a large part of the Parliament refusing to cooperate. It has been said time and time again: there is no military solution to the problems in Iraq, there must be a political solution. With Maliki in charge, there will never be a political solution. He is too dependent on the United States and needs to have "friends" in case the U.S. pulls out. He expects the U.S. to just continue helping him with nothing from him in return, and must be frightened at the prospect that if a Democrat gets elected President in 2008, he'll be left all alone. The U.S. has handed Maliki the proverbial "blank check" for too long. If Iraq's government won't put any effort into helping out their own country, why should we. We have stayed there too long and for that matter, should have never gone in. But, because of the lies of our president, we are indeed in, and now we need to focus on how we get our brave men and women home safely and securely while at the same time, focusing on how to keep America safe and fight terrorism where it actually is.
"There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. This is severe interference in our domestic affairs. Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton are from the Democratic Party and they must demonstrate democracy. I ask them to come to their senses and to talk in a respectful way about Iraq."
Wow, I'm not sure what to say about the Iraqi Prime Minister's remarks. One would have to suppose these remarks stem from the fact that Clinton and Levin, among others, have called for the removal of Maliki from the position of Prime Minister of Iraq. This is the second worrisome statement made by Maliki this week, earlier insisting that if the U.S. won't help him, he'll find other friends(Syria) who will. After all the U.S. has sacrificed for Iraq and after all we have done to assist Maliki, its scary that, since I guess Maliki can't manage politics in his own country, he has to resort to interfering in American politics by attacking the democrats.
The reason the democrats, including Clinton and Levin, want Maliki gone from Iraq is because of his complete lack of leadership. He has been in office for quite a while now and has done more harm than good in respect to the progress in Iraq. He has led to further division in the Iraqi government, with a large part of the Parliament refusing to cooperate. It has been said time and time again: there is no military solution to the problems in Iraq, there must be a political solution. With Maliki in charge, there will never be a political solution. He is too dependent on the United States and needs to have "friends" in case the U.S. pulls out. He expects the U.S. to just continue helping him with nothing from him in return, and must be frightened at the prospect that if a Democrat gets elected President in 2008, he'll be left all alone. The U.S. has handed Maliki the proverbial "blank check" for too long. If Iraq's government won't put any effort into helping out their own country, why should we. We have stayed there too long and for that matter, should have never gone in. But, because of the lies of our president, we are indeed in, and now we need to focus on how we get our brave men and women home safely and securely while at the same time, focusing on how to keep America safe and fight terrorism where it actually is.
Would another terror attack help the Republicans in '08?
Democratic Presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, has recently drew fire for suggesting that a terrorist attack on American soil between now and the 2008 Elections, would be a huge help to the GOP, stating:
"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?'...But, if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world." Clinton then added that, "I'm the best to deal with that(terrorism)".
I certainly can see what sounds terrible about that statement. What Clinton said is one of those things that no matter how you phrase it, it comes out sounding awful. Yet, Clinton's assessment of what could happen might not be too far off, if there was, God forbid, another terrorist attack on the United States.
The thought of a terrorist attack being used for political gain is a real issue. The GOP is a master at making themselves appear strong and instilling fear in Americans. George Bush used that fear in 2004 to be re-elected. By making John Kerry appear to be weak on terrorism, and constantly bringing up terrorism in the debates against Kerry, Bush was able to make Americans feel like he, not Kerry would keep them safe. So while it is a rather awful sounding statement, it does have merit. The Republicans are already trying to fool the American people by calling democrats "weak on national security" and proclaiming that they would "give al-Qaeda a victory". I find it quite upsetting to see fellow democrats jump on Clinton for her remarks, when they know that, sadly, she is right. She has spent years fighting Republicans. She knows how they operate and knows how to beat them. My question is why did Clinton make this statement. It is a statement that to most people, should be obvious, the GOP try to use fear to their political advantage. Trust me, the Clinton campaign is well though out, she had planned to say this statement, it wasn't a mere slip of the tongue. It'll be most interesting to see if it can be figured out why she made this statement and how the whole situation will play out.
"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?'...But, if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world." Clinton then added that, "I'm the best to deal with that(terrorism)".
I certainly can see what sounds terrible about that statement. What Clinton said is one of those things that no matter how you phrase it, it comes out sounding awful. Yet, Clinton's assessment of what could happen might not be too far off, if there was, God forbid, another terrorist attack on the United States.
The thought of a terrorist attack being used for political gain is a real issue. The GOP is a master at making themselves appear strong and instilling fear in Americans. George Bush used that fear in 2004 to be re-elected. By making John Kerry appear to be weak on terrorism, and constantly bringing up terrorism in the debates against Kerry, Bush was able to make Americans feel like he, not Kerry would keep them safe. So while it is a rather awful sounding statement, it does have merit. The Republicans are already trying to fool the American people by calling democrats "weak on national security" and proclaiming that they would "give al-Qaeda a victory". I find it quite upsetting to see fellow democrats jump on Clinton for her remarks, when they know that, sadly, she is right. She has spent years fighting Republicans. She knows how they operate and knows how to beat them. My question is why did Clinton make this statement. It is a statement that to most people, should be obvious, the GOP try to use fear to their political advantage. Trust me, the Clinton campaign is well though out, she had planned to say this statement, it wasn't a mere slip of the tongue. It'll be most interesting to see if it can be figured out why she made this statement and how the whole situation will play out.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Things look even grimmer from the political side of the Iraq War
Democrats have listed several reasons why we need to get out of Iraq: needless American casualties, excessive war spending, our fueling of al-Qaeda, our letting al-Qaeda regenerate in Afghanistan, needing to get Osama bin-Laden, and of course the lack of any political progress.
Well as if things were not already looking grim for all of the above issues, it seems that the political progress has yet another reason to be seriously questioned. The Iraqi Prime-Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, basically said the following when visiting with Syria, who is not one of the U.S.'s close allies to say the least:
“If the Americans are getting impatient with us, then we’ll find other friends, we don’t have to abide by any timetables.”
Wow, American's are risking their lives when the leader of Iraq himself basically doesn't care if we stay or go. If the Iraqis don't care, why the hell should we care about their civil war. Lets fight al-Qaeda and thats it. Enough trying to help Iraqi factions make peace. Lets watch out for U.S. interests and let the Iraqis find "other friends" who will help them.
Well as if things were not already looking grim for all of the above issues, it seems that the political progress has yet another reason to be seriously questioned. The Iraqi Prime-Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, basically said the following when visiting with Syria, who is not one of the U.S.'s close allies to say the least:
“If the Americans are getting impatient with us, then we’ll find other friends, we don’t have to abide by any timetables.”
Wow, American's are risking their lives when the leader of Iraq himself basically doesn't care if we stay or go. If the Iraqis don't care, why the hell should we care about their civil war. Lets fight al-Qaeda and thats it. Enough trying to help Iraqi factions make peace. Lets watch out for U.S. interests and let the Iraqis find "other friends" who will help them.
Pace expected to tell the President to reduce troop numbers
For over three years democrats and military officials have called Iraq a lost cause, and said that the occupation of Iraq is doing more harm than good. When people close to President Bush echoed similar, grim, feelings on the Iraq War, the President simply dismissed them from their service, but it now looks like there is someone who the President might not be able to overlook:
"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war. Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military."- Los Angeles Times
If this is true it could mean even bigger trouble for the president. While it may be easy to overlook the opinions of war veterans and low level generals, Peter Pace is a respected and honorable man, who has supported the president in the past. We have many enemies in the world that we may have to deal with in the future; Iraq is not one of them. The last thing we need to do is strain the military, let alone have more Americans killed because of a sectarian civil war. I just hope that the president and republicans begin to realize the truth about Iraq. The longer we stay, the worse, for us, it is going to get.
"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war. Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military."- Los Angeles Times
If this is true it could mean even bigger trouble for the president. While it may be easy to overlook the opinions of war veterans and low level generals, Peter Pace is a respected and honorable man, who has supported the president in the past. We have many enemies in the world that we may have to deal with in the future; Iraq is not one of them. The last thing we need to do is strain the military, let alone have more Americans killed because of a sectarian civil war. I just hope that the president and republicans begin to realize the truth about Iraq. The longer we stay, the worse, for us, it is going to get.
The latest scam from the GOP
Well it appears as if an initiative that would divide up California's 55 electoral votes is going to make it onto the ballot some time next summer. The proposal, proposed of course by a Republican, would divide California's electoral votes in the 2008 election. The winner of the popular vote statewide would get 2 electoral votes and the rest would be divided up by the popular vote in a particular district.
This is nothing but Republicans trying to cheap shot democrats. Democrats have recently carried, by a wide margin, the entire state's popular vote, but there are some small counties who vote Republican. What is so wrong with this proposal, besides its creation for partisan purposes, is that a district with a 200,000 people could vote for a democrat, while a district with 20,000 people could vote republican, yet both districts would carry the same amount of weight. A candidate could get millions of votes over another candidate and still technically "lose" California because districts with small populations voted for republicans. Its wrong no matter how you look at it and I encourage every Californian to vote against it!
This is nothing but Republicans trying to cheap shot democrats. Democrats have recently carried, by a wide margin, the entire state's popular vote, but there are some small counties who vote Republican. What is so wrong with this proposal, besides its creation for partisan purposes, is that a district with a 200,000 people could vote for a democrat, while a district with 20,000 people could vote republican, yet both districts would carry the same amount of weight. A candidate could get millions of votes over another candidate and still technically "lose" California because districts with small populations voted for republicans. Its wrong no matter how you look at it and I encourage every Californian to vote against it!
Are democrats better at lowering abortions than the GOP?
While watching a CNN special last night, titled, "God's Warriors: Christians", I was a actually taken aback when an evangelist preacher suggested that its democrats who would be better at lowering abortions than the republicans who use it as a major issue in their campaigns. As I said, I never thought I would hear those words, especially from a preacher, but after reflecting on it I began to realize, that indeed, he had a good point.
Conservative Republicans have been running for years on the abortion issue, claiming they are pro-life and will end abortion. Yet strict conservatives have held the presidency the last 19 out of 27 years and nothing has been done yet. People need to come to the realization that abortion is a woman's right protected by our Constitution. While the courts could overturn Roe v. Wade, its highly unlikely that they ever would. Its been a key precedent for over 3 decades, and conservatives have had control of the Supreme Court for most of that time. What I'm getting at is that I would be willing to bet, like it or not, that abortion, as a right for every woman, will never be made illegal. So what is the next best thing?
Well one has to look at the statistics for that answer. It is a proven fact, that most women who commit abortions are below the poverty line, unable to pay for medical bills for the child, or simply unable to support a child period. There are other reasons, such as a women's life, that are also causes for abortion, but poverty is an issue that no one can dismiss. And who is better at helping the poor? The democrats. The democrats fight for healthcare for all, payed for by the government. They support (and recently have been successful at) raising the minimum wage significantly. They support taking away the Bush tax cuts for those who make over $200,000 and use that money back to assist people who make under $40,000. They support reduced college and other education costs. Just think if all those things were to happen, and they look like they will if a democrat is elected in 2008, what a difference it could make in the number of abortions. Those that think abortion is something a woman would enjoy or want to do is beyond me. I can only imagine that it would be the most difficult thing a woman would ever have to go through, and the same from the position of the father. Lets treat the source of the problem, and not try to make completely un-reasonable and untruthful promises. Maybe those who call themselves "pro-life" should think again before they vote for those who say they will end abortion, but never have, and likely, never will.
Conservative Republicans have been running for years on the abortion issue, claiming they are pro-life and will end abortion. Yet strict conservatives have held the presidency the last 19 out of 27 years and nothing has been done yet. People need to come to the realization that abortion is a woman's right protected by our Constitution. While the courts could overturn Roe v. Wade, its highly unlikely that they ever would. Its been a key precedent for over 3 decades, and conservatives have had control of the Supreme Court for most of that time. What I'm getting at is that I would be willing to bet, like it or not, that abortion, as a right for every woman, will never be made illegal. So what is the next best thing?
Well one has to look at the statistics for that answer. It is a proven fact, that most women who commit abortions are below the poverty line, unable to pay for medical bills for the child, or simply unable to support a child period. There are other reasons, such as a women's life, that are also causes for abortion, but poverty is an issue that no one can dismiss. And who is better at helping the poor? The democrats. The democrats fight for healthcare for all, payed for by the government. They support (and recently have been successful at) raising the minimum wage significantly. They support taking away the Bush tax cuts for those who make over $200,000 and use that money back to assist people who make under $40,000. They support reduced college and other education costs. Just think if all those things were to happen, and they look like they will if a democrat is elected in 2008, what a difference it could make in the number of abortions. Those that think abortion is something a woman would enjoy or want to do is beyond me. I can only imagine that it would be the most difficult thing a woman would ever have to go through, and the same from the position of the father. Lets treat the source of the problem, and not try to make completely un-reasonable and untruthful promises. Maybe those who call themselves "pro-life" should think again before they vote for those who say they will end abortion, but never have, and likely, never will.
Republicans-----fiscal conservatives? (a special editorial by John Lucia)
When George W. Bush leaves office in 19 months, the last three so called conservative republican presidents will have served 20 years at the helm without balancing one federal budget, without sending one balanced budget to congress, piling up record deficits and increasing the national debt to levels never heard of before. Ronald Reagan started it all with record federal deficits, then the Bush 41 broke Ronald Reagan records and then the present Mr. Bush broke both his fathers and Reagan's deficit spending records by whopping margins.
For the record, when Reagan left office after 8 years of deficit spending his administration added over $1.9 trillion to the national debt. When George H.W. Bush left office after 4 years of deficit spending his administration added over $1.1 trillion to the national debt. The combined deficit spending of Reagan-Bush (12 years) was over $2 trillion.
Now we come to the new champion of deficit spending, the present Mr. Bush. As of August 14, 2007 his administration has added over $3.1 trillion to the national debt and still has 18 more months to go in office and will add more. This despite a projected $5 trillion surplus left by the previous Clinton administration. The Republicans controlled congress during the first 6 years of this administration and rubber stamped Bush's deficit spending habit.
The Clinton administration inherited 12 straight years of budget deficits from the Reagan-Bush years, brought down the deficits and balanced the budget with record surpluses his last four years in office and paid down a net $14.2 billion of the national debt. When the democrats controlled congress in the early years of Clinton's administration, they passed his deficit reduction package and his economic package while not one republican voted yes.
Only two presidents in the past 45 years balanced the federal budget and had surpluses, both were democrats. Lynden Johnson's administration had a surplus of $13.4 billion in FY 1969 and Clinton's administration balanced the budget his last four years in office with record surpluses.
Try to understand this, Reagan and the two Bush's did not send one balanced budget to congress in their 20 years at the helm. Where were their character of courage? They try to seduce the tax payers with tax cuts that benefit the most wealthy and the average american and middle class end up paying more taxes because of their deficit spending and increases in the national debt.
Interest payments alone just on the national debt during the 12 years of Reagan-Bush cost the tax payers over $2 trillion. Interest payments on the national debt on the present Bush's watch will exceed by far the above payments of Reagan-Bush. Just think of what $4 + trillion could have paid for or provided had the tax payers not been saddled with their reckless spending habits. The interest payments on the national debt for FY ending September 2006 was $406 billion. Yes, you are reading correctly, that's $406 Billion.
The facts tell us those 3 republican presidents have been more than just reckless with spending tax payers money. They have misled the people about their true intentions and as a result, Americans have never received the benefits they deserve. When Ronald Reagan took office the national debt stood at less than one trillion dollars. The national debt as of 14 August 2007 was over $8.9 trillion.
Conservative Republican Presidents? Think Again!
For the record, when Reagan left office after 8 years of deficit spending his administration added over $1.9 trillion to the national debt. When George H.W. Bush left office after 4 years of deficit spending his administration added over $1.1 trillion to the national debt. The combined deficit spending of Reagan-Bush (12 years) was over $2 trillion.
Now we come to the new champion of deficit spending, the present Mr. Bush. As of August 14, 2007 his administration has added over $3.1 trillion to the national debt and still has 18 more months to go in office and will add more. This despite a projected $5 trillion surplus left by the previous Clinton administration. The Republicans controlled congress during the first 6 years of this administration and rubber stamped Bush's deficit spending habit.
The Clinton administration inherited 12 straight years of budget deficits from the Reagan-Bush years, brought down the deficits and balanced the budget with record surpluses his last four years in office and paid down a net $14.2 billion of the national debt. When the democrats controlled congress in the early years of Clinton's administration, they passed his deficit reduction package and his economic package while not one republican voted yes.
Only two presidents in the past 45 years balanced the federal budget and had surpluses, both were democrats. Lynden Johnson's administration had a surplus of $13.4 billion in FY 1969 and Clinton's administration balanced the budget his last four years in office with record surpluses.
Try to understand this, Reagan and the two Bush's did not send one balanced budget to congress in their 20 years at the helm. Where were their character of courage? They try to seduce the tax payers with tax cuts that benefit the most wealthy and the average american and middle class end up paying more taxes because of their deficit spending and increases in the national debt.
Interest payments alone just on the national debt during the 12 years of Reagan-Bush cost the tax payers over $2 trillion. Interest payments on the national debt on the present Bush's watch will exceed by far the above payments of Reagan-Bush. Just think of what $4 + trillion could have paid for or provided had the tax payers not been saddled with their reckless spending habits. The interest payments on the national debt for FY ending September 2006 was $406 billion. Yes, you are reading correctly, that's $406 Billion.
The facts tell us those 3 republican presidents have been more than just reckless with spending tax payers money. They have misled the people about their true intentions and as a result, Americans have never received the benefits they deserve. When Ronald Reagan took office the national debt stood at less than one trillion dollars. The national debt as of 14 August 2007 was over $8.9 trillion.
Conservative Republican Presidents? Think Again!
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Another jumps ship!
I am please to report that a key, and much respected, republican Senator has finally seen the light. Sen. John Warner of Virginia said today that:
"President Bush should start bringing home some troops by Christmas to show the Baghdad government that the U.S. commitment to Iraq is not open-ended"
The reason for Warner's change of heart, according to him, is that troop withdrawals are needed because Iraq has failed to make any meaningful progress, despite the influx of troops form the surge. He believes bringing troops home would send a message across the region, that the U.S. is not going to buy the Iraqi government time forever, when their own people are too involved in a civil war to care about the U.S's fate. There is one part of it, though, that I do strongly disagree with: when asked the number of troops he would withdraw, the senator said he would only take 5000 out of Iraq to begin with.
5000?!?!?!?! There are over 160,000 and he thinks 5000 is enough? We need all of our combat troops home, in a safe manner of course. I'm aware that it will be a long, drawn out process to get every last combat troop out of Iraq, but 5000 to start out with is too small a number to send a powerful message to the Iraqis. The top democrats running for president, specifically Hillary Clinton, who has detailed her ideas, have the right idea. Begin the safe withdrawal of all our combat troops. Leave a small force there who's only goal is to hunt and stop the advancement of al-Qaeda. That is the only security threat to the U.S. in Iraq, and the sad part is that even al-Qaeda is there because of the U.S. This B.S. from certain republicans about Iraq being crucial to U.S. homeland security is a complete myth. Al-Qaeda, the only people in Iraq who wish ill will to the U.S., account for under 10% of the violence in Iraq. I hate to come off sounding harsh, but we have given the Iraqis 4 years to fight amongst themselves and settle their differences, but they continue to fight, and they continue to kill and injure hundreds of Americans in the process. If we stop patrolling the streets, trying to control civil violence, there will no doubt be an increase in Iraqi bloodshed, but too bad. I'm just going to say it no matter how horrible it sounds: better them then us. I'd rather read the headline of 100 Iraqis killed in a massacre than one american killed because he had to act like Mr. Policemen between the Iraqis. I'm all for protecting the U.S., so lets fight al-Qaeda, but lets not lose American lives needlessly because the Iraqis themselves can't be get along. Let's protect U.S. interests, and leave Iraqi interests to their own government.
"President Bush should start bringing home some troops by Christmas to show the Baghdad government that the U.S. commitment to Iraq is not open-ended"
The reason for Warner's change of heart, according to him, is that troop withdrawals are needed because Iraq has failed to make any meaningful progress, despite the influx of troops form the surge. He believes bringing troops home would send a message across the region, that the U.S. is not going to buy the Iraqi government time forever, when their own people are too involved in a civil war to care about the U.S's fate. There is one part of it, though, that I do strongly disagree with: when asked the number of troops he would withdraw, the senator said he would only take 5000 out of Iraq to begin with.
5000?!?!?!?! There are over 160,000 and he thinks 5000 is enough? We need all of our combat troops home, in a safe manner of course. I'm aware that it will be a long, drawn out process to get every last combat troop out of Iraq, but 5000 to start out with is too small a number to send a powerful message to the Iraqis. The top democrats running for president, specifically Hillary Clinton, who has detailed her ideas, have the right idea. Begin the safe withdrawal of all our combat troops. Leave a small force there who's only goal is to hunt and stop the advancement of al-Qaeda. That is the only security threat to the U.S. in Iraq, and the sad part is that even al-Qaeda is there because of the U.S. This B.S. from certain republicans about Iraq being crucial to U.S. homeland security is a complete myth. Al-Qaeda, the only people in Iraq who wish ill will to the U.S., account for under 10% of the violence in Iraq. I hate to come off sounding harsh, but we have given the Iraqis 4 years to fight amongst themselves and settle their differences, but they continue to fight, and they continue to kill and injure hundreds of Americans in the process. If we stop patrolling the streets, trying to control civil violence, there will no doubt be an increase in Iraqi bloodshed, but too bad. I'm just going to say it no matter how horrible it sounds: better them then us. I'd rather read the headline of 100 Iraqis killed in a massacre than one american killed because he had to act like Mr. Policemen between the Iraqis. I'm all for protecting the U.S., so lets fight al-Qaeda, but lets not lose American lives needlessly because the Iraqis themselves can't be get along. Let's protect U.S. interests, and leave Iraqi interests to their own government.
Is the surge really working?
This question has popped up in the media as of late, especially among conservative republican commentators who support this war. There has been talk of the surge making progress in such places as Anbar province. However lets get the facts straight-----there is indeed some improvement in some areas because of an increase in troops. In several reports I have heard from men who fought in Iraq, say that they(the troops) can spend 30 days stabilizing a town, but in 30 minutes after they pull out, its back to the the old chaos. It makes sense and I'm not denying that increasing troops in certain areas can lead to a reduce in violence. Its like putting a policemen on watch in a dangerous criminal neighborhood here in the U.S. There might be a reduce in crime while they're patrolling the area, but once they leave, the criminals come out again. This is the same thing that is happening in certain areas of Iraq. There is no long term solution in these areas and its ridiculous for us to put our brave men and women's lives at risk for progress to only last a half an hour once we leave.
Then there is a situation where we have local leaders turning against al-Qaeda. This is a great thing, I don't want al-Qaeda to become prevalent in Iraq, but the thing that so many seem to be missing, is that al-Qaeda is not be rejected by local, tribal leaders because of the surge, but rather because these tribal leaders do not share the same interests as al-Qaeda. This does not arise from an increase in the number of U.S. troops, but rather a realization that terrorists are not just bad for the U.S., but bad for them too.
And the final problem with the so called progress of the surge, is that while some areas show improvement, other areas are getting worse. I'll use another analogy: its like your kid getting a D in math, so you hire him a tutor. The next semester, his math grade is a B, but then you notice his English grade, which used to be an A, is now a C. You can't call that progress and you can't call the surge's results progress. We make 2 steps forward in one area, while at the same time making 2 steps back in another.
I would like to close by simply stating that there is NO military solution to the conflict in Iraq. There has to be a diplomatic, political solution. The Iraqi government, which is supposed to be a form of democracy, has to be the most un-cohesive government this world has ever seen. Maybe people should begin to understand something---we shouldn't invade countries for the hell of it, and the president shouldn't lie to the American people or Congress about the needs to go to war. Simply put it: A Democracy forced upon someone is not a Democracy. The people of Iraq need to want a democracy, and they clearly don't. Why should American troops have to suffer any longer while fighting in the middle of another country's civil war?
Then there is a situation where we have local leaders turning against al-Qaeda. This is a great thing, I don't want al-Qaeda to become prevalent in Iraq, but the thing that so many seem to be missing, is that al-Qaeda is not be rejected by local, tribal leaders because of the surge, but rather because these tribal leaders do not share the same interests as al-Qaeda. This does not arise from an increase in the number of U.S. troops, but rather a realization that terrorists are not just bad for the U.S., but bad for them too.
And the final problem with the so called progress of the surge, is that while some areas show improvement, other areas are getting worse. I'll use another analogy: its like your kid getting a D in math, so you hire him a tutor. The next semester, his math grade is a B, but then you notice his English grade, which used to be an A, is now a C. You can't call that progress and you can't call the surge's results progress. We make 2 steps forward in one area, while at the same time making 2 steps back in another.
I would like to close by simply stating that there is NO military solution to the conflict in Iraq. There has to be a diplomatic, political solution. The Iraqi government, which is supposed to be a form of democracy, has to be the most un-cohesive government this world has ever seen. Maybe people should begin to understand something---we shouldn't invade countries for the hell of it, and the president shouldn't lie to the American people or Congress about the needs to go to war. Simply put it: A Democracy forced upon someone is not a Democracy. The people of Iraq need to want a democracy, and they clearly don't. Why should American troops have to suffer any longer while fighting in the middle of another country's civil war?
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Catfight!!!----Freddy vs. Rudy
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson is expected to officially announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination some time in September. Although I do believe getting in the race too late is going to be a great obstacle for Fred to overcome, taking shots like this one at his fellow candidates is a good way to start building you support base, without being "officially" in the race:
"Anybody who knows me knows I've always cared deeply about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. So I've always felt sort of relieved when I flew back home to where that particular civil liberty gets as much respect as the rest of the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, New York is trying, again, to force its ways on the rest of us, this time through the courts. First, they went after U.S. gun manufacturers, seeking through a lawsuit not only money but injunctive control over the entire industry. An act of congress in 2005 blocked, but did not end, that effort. Now, the same activist federal judge from Brooklyn who provided Mayor Giuliani's administration with the legal ruling it sought to sue gun makers, has done it again. Last week, he created a bizarre justification to allow New York City to sue out-of-state gun stores that sold guns that somehow ended up in criminal hands in the Big Apple."
Now while not directly attacking former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani, Fred's intent is clear. Rudy is strongly pro-gun control and governed that way. I'm not going to get on the who is right or wrong rant at this time(although I will state that I am pro-gun control to an extent), instead I want to take a look at the political implications.
This is a major weakness for Rudy, not just in the republican primaries, but also in the general election. West states such as Colorado will be strongly contested in 2008, and the issue of gun control is a very touchy subject there. Most people in the West, with the exclusion of urban California, are anti-gun control. This was an area where Republicans could take advantage, but not if Rudy is the nominee. In fact he is probably more pro-gun control than all the Democrats in the race. But let me rewind back to the primaries. Rudy's pro-choice stance hasn't seen to affect him too much, his pro-gay marriage views haven't hurt him, but gun control might. The more liberal Thompson and the others can paint him, the less appealing he will become. It might not take out a chunk of his conservative support overnight, like it might once have years ago if he was running, but it can slowly chip away at his base support. Those conservatives who favor Rudy favor him, honestly, because they feel he is the only republican who has a shot at beating Hillary. While I strongly disagree with that assessment, there is no doubt that Fred's attack on Rudy was a smart move. Thompson comes off as the Reagan conservative, while making Rudy look like a wacky liberal to the base of the GOP. This attack, along with Romney's attack on Rudy's immigration views, will slowly erode away Rudy's conservative support, the question is: can they do it in time? My opinion is, in November, when the nation's eyes truly turn to the upcoming primaries, these attacks will be re-visited and will have an impact on Rudy's electability to conservatives. The republican side of the race is still so fluid and interesting; anything could happen. The most interesting issue though that I'm anxiously awaiting to see the result of is the question of whether of not republicans will nominate a social-liberal. They never have before, but if anything can drive them to vote for Guiliani, its the fear of losing to another Clinton.
"Anybody who knows me knows I've always cared deeply about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. So I've always felt sort of relieved when I flew back home to where that particular civil liberty gets as much respect as the rest of the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, New York is trying, again, to force its ways on the rest of us, this time through the courts. First, they went after U.S. gun manufacturers, seeking through a lawsuit not only money but injunctive control over the entire industry. An act of congress in 2005 blocked, but did not end, that effort. Now, the same activist federal judge from Brooklyn who provided Mayor Giuliani's administration with the legal ruling it sought to sue gun makers, has done it again. Last week, he created a bizarre justification to allow New York City to sue out-of-state gun stores that sold guns that somehow ended up in criminal hands in the Big Apple."
Now while not directly attacking former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani, Fred's intent is clear. Rudy is strongly pro-gun control and governed that way. I'm not going to get on the who is right or wrong rant at this time(although I will state that I am pro-gun control to an extent), instead I want to take a look at the political implications.
This is a major weakness for Rudy, not just in the republican primaries, but also in the general election. West states such as Colorado will be strongly contested in 2008, and the issue of gun control is a very touchy subject there. Most people in the West, with the exclusion of urban California, are anti-gun control. This was an area where Republicans could take advantage, but not if Rudy is the nominee. In fact he is probably more pro-gun control than all the Democrats in the race. But let me rewind back to the primaries. Rudy's pro-choice stance hasn't seen to affect him too much, his pro-gay marriage views haven't hurt him, but gun control might. The more liberal Thompson and the others can paint him, the less appealing he will become. It might not take out a chunk of his conservative support overnight, like it might once have years ago if he was running, but it can slowly chip away at his base support. Those conservatives who favor Rudy favor him, honestly, because they feel he is the only republican who has a shot at beating Hillary. While I strongly disagree with that assessment, there is no doubt that Fred's attack on Rudy was a smart move. Thompson comes off as the Reagan conservative, while making Rudy look like a wacky liberal to the base of the GOP. This attack, along with Romney's attack on Rudy's immigration views, will slowly erode away Rudy's conservative support, the question is: can they do it in time? My opinion is, in November, when the nation's eyes truly turn to the upcoming primaries, these attacks will be re-visited and will have an impact on Rudy's electability to conservatives. The republican side of the race is still so fluid and interesting; anything could happen. The most interesting issue though that I'm anxiously awaiting to see the result of is the question of whether of not republicans will nominate a social-liberal. They never have before, but if anything can drive them to vote for Guiliani, its the fear of losing to another Clinton.
FreedomWatch.org---a $15 million lie
Freedomwatch.org, a conservative, pro-war organization has just spent over $15 million on an ad pressing the need for support for this war. Now while I do respect the opinions of all people, I do not respect those who straight up lie in order to try to make a point. In this television ad, there is a graphic of the 9/11 attacks, with the airplane flying into the World Trade Center. While this graphic is being displayed, the following statement is read about Iraq:
"They attacked us on 9/11 and they will again"
See, this is what I hate about the republican party, twisting facts in order to fool the American people iton supporting a war that is unnecessary. It has been proven that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. To say that they did is a complete and utter lie. There was not one Iraqi on the hijacked planes. Saddam Hussein had no contact with Osama bin Laden. The "they" that attacked us on 9/11 was al-Qaeda. They were and are still in Afghanistan. By going into Iraq we have done the exact thing that this ad warns us against, just not in the way freedomwatch.org sees it. By focusing our attention onto Iraq, it left Afghanistan to be re-populated with thousands of new al-Qaeda members. By going into Iraq, we let the man who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, bin-Laden, escape. If the Republicans truly wanted to fight terrorism and keep America safe, they would support the re-deployment of our troops into areas, such as Afghanistan, where there ARE men who ARE planning to attack us again.
"They attacked us on 9/11 and they will again"
See, this is what I hate about the republican party, twisting facts in order to fool the American people iton supporting a war that is unnecessary. It has been proven that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. To say that they did is a complete and utter lie. There was not one Iraqi on the hijacked planes. Saddam Hussein had no contact with Osama bin Laden. The "they" that attacked us on 9/11 was al-Qaeda. They were and are still in Afghanistan. By going into Iraq we have done the exact thing that this ad warns us against, just not in the way freedomwatch.org sees it. By focusing our attention onto Iraq, it left Afghanistan to be re-populated with thousands of new al-Qaeda members. By going into Iraq, we let the man who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, bin-Laden, escape. If the Republicans truly wanted to fight terrorism and keep America safe, they would support the re-deployment of our troops into areas, such as Afghanistan, where there ARE men who ARE planning to attack us again.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Another White House official to leave
Tony Snow, the White House Press Secretary said Friday that he plans on leaving before President Bush finishes his term in office. When he does depart, Snow will join the long list of names who have resigned from the Bush administration, among the most recent are: Karl Rove, Dan Bartlett, and Andrew Card. Now while we have heard the typical excuse, "the leaving to spend more time with my family", from many whom have left the White House, Tony Snow's answer must take the cake:
"I will not be able to make it to the end of this administration, just financially."
What exactly does he mean, financially? As Press Secretary, Snow makes $168,000 a year and made even more money when he was a pundit on Fox News Radio. Does he know how many people would kill to make that much money, and he thinks he can't make it financially??? I find that response to just be so damn insulting. There are people who are homeless and can't get a job, and Snow is complaining about not being able to make it financially with $168,000? And there is no doubt that Snow also has a ton saved up from when he was a conservative pundit. On a side not though, I am glad to see him go, but saddened at his excuse. Can't the White House come up with some type of a reason for all these resignations that is believable? But then again, I guess not, this is the George Dubya Bush administration and reason is the furthest thing from their brains.
"I will not be able to make it to the end of this administration, just financially."
What exactly does he mean, financially? As Press Secretary, Snow makes $168,000 a year and made even more money when he was a pundit on Fox News Radio. Does he know how many people would kill to make that much money, and he thinks he can't make it financially??? I find that response to just be so damn insulting. There are people who are homeless and can't get a job, and Snow is complaining about not being able to make it financially with $168,000? And there is no doubt that Snow also has a ton saved up from when he was a conservative pundit. On a side not though, I am glad to see him go, but saddened at his excuse. Can't the White House come up with some type of a reason for all these resignations that is believable? But then again, I guess not, this is the George Dubya Bush administration and reason is the furthest thing from their brains.
Update: Guiliani compares himself w/ the Rescue Workers
As former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani hits the campaign trail for his White House bid in 2008, he has been using his 9/11 record as his groundwork for becoming president. Last week when asked why he didn't warn of the health conditions posed to rescue workers working at Ground Zero, Rudy had this to say:
"I was at Ground Zero...I was exposed to the same stuff... so I'm one of them"
Well time for a fact check. Rudy spent 29 hours at or near Ground Zero the three months following the terrorist attack. Thats compared to the 12 hours a day rescue workers spent there for months. Rudy can boast about his 9/11 record all he wants, it means nothing. He uses self-serving statements to further his political career. The true 9/11 heroes, the rescue workers and responders, are being over shadowed by Rudy. He uses their hard work, claims it as his own, then turns around and uses that to get votes. Its pathetic when your one supposed qualification for running for the most important office in the world, is based on a lie. Once voters see who the true Rudy is, the one who will use anyone or anything to build his career, I pray to God they won't vote for him. We need a leader, not someone who pretended and continues to pretend to be a leader.
"I was at Ground Zero...I was exposed to the same stuff... so I'm one of them"
Well time for a fact check. Rudy spent 29 hours at or near Ground Zero the three months following the terrorist attack. Thats compared to the 12 hours a day rescue workers spent there for months. Rudy can boast about his 9/11 record all he wants, it means nothing. He uses self-serving statements to further his political career. The true 9/11 heroes, the rescue workers and responders, are being over shadowed by Rudy. He uses their hard work, claims it as his own, then turns around and uses that to get votes. Its pathetic when your one supposed qualification for running for the most important office in the world, is based on a lie. Once voters see who the true Rudy is, the one who will use anyone or anything to build his career, I pray to God they won't vote for him. We need a leader, not someone who pretended and continues to pretend to be a leader.
Define Pro-Life
This is a topic which is obviously very sensitive, but after something that happened to me today personally, I feel I need to address it. I was confronted today by someone who blatantly asked me whether if I was pro-life, it was an out of the blue question and an awful way to start a conversation, but I answered nonetheless. I told this person, I am pro-choice. He immediately jumped on me and called me "anti-life". After being taken a little back by his response, I quickly said, no I'm not anti-life, I'm just not what people like to define as "pro-life".
These same people who will try to force into your head about being pro-life, are mostly hypocrites. I say this because it is those same "holier-than-thou" people who support this War, which leads to unnecessary American deaths. These same people will eat you alive if you mention gun-control, which would reduce shootings, and hence lead to less deaths. And what about when a mother faces death if an abortion does not occur? I am anti-war, I am pro-gun control, and when it comes to abortion, I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose. The Government has no right to tell a woman how to live with her on body.
At the same time, please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everyone should just go get an abortion to solve all their problems. Prevention is the best policy, but for reasons, mainly health, abortion needs to remain legal. I ask those who use "pro-life" to look more carefully at their beliefs, because then I think they would find the true people who stand up for life, are those who are "pro-choice".
These same people who will try to force into your head about being pro-life, are mostly hypocrites. I say this because it is those same "holier-than-thou" people who support this War, which leads to unnecessary American deaths. These same people will eat you alive if you mention gun-control, which would reduce shootings, and hence lead to less deaths. And what about when a mother faces death if an abortion does not occur? I am anti-war, I am pro-gun control, and when it comes to abortion, I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose. The Government has no right to tell a woman how to live with her on body.
At the same time, please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everyone should just go get an abortion to solve all their problems. Prevention is the best policy, but for reasons, mainly health, abortion needs to remain legal. I ask those who use "pro-life" to look more carefully at their beliefs, because then I think they would find the true people who stand up for life, are those who are "pro-choice".
Thursday, August 16, 2007
The GOP Candidates' major flaws
Just like the Democrats, Republicans do not have one ideal candidate. They each bring something positive to their party, but here I will take a look at each candidate's major problem in winning the primaries and a general election.
1. Rudy Guiliani- Rudy has so many past issues that could come up in a general election. Once his past comes out(such as the fact that his kids have completely disowned him), he is likely to become the most un-likable candidate from either party. His social views could also be a major problem in early key states, such as Iowa and New Hampshire.
2. John McCain- John's stance on two major issues have hurt him. And its not a surprise that both of those issues are related to George Bush. Bush's immigration bill, that McCain supported, greatly hurt him among the conservative base. McCain supporting this war so strongly has hurt his chances of gaining moderate republican support and independent support.
3. Fred Thompson- This guy has waited too long to get into the race. A lot of people have already made their mind up and know who their voting for and Fred has yet to even enter the race. The longer he waits to get it, the more people will have made up their mind on who their voting for, and thats more people who won't be voting for Fred Thompson.
4. Mitt Romney- Mitt is the ultimate flip-flopper. Every major issue important to the republican party, Mitt has flip-flopped on. His newly found conservative values may get him the nomination, but there is nothing the American people hate more than flip-floppers. Romney would be a disaster for the GOP, almost a sure shot that they would lose a general election.
5. Mike Huckabee- This guy has probably the most appealing personality of anyone running, but Huckabee just isn't a forceful guy. In the dog-eat-dog world of politics, you have to be ready to take tough stands and go after your opponents. Mike is the nice guy, and while there is nothing wrong with being nice in politics, Mike has played it too nice. He is getting walked over by the others and is not breaking out of the pact like he should have already done.
6. Tom Tancredo- This guy is the crazy conservative. His past comments on bombing Mecca and Medina just about alienate him from getting the votes of any sane person. His tough stances on immigration make his chances of getting any hispanic support zero. This guy is the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican field, appealing to some, but just too far out there for most.
7. Duncan Hunter- Hunter just doesn't have anything to say. He's hardly heard from in the debates and has not said anything about how he would run the country. Its hard to earn votes when no one knows any of your ideas for moving this country forward.
8. Ron Paul- Paul is the ideal candidate for anti-war republicans and independents, but the problem is that the primary voting block in republican primaries is conservatives who are pro-war. Paul might do surprising well in a general election as the republican nominee, but his chances of getting there are slim to none.
9. Sam Brownback- Sam's "holier than thou" attitude is just a turn off for so many people. Sam has this arrogance about him when he talks, as if he's better than everyone else because of his religion. His other problem is that he's a one dimensional candidate, he only talks about abortion. In this day and age, I just can't help but to think that there are way more important issues to take care of than abortion.
10. John Cox- Ever heard of him? neither have I, thats his problem.
Well there is my round-up of the negatives of the GOP candidates. If you haven't already, check out my blog on the negatives of the democratic candidates.
1. Rudy Guiliani- Rudy has so many past issues that could come up in a general election. Once his past comes out(such as the fact that his kids have completely disowned him), he is likely to become the most un-likable candidate from either party. His social views could also be a major problem in early key states, such as Iowa and New Hampshire.
2. John McCain- John's stance on two major issues have hurt him. And its not a surprise that both of those issues are related to George Bush. Bush's immigration bill, that McCain supported, greatly hurt him among the conservative base. McCain supporting this war so strongly has hurt his chances of gaining moderate republican support and independent support.
3. Fred Thompson- This guy has waited too long to get into the race. A lot of people have already made their mind up and know who their voting for and Fred has yet to even enter the race. The longer he waits to get it, the more people will have made up their mind on who their voting for, and thats more people who won't be voting for Fred Thompson.
4. Mitt Romney- Mitt is the ultimate flip-flopper. Every major issue important to the republican party, Mitt has flip-flopped on. His newly found conservative values may get him the nomination, but there is nothing the American people hate more than flip-floppers. Romney would be a disaster for the GOP, almost a sure shot that they would lose a general election.
5. Mike Huckabee- This guy has probably the most appealing personality of anyone running, but Huckabee just isn't a forceful guy. In the dog-eat-dog world of politics, you have to be ready to take tough stands and go after your opponents. Mike is the nice guy, and while there is nothing wrong with being nice in politics, Mike has played it too nice. He is getting walked over by the others and is not breaking out of the pact like he should have already done.
6. Tom Tancredo- This guy is the crazy conservative. His past comments on bombing Mecca and Medina just about alienate him from getting the votes of any sane person. His tough stances on immigration make his chances of getting any hispanic support zero. This guy is the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican field, appealing to some, but just too far out there for most.
7. Duncan Hunter- Hunter just doesn't have anything to say. He's hardly heard from in the debates and has not said anything about how he would run the country. Its hard to earn votes when no one knows any of your ideas for moving this country forward.
8. Ron Paul- Paul is the ideal candidate for anti-war republicans and independents, but the problem is that the primary voting block in republican primaries is conservatives who are pro-war. Paul might do surprising well in a general election as the republican nominee, but his chances of getting there are slim to none.
9. Sam Brownback- Sam's "holier than thou" attitude is just a turn off for so many people. Sam has this arrogance about him when he talks, as if he's better than everyone else because of his religion. His other problem is that he's a one dimensional candidate, he only talks about abortion. In this day and age, I just can't help but to think that there are way more important issues to take care of than abortion.
10. John Cox- Ever heard of him? neither have I, thats his problem.
Well there is my round-up of the negatives of the GOP candidates. If you haven't already, check out my blog on the negatives of the democratic candidates.
The Democratic Candidates' major flaws
There are currently eight democrats with the hope of winning the 2008 Presidential Election. All eight have some great upsides and major pluses, but they also have some key flaws. These key flaws are what divides democrat's on who their nominee should be; there is no "perfect" or ideal candidate.
1. Hillary Clinton- Hillary's major flaw is her image. A lot of people picture Clinton as a cold, stiff person. In other words her appeal and favorability is believed to be limited and democrats don't want to go into a general election with a losing candidate again.
2. Barack Obama- Obama's main issue that he will have to overcome is his experience..or lack there of. With having only spent two years in the U.S. Senate, Obama is still seen as a rookie. The fact that he has had numerous slips and mess-ups in the debates, further speculation as to whether or not Obama is ready to run a general election campaign and ultimately run this country.
3. John Edwards- Edwards has become the populist candidate. He has taken a sharp turn to the left and is appearing to be more and more liberal each day. This might have appeal to the far-left faction of the democratic party, but to moderate democrats and the American people, Edwards is seen as just a little to "out there".
4. Bill Richardson- Bill's huge issue is getting a point across. He has performed horribly in the debates and whenever he makes a speech, he fails to get his message out there. In this day and age, ability to deliver a speech is a key asset needed to reach out and appeal to people. Richardson's inability to reach out to an audience greatly hurts him as people don't get to see Richardson's views adequately expressed.
5. Joe Biden- Joe Biden is the angry candidate. When you see him in the debates, he always seems angry. While a little force in your voice can be a plus, Joe takes it a little to far. His passion comes off as anger, and instead of people listening to what Biden is actually saying, all people hear is enraged yelling.
6. Chris Dodd- Chris has the exact opposite problem that Biden has. Dodd comes off as too sub-dued. His passion for this country fails to come out in his speeches and his debate performances are forgettable.
7. Dennis Kucinich- Dennis has very little appeal to main-stream democrats. He is by far the most far-left candidate in the race. He is the democrat who would do the worst in a general election, as his message just doesn't resinate with the majority of the American people.
8. Mike Gravel- The question for this guy is, "where were you the last 30 years?" In fact my favorite interview of this campaign came when Chris Matthews asked Gravel that exact same question and Gravel responded, "under a rock!" (get it, gravel..rock) Another major issue for Gravel is his over all wackiness. Its not something you can pin-point, the man just comes off as crazy.
There you have it, what I think are the flaws of the democratic candidates. None are the perfect candidate, but then again there has never been a perfect candidate, but I feel confident that one of those people in that list will be our next president.
Be sure to check out my blog on the flaws of the GOP candidates as well.
1. Hillary Clinton- Hillary's major flaw is her image. A lot of people picture Clinton as a cold, stiff person. In other words her appeal and favorability is believed to be limited and democrats don't want to go into a general election with a losing candidate again.
2. Barack Obama- Obama's main issue that he will have to overcome is his experience..or lack there of. With having only spent two years in the U.S. Senate, Obama is still seen as a rookie. The fact that he has had numerous slips and mess-ups in the debates, further speculation as to whether or not Obama is ready to run a general election campaign and ultimately run this country.
3. John Edwards- Edwards has become the populist candidate. He has taken a sharp turn to the left and is appearing to be more and more liberal each day. This might have appeal to the far-left faction of the democratic party, but to moderate democrats and the American people, Edwards is seen as just a little to "out there".
4. Bill Richardson- Bill's huge issue is getting a point across. He has performed horribly in the debates and whenever he makes a speech, he fails to get his message out there. In this day and age, ability to deliver a speech is a key asset needed to reach out and appeal to people. Richardson's inability to reach out to an audience greatly hurts him as people don't get to see Richardson's views adequately expressed.
5. Joe Biden- Joe Biden is the angry candidate. When you see him in the debates, he always seems angry. While a little force in your voice can be a plus, Joe takes it a little to far. His passion comes off as anger, and instead of people listening to what Biden is actually saying, all people hear is enraged yelling.
6. Chris Dodd- Chris has the exact opposite problem that Biden has. Dodd comes off as too sub-dued. His passion for this country fails to come out in his speeches and his debate performances are forgettable.
7. Dennis Kucinich- Dennis has very little appeal to main-stream democrats. He is by far the most far-left candidate in the race. He is the democrat who would do the worst in a general election, as his message just doesn't resinate with the majority of the American people.
8. Mike Gravel- The question for this guy is, "where were you the last 30 years?" In fact my favorite interview of this campaign came when Chris Matthews asked Gravel that exact same question and Gravel responded, "under a rock!" (get it, gravel..rock) Another major issue for Gravel is his over all wackiness. Its not something you can pin-point, the man just comes off as crazy.
There you have it, what I think are the flaws of the democratic candidates. None are the perfect candidate, but then again there has never been a perfect candidate, but I feel confident that one of those people in that list will be our next president.
Be sure to check out my blog on the flaws of the GOP candidates as well.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Rudy flip-flops AGAIN!
Rudy Guiliani is trying to appeal to republican primary voters by appearing to be more conservative. His latest attempt to that has him planning on releasing a detailed plan on how to stop illegal immigration. Guiliani has recently said, "I promise I will end illegal immigration!" This is quite the opposite opinion of illegal immigration than he had in 1994, when the mayor had this to say:
"Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens, if you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city. You’re somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair.”
All I can say is Rudy flip-flopped again. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but it always gets me: when a candidate knowingly goes against what they truly believe in, just to get votes. I don't care whether your democrat, republican, or anything else, its just wrong. If you have to be un-truthful to yourself, you shouldn't be running for president or any elected position for that matter.
"Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens, if you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city. You’re somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair.”
All I can say is Rudy flip-flopped again. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but it always gets me: when a candidate knowingly goes against what they truly believe in, just to get votes. I don't care whether your democrat, republican, or anything else, its just wrong. If you have to be un-truthful to yourself, you shouldn't be running for president or any elected position for that matter.
Clinton strikes a nerve with Bush
Sen. Hillary Clinton just launched her first television ad this past week in Iowa. The ad's message is simple: President Bush doesn't care about working-class people, that they are "invisible" to him and when she(Hillary) is president, those people won't be invisible anymore. The ad promises that Hillary cares about the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and wants them home safely. She promises to provide everyone with healthcare, and promises to provide affordable education for children, so its no a financial burden on their parents and so everyone has the opportunity to earn a great education.
To most, Sen. Clinton addresses the key issues facing America today, but the White House clearly doesn't think so, responding with the following concise statement:
"I think it's(the ad) outrageous".
We could have done without that memo Mr. President. We know you think taking care of our troops is outrageous, we know you think that everyone having healthcare is outrageous, and we know that you think that every child getting a good education is outrageous.
In all seriousness, its ridiculous to see the Republicans jump on everything Hillary says, simply because her last name is Clinton. Any other presidential candidate could have released this ad and it would have gone by un-noticed. But the name Clinton has long been a fear of the GOP, and it seems that again they are trying to bury it. They weren't successful before and they won't be successful now.
To most, Sen. Clinton addresses the key issues facing America today, but the White House clearly doesn't think so, responding with the following concise statement:
"I think it's(the ad) outrageous".
We could have done without that memo Mr. President. We know you think taking care of our troops is outrageous, we know you think that everyone having healthcare is outrageous, and we know that you think that every child getting a good education is outrageous.
In all seriousness, its ridiculous to see the Republicans jump on everything Hillary says, simply because her last name is Clinton. Any other presidential candidate could have released this ad and it would have gone by un-noticed. But the name Clinton has long been a fear of the GOP, and it seems that again they are trying to bury it. They weren't successful before and they won't be successful now.
John Edwards risks losing the New Hampshire primary
John Edwards' campaign is putting all their money on the first-in-the-nation caucus, Iowa, even at the risk of losing New Hampshire. Edwards has spent more than twice as much effort in Iowa than in New Hampshire. And it could be with good reason, for Edwards' country personality has more appeal to Iowa voters than in New Hampshire. Also the populist message, which Edwards is currently running on, is much more appealing to Iowa residents than those in New Hampshire, as New Hampshire is one of the richer states in this country.
You must give John Edwards his credit though, he is polling very well in Iowa, in fact it is the only state in which he has been able to poll well against Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But Edwards may have to switch to a plan "B", as Clinton and Obama are rising in the polls in Iowa. In the most recent survey, Edwards leads the pack with 26%, down 8% from a few months ago. Clinton and Obama poll at 25% and 19% respectively. While we have seen candidates use a win in Iowa in the past to propel them through New Hampshire and beyond, Edwards needs to have at least some organization in New Hampshire. At the rate he is going right now, Edwards could win Iowa and still lose badly in New Hampshire. But at the same time, Edwards knows that Iowa is a must win situation for him. If he doesn't win in Iowa, he won't win anywhere else. The question for the Edwards campaign is how do they distribute their efforts. My personal suggestion would be 60% in Iowa, 40% in New Hampshire. But the bottom line is that Edwards must spend more time in New Hampshire and must get better organized there if he wants a possible Iowa win momentum to push him through. And let it be known that I called it back in August: If Edwards loses Iowa, he is out of the race; he has no chance of winning; and if Clinton wins Iowa, forget it, she's the nominee, hands down!
You must give John Edwards his credit though, he is polling very well in Iowa, in fact it is the only state in which he has been able to poll well against Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But Edwards may have to switch to a plan "B", as Clinton and Obama are rising in the polls in Iowa. In the most recent survey, Edwards leads the pack with 26%, down 8% from a few months ago. Clinton and Obama poll at 25% and 19% respectively. While we have seen candidates use a win in Iowa in the past to propel them through New Hampshire and beyond, Edwards needs to have at least some organization in New Hampshire. At the rate he is going right now, Edwards could win Iowa and still lose badly in New Hampshire. But at the same time, Edwards knows that Iowa is a must win situation for him. If he doesn't win in Iowa, he won't win anywhere else. The question for the Edwards campaign is how do they distribute their efforts. My personal suggestion would be 60% in Iowa, 40% in New Hampshire. But the bottom line is that Edwards must spend more time in New Hampshire and must get better organized there if he wants a possible Iowa win momentum to push him through. And let it be known that I called it back in August: If Edwards loses Iowa, he is out of the race; he has no chance of winning; and if Clinton wins Iowa, forget it, she's the nominee, hands down!
The most powerful people in Washington
GQ has a new list out, counting down the top 50 most powerful people in our Nation's capital. Here's who made the Top 10:
1. Condollezza Rice
2. Harry Reid
3. Robert Gates
4. Anthony Kennedy
5. Nancy Pelosi
6. Howard Kohr
7. David Addington
8. Hillary Clinton
9. Karl Rove
10. Mike Hayden
I certainly don't agree with this list if we're ranking these people based on power. Dick Cheney of all people probably has the most pull in washington. Nancy Pelosi, in my mind, is more respected and therefore is more powerful that Harry Reid. Hillary Clinton is not all that powerful within Washington D.C.. Karl Rove should be higher up on that list for sure, we know of the control he had over the president. But the oddest thing is that Condi is number one. I don't agree with that at all, she might be powerful, but certainly not the MOST powerful. Here is my list:
1. Dick Cheney
2. Karl Rove
3. Nancy Pelosi
5. George Bush
6. Harry Reid
7. Alberto Gonzalez
8. George Bush
9. Condi Rice
10. Patrick Leahy
Its sad when the Vice President and the President's political strategist are higher up on the list than the actual president. But I think we can all agree that Rove is Bush's brain and Dick is the presidents, well....I'll leave the body part up for you to decide.
To see all 50 on GQ's list, visit: http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5843&pageNum=1.
1. Condollezza Rice
2. Harry Reid
3. Robert Gates
4. Anthony Kennedy
5. Nancy Pelosi
6. Howard Kohr
7. David Addington
8. Hillary Clinton
9. Karl Rove
10. Mike Hayden
I certainly don't agree with this list if we're ranking these people based on power. Dick Cheney of all people probably has the most pull in washington. Nancy Pelosi, in my mind, is more respected and therefore is more powerful that Harry Reid. Hillary Clinton is not all that powerful within Washington D.C.. Karl Rove should be higher up on that list for sure, we know of the control he had over the president. But the oddest thing is that Condi is number one. I don't agree with that at all, she might be powerful, but certainly not the MOST powerful. Here is my list:
1. Dick Cheney
2. Karl Rove
3. Nancy Pelosi
5. George Bush
6. Harry Reid
7. Alberto Gonzalez
8. George Bush
9. Condi Rice
10. Patrick Leahy
Its sad when the Vice President and the President's political strategist are higher up on the list than the actual president. But I think we can all agree that Rove is Bush's brain and Dick is the presidents, well....I'll leave the body part up for you to decide.
To see all 50 on GQ's list, visit: http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5843&pageNum=1.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
CNN/YouTube GOP debate back on
CNN and YouTube were all ready to host their second interactive format debate, this time to the Republican candidates, when the debate was indefinitely postponed due to the fact that only John McCain and Ron Paul committed to it. The reason given by the other 7 candidates(at that time) was that there were scheduling conflicts. What a pitiful excuse. If you ask me, it was just the Republicans trying to dodge answering questions asked by real people. Maybe they were scared they would be put on the spot, and indeed they probably would have been. But these user-generated questions via YouTube was what made the Democratic debate so interesting. It was good to see real people ask real questions that affect their individual lives, rather than a moderator asking the same old pre-determined questions. Putting the candidates on the spot, with the candidates having no way to prepare, allowed you to truly see what the candidates were thinking.
So what did CNN do to get the GOP candidates to join in? They moved the debate to November 28, outsmarting the candidates. Surely there couldn't be scheduling conflicts two months later from their original "scheduling conflict". So with no excuse to give, all the Republicans have agreed to the debate, except one. Governor Mitt Romney has yet to commit and criticizes the debate format. In an interview, Romney said, "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman."(referring to a question on global warming posed by a man talking through a snowman). Wake up Mitt, it wasn't an actual snowman asking the question, it was a real person with a good, intelligent question. The snowman was there for entertainment, you know Mitt, to actually have a little fun. But fuddy-duddy, party-pooper, Mitt Romney must not like having fun, or answering questions. The questions may be presented in an entertaining way, in an attempt to appeal to younger voters, but they are serious questions that anyone, who wants to be president, should be willing and able to answer.
I encourage everyone to submit a video question via YouTube for the debate on Nov. 28.
To submit your question to the candidates, go to: http://www.youtube.com/debates.
So what did CNN do to get the GOP candidates to join in? They moved the debate to November 28, outsmarting the candidates. Surely there couldn't be scheduling conflicts two months later from their original "scheduling conflict". So with no excuse to give, all the Republicans have agreed to the debate, except one. Governor Mitt Romney has yet to commit and criticizes the debate format. In an interview, Romney said, "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman."(referring to a question on global warming posed by a man talking through a snowman). Wake up Mitt, it wasn't an actual snowman asking the question, it was a real person with a good, intelligent question. The snowman was there for entertainment, you know Mitt, to actually have a little fun. But fuddy-duddy, party-pooper, Mitt Romney must not like having fun, or answering questions. The questions may be presented in an entertaining way, in an attempt to appeal to younger voters, but they are serious questions that anyone, who wants to be president, should be willing and able to answer.
I encourage everyone to submit a video question via YouTube for the debate on Nov. 28.
To submit your question to the candidates, go to: http://www.youtube.com/debates.
Hastert to retire
Well it appears another republican is about to bite the dust. Former Speaker of the House and Illinois congressman, Dennis Hastert, is expected to announce his retirement from Congress this weekend at a press conference. While this may not seem like anything significant, its another congressional seat that the democrats are going to be looking to grab in '08 and another district where the republicans will have to be on the defense instead of on the offensive.
I'll be back with a blog post this weekend on his press conference and what it means for the GOP.
I'll be back with a blog post this weekend on his press conference and what it means for the GOP.
New study shows Clinton appealing to Democrats more and more
In research conducted by CNN, Democrats say that Hillary Clinton is the most experienced with 59%, followed by John Edwards at 11%, and Barack Obama with 9%. When asked who the strongest leader was, Democrats again chose Clinton with 47%, with her rivals Obama and Edwards, scoring 22% and 13% respectively. Clinton also polled ahead, with 46%, when Democrats were asked who is most qualified to be commander-in-chief. Obama followed with 15% and Edwards with 13%. When Democrats were asked who is the candidate for change, 40% said Clinton, 27% said Obama, and Edwards came in third with 13%. When asked who is the most honest candidate, Clinton came out again the winner with 28%, followed closely by Obama at 24%, and Edwards with 19%. When asked who is the best choice to defeat a Republican and lead the Democrats to a victory in '08, Clinton won by a landslide 55%, way ahead of the 19% for Obama and the 12% Edwards received. She also scored the highest when democrats were asked whether Clinton could beat the GOP, 72% say she definitely can, while only 57% feel the same about Obama.
Clinton is indeed in a very good place right now. With her support on a consistent rise, it may only be a short time before some of the other contenders must drop out of the race. The most interesting finding of the poll is that democrats feel Hillary is the candidate of change over Obama, who has been running as the change candidate. Obama has spent so much time casting himself as the candidate of change, one would have to have expected Obama would win that category. The fact that he didn't demonstrates something I've touched on before: you have to be change itself, not just talk about change. Actions speak louder than words, and at this point, it seems Obama's rhetoric can only take him so far.
Clinton is indeed in a very good place right now. With her support on a consistent rise, it may only be a short time before some of the other contenders must drop out of the race. The most interesting finding of the poll is that democrats feel Hillary is the candidate of change over Obama, who has been running as the change candidate. Obama has spent so much time casting himself as the candidate of change, one would have to have expected Obama would win that category. The fact that he didn't demonstrates something I've touched on before: you have to be change itself, not just talk about change. Actions speak louder than words, and at this point, it seems Obama's rhetoric can only take him so far.
Karl Rove: The GOP's past or future?
As we all know by now, President Bush's long time friend, Karl Rove, resigned yesterday as Mr. Bush's chief political strategist. This has fueled much speculation as to what is next for "Bush's brain". We know two things for sure, that Rove intends to spend more time with his family in Texas and plans on writing a book on the Bush years(can hardly wait for that one). But I would be willing to bet on one thing, Karl Rove won't stay out of politics for long, this is how I see it:
Rove will wait until March or April until the GOP's eventual nominee is clear. And just like he did with Mr. Bush, Rove will advise this candidate, because Rove truly does see himself as the brain of the Republican party. And to be quite honest, the Republican party sees Rove as their brain too. Any of the GOP candidates would love to have Rove as their strategist. The question is, is Karl Rove the Republican's future, is he their Messiah who can guide them to an upset victory in 2008? Some might argue yes, but I argue no. Karl Rove is the past of the Republican Party. He brought Texas to a strong Republican state, in the process of Bush becoming governor. He led the Congress to be controlled by Republicans until recently. Rove represents everything the public dislikes about the Republican Party. The American people made their voices heard in the 2006 Congressional elections, they were tired of the "old" Republican Party. They wanted fresh faces: free of corruption, scandal, controversy, and lies. You would have thought that the message would have gotten to some Republicans, but it has yet to. All the 2008 GOP President hopefuls, with the exception of Ron Paul, are running on principles that the American people already have turned down. Karl Rove used fear to help the GOP retain Congress for some many years and for Bush to win in '04. His advise to the Republican Party was simple: scare the America people into thinking that the Republicans are the only ones who can be trusted on national security and fighting terrorism. It did work for a number of years, then the American people realized that the President, with the advise of Rove no doubt, lied to Congress and them(the American people) to go to war with Iraq. Lied about al-Qaeda there, lied about Saddam's involvement with 9/11, and lied about the WMDs. Its a great liability for a Republican candidate to seek the advise of Rove. Rove's advise worked in the past, but times change, and so the ideas have to change too. Rove's advise would make a carbon-copy of Bush in the Republican nominee. And that could be the most dangerous thing Karl Rove has done yet to the Republican Party. Rove's strategies worked in the past; once the GOP realizes that they have to look to the future, not the past, they may start regaining popularity. Looking to the future, that is, being progressive, is what is making the democrats appeal more and more to main-stream America.
Rove will wait until March or April until the GOP's eventual nominee is clear. And just like he did with Mr. Bush, Rove will advise this candidate, because Rove truly does see himself as the brain of the Republican party. And to be quite honest, the Republican party sees Rove as their brain too. Any of the GOP candidates would love to have Rove as their strategist. The question is, is Karl Rove the Republican's future, is he their Messiah who can guide them to an upset victory in 2008? Some might argue yes, but I argue no. Karl Rove is the past of the Republican Party. He brought Texas to a strong Republican state, in the process of Bush becoming governor. He led the Congress to be controlled by Republicans until recently. Rove represents everything the public dislikes about the Republican Party. The American people made their voices heard in the 2006 Congressional elections, they were tired of the "old" Republican Party. They wanted fresh faces: free of corruption, scandal, controversy, and lies. You would have thought that the message would have gotten to some Republicans, but it has yet to. All the 2008 GOP President hopefuls, with the exception of Ron Paul, are running on principles that the American people already have turned down. Karl Rove used fear to help the GOP retain Congress for some many years and for Bush to win in '04. His advise to the Republican Party was simple: scare the America people into thinking that the Republicans are the only ones who can be trusted on national security and fighting terrorism. It did work for a number of years, then the American people realized that the President, with the advise of Rove no doubt, lied to Congress and them(the American people) to go to war with Iraq. Lied about al-Qaeda there, lied about Saddam's involvement with 9/11, and lied about the WMDs. Its a great liability for a Republican candidate to seek the advise of Rove. Rove's advise worked in the past, but times change, and so the ideas have to change too. Rove's advise would make a carbon-copy of Bush in the Republican nominee. And that could be the most dangerous thing Karl Rove has done yet to the Republican Party. Rove's strategies worked in the past; once the GOP realizes that they have to look to the future, not the past, they may start regaining popularity. Looking to the future, that is, being progressive, is what is making the democrats appeal more and more to main-stream America.
Biden on Obama
Joseph Biden, of whom I have a great deal of respect, opened up in the most recent edition of Newsweek. He answered some tough questions about his past personal struggles; no doubt this guy is a fighter. But the most interesting part of the Newsweek interview came when the Delaware Senator was asked about Illinois Senator and fellow presidential candidate, Barack Obama. Biden was asked if he saw a similarity between his 1988 bid for the White House, and Obama's campaign today:
"There are definitely similarities. One thing is, I’m waging the same campaign today, but it’s a lot harder to wage it when you are over 60 than when you are in your mid-40s. You are granted, when you’re young, an enthusiasm. You’re granted a sense of idealism, but you are also perceived as not being quite ready. And he suffers from that perception, as I did. I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. It’s awful hard, with only a little bit of experience to have a clear sense of what you would do on the most critical issues facing us today: what to do about promoting America’s place in the world. It is not something that lends itself to—the trite phrase is—it’s not something that lends itself to on-the-job training. You have to have a clear notion of what you want to do. When power is handed off from George Bush to the next president, the next president will be left with virtually no margin for error."
I do wish Biden would get more media coverage as this guy is one of the best candidates in the race. I hate to pick on Obama twice in one day, trust me it wasn't purposeful, but Biden is absolutely correct. People are for some reason willing to make an even exchange: experience for change. People see Obama as the change candidate and throw his lack of experience out the window. But why can't change and experience co-exist? I think we can all agree any democratic president would be a drastic change from the Bush-Cheney dynasty. With only two years in the Congress, is Obama ready? This guy has a lot left to learn, but I do believe that Obama, one day, will be the first African-American President. I just hope it happens when he is ready to take on the responsibility of being president. And it takes a lot more than just two years in the Senate to be ready for a job as big as being the President of the United States.
"There are definitely similarities. One thing is, I’m waging the same campaign today, but it’s a lot harder to wage it when you are over 60 than when you are in your mid-40s. You are granted, when you’re young, an enthusiasm. You’re granted a sense of idealism, but you are also perceived as not being quite ready. And he suffers from that perception, as I did. I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. It’s awful hard, with only a little bit of experience to have a clear sense of what you would do on the most critical issues facing us today: what to do about promoting America’s place in the world. It is not something that lends itself to—the trite phrase is—it’s not something that lends itself to on-the-job training. You have to have a clear notion of what you want to do. When power is handed off from George Bush to the next president, the next president will be left with virtually no margin for error."
I do wish Biden would get more media coverage as this guy is one of the best candidates in the race. I hate to pick on Obama twice in one day, trust me it wasn't purposeful, but Biden is absolutely correct. People are for some reason willing to make an even exchange: experience for change. People see Obama as the change candidate and throw his lack of experience out the window. But why can't change and experience co-exist? I think we can all agree any democratic president would be a drastic change from the Bush-Cheney dynasty. With only two years in the Congress, is Obama ready? This guy has a lot left to learn, but I do believe that Obama, one day, will be the first African-American President. I just hope it happens when he is ready to take on the responsibility of being president. And it takes a lot more than just two years in the Senate to be ready for a job as big as being the President of the United States.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Elizabeth Edwards: Saying what I've been saying all along on Obama
Elizabeth Edwards is someone who I do admire at times, and at other times wish she would shut-up and let her husband run his own campaign. But in the August issue of Progressive Magazine, Mrs. Edwards says something I truly do agree with; in fact it is something I've said for a long long time. Mrs. Edwards writes:
"Obama gives a speech that's likely to be extraordinarily popular in his home district, and then comes to the Senate and votes for funding... so you are going to get people behaving in a holier-than-thou way."
This was Mrs. Edwards of course addressing Sen. Obama's claim to fame which is that unlike the others running, he(Obama) was always against the Iraq War. Well its a good argument, except Obama wasn't even in the U.S. Senate at the time of the Iraq War vote. In fact the only time he's on record saying he was against this war was a statement which he made while in the Illinois State Legislature. As Mrs. Edwards points out, it doesn't take much gut to go out and pander to an anti-war crowd. Obama wasn't in the U.S. Senate, he didn't have the President up in his face, lying to him, telling him a list of reasons why we needed to go to war. I believe that if Iraq did in fact have WMDs and terrorists were in Iraq, planning future attacks on the U.S., then we absolutely had a duty to go into Iraq, and that was the exact proof presented to Congress by Bush. The Congress voted the right way given the information they were given, the only problem was that all the information were lies. And then if Obama was truly against the war when he got elected to Congress, and he had the chance to make a difference, he continually voted to fund the war. Why was it Hillary Clinton, not Obama who asked the Pentagon for withdrawal plans, if Obama truly wanted to get out of Iraq. There's a lack of consistency on Obama's part. Its easy to say something, but something totally different to act on it. And Obama has yet to act.
"Obama gives a speech that's likely to be extraordinarily popular in his home district, and then comes to the Senate and votes for funding... so you are going to get people behaving in a holier-than-thou way."
This was Mrs. Edwards of course addressing Sen. Obama's claim to fame which is that unlike the others running, he(Obama) was always against the Iraq War. Well its a good argument, except Obama wasn't even in the U.S. Senate at the time of the Iraq War vote. In fact the only time he's on record saying he was against this war was a statement which he made while in the Illinois State Legislature. As Mrs. Edwards points out, it doesn't take much gut to go out and pander to an anti-war crowd. Obama wasn't in the U.S. Senate, he didn't have the President up in his face, lying to him, telling him a list of reasons why we needed to go to war. I believe that if Iraq did in fact have WMDs and terrorists were in Iraq, planning future attacks on the U.S., then we absolutely had a duty to go into Iraq, and that was the exact proof presented to Congress by Bush. The Congress voted the right way given the information they were given, the only problem was that all the information were lies. And then if Obama was truly against the war when he got elected to Congress, and he had the chance to make a difference, he continually voted to fund the war. Why was it Hillary Clinton, not Obama who asked the Pentagon for withdrawal plans, if Obama truly wanted to get out of Iraq. There's a lack of consistency on Obama's part. Its easy to say something, but something totally different to act on it. And Obama has yet to act.
Guess what? We have another flip-flopper on our hands!
As if Mitt Romney's flip-flopping on every issue imaginable wasn't enough, we now have another flip-flopper on our hands. And believe it or not, its another Republican!!! Its everyone's favorite self-serving mayor, Rudy Guiliani. Basically he was for gay civil unions before he was against it. As mayor of New York City, Guiliani described himself as a backer of civil unions, and in fact he initiated domestic partnership laws while he was mayor in '98. Ask him the same question today...not so much. When his campaign was asked about this flip-flop, they responded by saying...well Guiliani is okay with what he enacted as mayor in 1998, but he does not go as far as to back civil unions. The only problem is when he was mayor, he did support civil unions.
Joe Traver, an advocate for gay rights in New York responded to Guiliani's change of heart, stating:
"It's really disappointing he's stepped back from his position on civil unions, it's quite obvious he's playing to the people whose votes he needs to get the Republican nomination."
Its typical of politicians, change your position in order to win the nomination. Guiliani knows that he has to make himself at least appear more conservative on social issues if he is going to have a shot at winning the early states in the nomination process: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It might be a smart change politically right now, but all this flip-flopping is sure to come back to bite him in the butt if he gets the nomination. No one likes a candidate who panders just to win over a crowd. It was a key flaw in John Kerry's armor and it will come into play if Guiliani or Romney get the nomination.
This flip-flopping issue has long annoyed me. Its nothing but pandering to appeal to a specific crowd at a specific time. That is why I truly admire what Hillary Clinton has done so far in this campaign. She has taken a stance on issues that is un-favorable to the crowd at which she is in front of. She boldly said that she would continue to take lobbyist money because lobbyists do represent real people, in front of an anti-lobbyist crowd. She stood up for her beliefs and said she was not for gay marriage while in front of a pro-gay marriage crowd. While the GOP courts the right, and some of the democratic candidates court the left, Hillary is the only one who stands firm for what she believes in and refuses to pander to a crowd. That is a very respectable quality in a candidate and indeed a sign for a true leader.
Joe Traver, an advocate for gay rights in New York responded to Guiliani's change of heart, stating:
"It's really disappointing he's stepped back from his position on civil unions, it's quite obvious he's playing to the people whose votes he needs to get the Republican nomination."
Its typical of politicians, change your position in order to win the nomination. Guiliani knows that he has to make himself at least appear more conservative on social issues if he is going to have a shot at winning the early states in the nomination process: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It might be a smart change politically right now, but all this flip-flopping is sure to come back to bite him in the butt if he gets the nomination. No one likes a candidate who panders just to win over a crowd. It was a key flaw in John Kerry's armor and it will come into play if Guiliani or Romney get the nomination.
This flip-flopping issue has long annoyed me. Its nothing but pandering to appeal to a specific crowd at a specific time. That is why I truly admire what Hillary Clinton has done so far in this campaign. She has taken a stance on issues that is un-favorable to the crowd at which she is in front of. She boldly said that she would continue to take lobbyist money because lobbyists do represent real people, in front of an anti-lobbyist crowd. She stood up for her beliefs and said she was not for gay marriage while in front of a pro-gay marriage crowd. While the GOP courts the right, and some of the democratic candidates court the left, Hillary is the only one who stands firm for what she believes in and refuses to pander to a crowd. That is a very respectable quality in a candidate and indeed a sign for a true leader.
Key voting blocks going for the Dems?
Stan Greenberg, a leading Democratic pollster, has looked at four months of polling data and in the process has found out where some key voting blocks stand as the 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections draw near. These results are profound and will no doubt have a major impact on the race.
-Voters with a college education who earn more than $75,000 a year, support the democrats by an 11 point margin. This voting block, often dubbed the "opinion elite" has traditionally gone Republican. Maybe those college degrees are paying off!
-Independent voters have defected from leaning Republican and now support the democrats by 19 points. This could be the most significant finding of the poll. Independent voters always have been major players in Presidential Elections. Independents have voted mostly republican for the last several election cycles, but with their support for the democrats, the GOP could be in trouble in key battle ground states.
-Young voters are breaking to the Democrats with landslide margins. This not only is good for the Democratic Party for this election, but for years to come. If voters who have just turned 18 register as Democrats and stay that way, this could be a great asset for the party for the next 50 years. The only problem is actually getting young voters out on election day.
-Married Women, who largely went to Republicans in the past, are now breaking evenly with the Democrats and continue to favor democrats more and more. If this trend continues and dems gain full control of this group, expect the Republicans to risk some traditionally republican states in "Middle America".
-Unmarried women, who traditionally vote democratic, are now in even more support of the democrats. The democrats' strong position on health care, raising the minimum wage, and education strongly appeal to this block of voters.
Very good news for the democrats to say the very least. If these findings hold true on election day, the democrats will win by a fairly wide margin.
-Voters with a college education who earn more than $75,000 a year, support the democrats by an 11 point margin. This voting block, often dubbed the "opinion elite" has traditionally gone Republican. Maybe those college degrees are paying off!
-Independent voters have defected from leaning Republican and now support the democrats by 19 points. This could be the most significant finding of the poll. Independent voters always have been major players in Presidential Elections. Independents have voted mostly republican for the last several election cycles, but with their support for the democrats, the GOP could be in trouble in key battle ground states.
-Young voters are breaking to the Democrats with landslide margins. This not only is good for the Democratic Party for this election, but for years to come. If voters who have just turned 18 register as Democrats and stay that way, this could be a great asset for the party for the next 50 years. The only problem is actually getting young voters out on election day.
-Married Women, who largely went to Republicans in the past, are now breaking evenly with the Democrats and continue to favor democrats more and more. If this trend continues and dems gain full control of this group, expect the Republicans to risk some traditionally republican states in "Middle America".
-Unmarried women, who traditionally vote democratic, are now in even more support of the democrats. The democrats' strong position on health care, raising the minimum wage, and education strongly appeal to this block of voters.
Very good news for the democrats to say the very least. If these findings hold true on election day, the democrats will win by a fairly wide margin.
Do Republicans really want it to be Rudy vs. Hillary?
As the Hillary bashing continues, it seems that the republicans believe there is only one candidate who can be successful in a general election against Sen. Clinton and thats why this man is leading among republican voters in national polls. The man of which I speak is of course former Mayor Rudy Guiliani. But I must caution you republicans out there, you really should re-think the idea of Rudy being the guy most able to topple Hillary.
It appears to be that Hillary and Rudy are slowly, but surely, switching their positions in the minds of the public. Hillary's positives are rising while her negatives are falling. Rudy is the opposite. His negatives are rising and positives falling. I am guessing that Republicans feel that Rudy can best instill that fear in Americans, you know that same fear of terrorism that Rudy said we shouldn't have on 9/11, because then we would be letting the enemy win, yea, that fear. Its the same fear that won Bush re-election and the same fear that republicans continually try to use to undermine the democrats. Republicans are hoping that once that fear is planted, Rudy will come along and be the savior; be America's knight in shining armor against the terrorists. Well, I hate to break it to the Republicans, but I think the "fear" ship has sailed. Not to mention Rudy has so much past that has yet to be fully exposed. I mean, for God's sake, his kids have said they want nothing at all to do with their father. The man has been married three times. Not to mention all the controversy surrounding what Rudy actually did on 9/11 as opposed to what he says he did. While Rudy has yet to have his past exposed, Hillary's past is completely exposed. She has nothing left to be revealed. The public already knows her flaws and she still wins in the polls. I must warn the GOP, before you put all your money on Guiliani, I would look at some of the other candidates. It might be that someone like Huckabee is the best choice. He isn't a flip-flopper like Romney, he doesn't have the immigration issues McCain has, he isn't the lazy, Bush-like candidate a.k.a. Thompson, and he doesn't have a controversial past like Guiliani. If the GOP want to retain the White House in '08, I suggest they look at some of the lesser-known candidates, as they might be their best options yet!
It appears to be that Hillary and Rudy are slowly, but surely, switching their positions in the minds of the public. Hillary's positives are rising while her negatives are falling. Rudy is the opposite. His negatives are rising and positives falling. I am guessing that Republicans feel that Rudy can best instill that fear in Americans, you know that same fear of terrorism that Rudy said we shouldn't have on 9/11, because then we would be letting the enemy win, yea, that fear. Its the same fear that won Bush re-election and the same fear that republicans continually try to use to undermine the democrats. Republicans are hoping that once that fear is planted, Rudy will come along and be the savior; be America's knight in shining armor against the terrorists. Well, I hate to break it to the Republicans, but I think the "fear" ship has sailed. Not to mention Rudy has so much past that has yet to be fully exposed. I mean, for God's sake, his kids have said they want nothing at all to do with their father. The man has been married three times. Not to mention all the controversy surrounding what Rudy actually did on 9/11 as opposed to what he says he did. While Rudy has yet to have his past exposed, Hillary's past is completely exposed. She has nothing left to be revealed. The public already knows her flaws and she still wins in the polls. I must warn the GOP, before you put all your money on Guiliani, I would look at some of the other candidates. It might be that someone like Huckabee is the best choice. He isn't a flip-flopper like Romney, he doesn't have the immigration issues McCain has, he isn't the lazy, Bush-like candidate a.k.a. Thompson, and he doesn't have a controversial past like Guiliani. If the GOP want to retain the White House in '08, I suggest they look at some of the lesser-known candidates, as they might be their best options yet!
The Surge: "not likely to succeed"
Just today, the British Parliament's Foreign Affairs committee, published an oversight on how the government can improve its role in the Iraq War. And lets just say, that they don't exactly agree with what our Mr. Dubya has been saying:
"We conclude that it is too early to provide a definitive assessment of the US ’surge’ but that it does not look likely to succeed. We believe that the success of this strategy will ultimately ride on whether Iraq’s politicians are able to reach agreement on a number of key issues. We recommend that, in its response to this Report, the Government set out what actions it is taking to facilitate political reconciliation in Iraq. We are concerned that the damage done to the Government’s reputation in the Arab and Islamic world may affect its ability to influence the political situation in the Middle East."
So finally us crazy democrats aren't alone on this issue. This is what our democratic leaders have been saying for years. No amount of troops an end this war. Only diplomacy. Now the neo-cons can't just say that us dems are crazy for wanting an end to this war, but they'll also have to conclude that our close ally, Britain, is crazy to, and I'm not sure they really want to do that.
"We conclude that it is too early to provide a definitive assessment of the US ’surge’ but that it does not look likely to succeed. We believe that the success of this strategy will ultimately ride on whether Iraq’s politicians are able to reach agreement on a number of key issues. We recommend that, in its response to this Report, the Government set out what actions it is taking to facilitate political reconciliation in Iraq. We are concerned that the damage done to the Government’s reputation in the Arab and Islamic world may affect its ability to influence the political situation in the Middle East."
So finally us crazy democrats aren't alone on this issue. This is what our democratic leaders have been saying for years. No amount of troops an end this war. Only diplomacy. Now the neo-cons can't just say that us dems are crazy for wanting an end to this war, but they'll also have to conclude that our close ally, Britain, is crazy to, and I'm not sure they really want to do that.
3rd Party Candidates: spoilers?
As we approach another election year, one of the issues both the GOP and Democrats must look at is who is running on a third-party ticket, as it can have a major effect on their chances to win the presidency. We've seen this in recent years. In 1992, Ross Perot allowed Bill Clinton to win the presidency without getting a majority of the popular vote. Many debate whether Bush would have retained the White House if it wasn't for Perot. The most infamous case of a third party candidate possibly costing a candidate the election is 2000. Many, myself included, say that if it wasn't for Ralph Nader, the Green Party's candidate, Al Gore would be the president today. That can obviously be disputed, but what cannot is the facts. 65% of the people who voted for Nader in Florida, said that if Nader wasn't on the ballot, they would have voted for Gore, only 25% said they would have voted republican and the remainder said they wouldn't have voted at all. This case shows how indeed a third party candidate can have a huge impact on a presidential election.
So now I'm going to ask myself a question that is sure to be asked for many elections to come: should third party candidates be allowed on the ballots? I have a difficult time answering that question. I guess the answer has to be yes, this is a democracy and any one, with the qualifications, is able to run. But at the same time they do spoil elections. I would just like to ask these candidates, like Nader, "why run when you and everyone else know that you have zero chance of winning?" The answer is always the same: "because we bring issues to the table." I just don't see how they bring issues to the table. Nader didn't talk on any important issue, that the other candidates hadn't addressed. It seems as if he, and other third party candidates, just like the attention, people, like myself, give them by hating on them for running. It just seems so much more practical that if you have an issue, that you do speak strongly on it, but support the candidate that actually stands for those issues and has a chance of winning. For example, in 2000, who do you think Nader would govern closer to: Gore or Bush. The answer is clearly Gore, in fact, he and Gore were on the same side of all the important issues. And those issues would have gotten addressed if Nader used what little influence he had and spoke out on behalf of Gore and helped him to get elected, but instead he cost Gore, who had similar ideas to his, the election by running. Nader came off seeming like he cared more about himself than he did about the issues he supposedly cared so deeply about. But part of the blame also has to be placed on the people who vote for these spoiler candidates. To me it seems like a wasted vote.
Indeed this will be a hot debate as we inch closer to the '08 election and the possibility of another Nader run, a Bloomberg run, and even a Ron Paul libertarian ticket. In the end though, its not in my power to make sure these candidates aren't spoilers, its up to the American people to use their vote wisely to get done what they need done!
So now I'm going to ask myself a question that is sure to be asked for many elections to come: should third party candidates be allowed on the ballots? I have a difficult time answering that question. I guess the answer has to be yes, this is a democracy and any one, with the qualifications, is able to run. But at the same time they do spoil elections. I would just like to ask these candidates, like Nader, "why run when you and everyone else know that you have zero chance of winning?" The answer is always the same: "because we bring issues to the table." I just don't see how they bring issues to the table. Nader didn't talk on any important issue, that the other candidates hadn't addressed. It seems as if he, and other third party candidates, just like the attention, people, like myself, give them by hating on them for running. It just seems so much more practical that if you have an issue, that you do speak strongly on it, but support the candidate that actually stands for those issues and has a chance of winning. For example, in 2000, who do you think Nader would govern closer to: Gore or Bush. The answer is clearly Gore, in fact, he and Gore were on the same side of all the important issues. And those issues would have gotten addressed if Nader used what little influence he had and spoke out on behalf of Gore and helped him to get elected, but instead he cost Gore, who had similar ideas to his, the election by running. Nader came off seeming like he cared more about himself than he did about the issues he supposedly cared so deeply about. But part of the blame also has to be placed on the people who vote for these spoiler candidates. To me it seems like a wasted vote.
Indeed this will be a hot debate as we inch closer to the '08 election and the possibility of another Nader run, a Bloomberg run, and even a Ron Paul libertarian ticket. In the end though, its not in my power to make sure these candidates aren't spoilers, its up to the American people to use their vote wisely to get done what they need done!
A second place finish--just what Huckabee needed
Wow, I must say I'm a little surprised. When I originally wrote my analysis of the Iowa Straw Poll, I said that Huckabee, even though he came in second, was still far from Romney, who nearly received double the votes, and may not get the momentum a closer finish to Romney would have given him. But boy was I dead wrong. Huckabee has capitalized on his win and is quickly gaining momentum.
The attention the media has given to Huckabee has really amazed me. He is on the front-page of just about every political website. He has given interviews with all the cable news channels, including a very good interview on Morning Joe this morning, where he disclosed a very interesting piece of information. That piece of info led me to see why Huckabee was so excited and why his second place victory energized his campaign. While Romney spent anywhere from $4-5 million on the Straw Poll, Huckabee only spend $90,000. Do the math: Huckaebee got half the votes Romney did, but didn't spend close to half the money Romney did. Its actually pretty damn impressive that Huckabee has the amount of support he does with so little money. If this buzz about Huckabee continues and he does well in the next debate, I could actually see Huckabee break into the front-tier and get some big donations. While I might not like his ideas or principals, I must say there is something refreshing about Huckabee, he does appear to be the most approachable guy on the Republican side. I might have wrote the governor off to soon, as I'm starting to see big things for Huckabee.
The attention the media has given to Huckabee has really amazed me. He is on the front-page of just about every political website. He has given interviews with all the cable news channels, including a very good interview on Morning Joe this morning, where he disclosed a very interesting piece of information. That piece of info led me to see why Huckabee was so excited and why his second place victory energized his campaign. While Romney spent anywhere from $4-5 million on the Straw Poll, Huckabee only spend $90,000. Do the math: Huckaebee got half the votes Romney did, but didn't spend close to half the money Romney did. Its actually pretty damn impressive that Huckabee has the amount of support he does with so little money. If this buzz about Huckabee continues and he does well in the next debate, I could actually see Huckabee break into the front-tier and get some big donations. While I might not like his ideas or principals, I must say there is something refreshing about Huckabee, he does appear to be the most approachable guy on the Republican side. I might have wrote the governor off to soon, as I'm starting to see big things for Huckabee.
To Be or Not to Be?----like Bush?!?!
The 2008 Republican nominee will be forced to ask himself the question: "Do I run as another Bush or not?". Some may be quick to say "NO!", George Bush is regarded as the worst president in history and has 30% approval ratings, but don't be too quick to say no, its not as easy of a question as one may think.
President Bush still is favored and liked by 75-80% of all Republican voters. If the nominee distances himself from Bush, he risks alienating himself from his own party, and you cannot win an election without the support of your base. At the same time running a Bush-like campaign would almost certainly ruin the chances of the nominee gaining any significant independent support and virtually zero support from democrats. And as I've stated before, a presidential candidate has to have broad appeal to win an election. When it comes down to it, it will be a difficult choice for the nominee to make. We already see Fred Thompson, who has yet to officially enter the race, run a similar campaign that Bush ran in 2004. We see Mitt Romney trying to distance himself from Bush, yet at the same time complementing him. Mike Huckabee has tried to separate himself from Bush, saying that he is not a part of the "old republican party", an obvious reference to Bush. Then we have Guiliani who while rarely mentioning Bush's name, his foreign policy has been described as "Bush on steroids". Its a situation where the nominee is going to have to find a middle-ground, a way to appeal to the Bush lovers and the Bush haters, for the Republicans won't be able to win in '08 without the support from both those factions. It is the old case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't!"
President Bush still is favored and liked by 75-80% of all Republican voters. If the nominee distances himself from Bush, he risks alienating himself from his own party, and you cannot win an election without the support of your base. At the same time running a Bush-like campaign would almost certainly ruin the chances of the nominee gaining any significant independent support and virtually zero support from democrats. And as I've stated before, a presidential candidate has to have broad appeal to win an election. When it comes down to it, it will be a difficult choice for the nominee to make. We already see Fred Thompson, who has yet to officially enter the race, run a similar campaign that Bush ran in 2004. We see Mitt Romney trying to distance himself from Bush, yet at the same time complementing him. Mike Huckabee has tried to separate himself from Bush, saying that he is not a part of the "old republican party", an obvious reference to Bush. Then we have Guiliani who while rarely mentioning Bush's name, his foreign policy has been described as "Bush on steroids". Its a situation where the nominee is going to have to find a middle-ground, a way to appeal to the Bush lovers and the Bush haters, for the Republicans won't be able to win in '08 without the support from both those factions. It is the old case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't!"
Hillary Clinton--the downfall of the Democrats?
There appears to be talk going around the political world that Hillary Clinton, as the democrat's nominee in 2008, would lead the party to a sure defeat. Am I the only one who thinks not? Hillary Clinton's negatives are quickly and steadily dropping and her favorable ratings have soared since last year at this time. She is the only democrat who consistently defeats all of the Republicans in general election polls. Hillary Clinton is not as far-left as Edwards and Obama and appeals to more independents than the other Democratic candidates. She has proved to be the voice of reason and experience in the debates and her centrist views are most in line with main-stream America. As the Chairman of the DLC, Harold Ford, explained on this past Sunday's Meet the Press, the democrats will have to appeal to main-stream america, take the centrist path, in order to capture the White House. Crazy liberals just do not appeal to independent voters, and its those independents who make the difference in these type of elections. If anything I see Hillary Clinton as the democrat most likely to be able to win a general election. Just this past week new polls were released showing Clinton beating the Republican front-runner, Rudy Guiliani, in key states such as Florida and Pennsylvania. She currently is tied with Guiliani in Ohio, which is up from a few months ago when she was losing to him. And in a Texas state poll, Clinton ties with all the Republican front-runners, showing she even has appeal in red states. So while you have Obama, Edwards, and the others courting the far-left liberals, you have Hillary Clinton winning over main-stream America. In my mind, thats how the democrats will win in 2008, by broad appeal, in fact, that is the only way we will win.
More on Rove's Resignation
As announced this morning through the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove has resigned as President Bush's chief political strategist. His final day in the White House will be August 31. His reason for leaving? Spending time with his family. While the "spending more time with my family" has become some-what of a default resignation excuse for many officials, it can't really apply to Rove.
His kid is going off to college this year, shouldn't he have wanted to spend time with his family, before his kid went off? But then again, Karl Rove would rather make a mockery of this government than spend time with his family. He waited to leave until there was nothing left to screw up. Ok, in all seriousness, Rove probably knew that when Congress got back from vacation he was going to pounded harder than ever and just wanted to escape the scrutiny. Maybe he should have thought of that before he took part in Bush and Cheney's illegal doings: the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, the CIA leak case, the e-mail scandal, and who knows what else. With the new warning from Chief of Staff Bolten that whom ever does not resign by Labor Day will have to stay with the White House for the remainder of Bush's term, we may see some more members of the administration say good-bye to Mr. Bush.
His kid is going off to college this year, shouldn't he have wanted to spend time with his family, before his kid went off? But then again, Karl Rove would rather make a mockery of this government than spend time with his family. He waited to leave until there was nothing left to screw up. Ok, in all seriousness, Rove probably knew that when Congress got back from vacation he was going to pounded harder than ever and just wanted to escape the scrutiny. Maybe he should have thought of that before he took part in Bush and Cheney's illegal doings: the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, the CIA leak case, the e-mail scandal, and who knows what else. With the new warning from Chief of Staff Bolten that whom ever does not resign by Labor Day will have to stay with the White House for the remainder of Bush's term, we may see some more members of the administration say good-bye to Mr. Bush.
Another White House Official Resigns!!!
Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist, resigns and will be leaving the White House at the end of August. What else can I say except Alleluia. This guy is a crook and has done more harm to this country's integrity than we will ever know of. Not only has he been involved with the CIA leak, but also the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. All I can say is good rid-ins and hopefully Gonzo is next to go.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
One Down, Ten to go!!!
Republican Presidential Candidate and former Wisconsin Governor, Tommy Thompson, has abandoned his quest for the White House. Going into the Iowa Straw Poll, Thompson had said that if he did not come out strong, he would leave the race, and can you believe it, someone from the Republican party actually told the truth!
This is not big news either way. Tommy had little to no shot of getting the nomination and even less of a shot winning the general election. He performed less than spectacular in the debates, to say the least, and did not have one defining credential to his name. That leaves 9 official Republican candidates, with 1 more expected to enter soon. I actually hope to see a few more guys drop out of the race, so that way, in the debates, we get more time to hear from the ones who actually have a shot at winning.
Well thats one down, I suppose two if you count Jim Gilmore, and 10 more to go. Just to think, 10 Republican candidates, only one will get the nomination, and (hopefully) zero will get the White House.
This is not big news either way. Tommy had little to no shot of getting the nomination and even less of a shot winning the general election. He performed less than spectacular in the debates, to say the least, and did not have one defining credential to his name. That leaves 9 official Republican candidates, with 1 more expected to enter soon. I actually hope to see a few more guys drop out of the race, so that way, in the debates, we get more time to hear from the ones who actually have a shot at winning.
Well thats one down, I suppose two if you count Jim Gilmore, and 10 more to go. Just to think, 10 Republican candidates, only one will get the nomination, and (hopefully) zero will get the White House.
Rudy at it again...now he gives us his definition of freedom!
When you think "America's Mayor" Rudy Guiliani can't get any worse, he does. Take a look now as Rudy defines what his view of freedom is:
"Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
Well tell me Rudy, what is freedom?, because I thought freedom was the ability to be anything you can be. I thought it allowed me to do what I want to do when I want to do it. Freedom allows me to choose: do I want to be a lawyer, a doctor, a teacher, or something else. Freedom allows me to go where I want to go: to work, to the store, to my friend's house, to wherever. So you're saying that to be free, I have to do whatever you, the authority, wants me to do? Thats not freedom, thats slavery. Why should you have any discretion at all what I do in my private life. Rudy you're wrong. This is a free country. Never have the American people given up their freedom to the president. The president serves the people, not the other way around. Read the constitution, maybe then you'll see.
"Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
Well tell me Rudy, what is freedom?, because I thought freedom was the ability to be anything you can be. I thought it allowed me to do what I want to do when I want to do it. Freedom allows me to choose: do I want to be a lawyer, a doctor, a teacher, or something else. Freedom allows me to go where I want to go: to work, to the store, to my friend's house, to wherever. So you're saying that to be free, I have to do whatever you, the authority, wants me to do? Thats not freedom, thats slavery. Why should you have any discretion at all what I do in my private life. Rudy you're wrong. This is a free country. Never have the American people given up their freedom to the president. The president serves the people, not the other way around. Read the constitution, maybe then you'll see.
1994: "Invading Baghdad would create Quagmire"
Wondering who made that seemingly psychic prediction? Well the answer may surprise you, it was one of the principle authors of the Iraq War: Vice President Dick Cheney! In an interview with the American Enterprise Institure in '94, Dick Cheney had this to say,
"If we go go Baghdad it would be us all alone, it would be a U.S. occupation of Iraq....When you take down Saddam's government, what are you going to put in its place? Thats a very volatile part of the world and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you can easily start seeing pieces fly off. Syria and Iran would want to claim parts of Iraq....Another thing is casualties....(in the Gulf War the deaths of soldiers was limited)..but for their families it was too much. The question is how many dead Americans is Saddam worth and the answer is not too many."
Wow, this interview actually shocked me. Dick Cheney actually knew what would happen if we invaded Iraq. So why did America do it? What a difference a decade makes. I agree with everything he said in this interview, so why did he and the President lie to the American people and Congress in order to get this war started? Why did they so strongly put forth the need for us to go into Iraq? They lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction, they lied about al-Qaeda in Iraq, and they lied about Saddam Hussein being involved in 9/11. Maybe if Dick Cheney told the truth to Congress, Congress wouldn't have authorized this War. Maybe if Cheney would have told the American people the truth there wouldn't have been wide-spread support for this war. But a maybe is just a maybe, and now we are in this war and neither Cheney nor Bush want to get us out. They continue to lie to us, with Bush recently saying, "the same people who attacked us on 9/11 are in Iraq." Another blatant lie. The 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Al-qaeda is based in Afghanistan. If Bush and Cheney truly wanted to get who attacked us on 9/11, and I believe they should, why did we take our eye of Afghanistan where bin-Laden and al-Qaeda was and go into Iraq? We could have found bin-Laden and broken up al-Qaeda by now, but instead we are in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. And now we are at greater risk than ever before of another terrorist attack because bin-Laden and al-Qaeda have been able to reform in Pakistan. Bush and Cheney are right on one thing, Iraq does have something to do with national security, but not as they say. The longer we stay in Iraq, the less safe we are here in America, because the longer we're there, the less time we're spending fighting the islamic extremists who want us dead!
"If we go go Baghdad it would be us all alone, it would be a U.S. occupation of Iraq....When you take down Saddam's government, what are you going to put in its place? Thats a very volatile part of the world and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you can easily start seeing pieces fly off. Syria and Iran would want to claim parts of Iraq....Another thing is casualties....(in the Gulf War the deaths of soldiers was limited)..but for their families it was too much. The question is how many dead Americans is Saddam worth and the answer is not too many."
Wow, this interview actually shocked me. Dick Cheney actually knew what would happen if we invaded Iraq. So why did America do it? What a difference a decade makes. I agree with everything he said in this interview, so why did he and the President lie to the American people and Congress in order to get this war started? Why did they so strongly put forth the need for us to go into Iraq? They lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction, they lied about al-Qaeda in Iraq, and they lied about Saddam Hussein being involved in 9/11. Maybe if Dick Cheney told the truth to Congress, Congress wouldn't have authorized this War. Maybe if Cheney would have told the American people the truth there wouldn't have been wide-spread support for this war. But a maybe is just a maybe, and now we are in this war and neither Cheney nor Bush want to get us out. They continue to lie to us, with Bush recently saying, "the same people who attacked us on 9/11 are in Iraq." Another blatant lie. The 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Al-qaeda is based in Afghanistan. If Bush and Cheney truly wanted to get who attacked us on 9/11, and I believe they should, why did we take our eye of Afghanistan where bin-Laden and al-Qaeda was and go into Iraq? We could have found bin-Laden and broken up al-Qaeda by now, but instead we are in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. And now we are at greater risk than ever before of another terrorist attack because bin-Laden and al-Qaeda have been able to reform in Pakistan. Bush and Cheney are right on one thing, Iraq does have something to do with national security, but not as they say. The longer we stay in Iraq, the less safe we are here in America, because the longer we're there, the less time we're spending fighting the islamic extremists who want us dead!
"Are You Black Enough?" -The latest qualification needed to be president?
"Are you black enough?"
That is the question that has been directly asked to the two democratic front-runners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I am aware that it is in part to be humorous, but at the same time it still rubs me the wrong way. In fact, I'm not really sure what the question means. Who defines what "black" is? It is like turning the clock back to racism and stereotyping, where "black" is a defined roll. The question that is reasonable and appropriate to ask is, "What have you done for the African-American community and what will you do for it as President?" How "black" someone is shouldn't qualify or disqualify a person to be president. It should be what have they done for african-americans, and for that matter for all people, of all colors. A candidate shouldn't be defined by the color of his or her skin, gender, ethnicity, the part of the country he's from, or anything else. The only question that needs to be answered correctly to be president is, "What have you done and how do you plan on making this country a better place?" That question covers everything, all the issues, and if the candidate can provide the correct answer to that question, than he or she deserves to be president.
.....But then again, maybe if that question was asked in 2000, we wouldn't have Mr. Dubya as President...
That is the question that has been directly asked to the two democratic front-runners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I am aware that it is in part to be humorous, but at the same time it still rubs me the wrong way. In fact, I'm not really sure what the question means. Who defines what "black" is? It is like turning the clock back to racism and stereotyping, where "black" is a defined roll. The question that is reasonable and appropriate to ask is, "What have you done for the African-American community and what will you do for it as President?" How "black" someone is shouldn't qualify or disqualify a person to be president. It should be what have they done for african-americans, and for that matter for all people, of all colors. A candidate shouldn't be defined by the color of his or her skin, gender, ethnicity, the part of the country he's from, or anything else. The only question that needs to be answered correctly to be president is, "What have you done and how do you plan on making this country a better place?" That question covers everything, all the issues, and if the candidate can provide the correct answer to that question, than he or she deserves to be president.
.....But then again, maybe if that question was asked in 2000, we wouldn't have Mr. Dubya as President...
The Iowa Straw Poll: who finished strong, and who's going home?
Well one day after the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames, one thing is clear, Mitt Romney's win was neither surprising nor meaningful. With the top 3 front-runners, Guiliani, Thompson, and McCain, not participating, Romney was the only candidate with a significant amount of money in his pocket. And it is actually pretty sad when you have to spend $3 to 5 million just to come out on top when your biggest threat is Mike Huckabee. Guiliani and McCain were smart; they knew that if they didn't take take part in the poll, they would de-value a Mitt Romney win. Now people look at Mitt Romney winning and can say, "so what? Rudy, McCain, and Fred weren't even there, he was the default choice." While I don't agree with Guiliani or McCain skipping the Straw Poll, they knew that they couldn't afford to be beaten by Mitt Romney and without them there, Romney's win would mean a lot less.
Now onto the other candidates. Mike Huckabee did well, yet he was always the favorite to come in at number two. He had been polling increasingly well in Iowa, most recently tying with John McCain. His win was no doubt a shot in the arm that could help his campaign, but he still badly lost to Romney, who had nearly double his votes. Sam Brownback, who just for the record gives me the creeps, needed to take the second spot(he came in third). He's going to have a rough time continuing his campaign. He's a one issue man: abortion, and in this day and age, I just don't think the issue of abortion is important to main-stream america. We have a war, an immigration problem, a falling economy, a terrible infrastructure, a heath care crisis, and all Sam Brownback wants to talk about is how he is pro-life. If he wants to win the nomination or a general election, he's going to have to address some of these other issues.
Tom Tancredo surprised me a little. I did not expect him to come in at number four, more like 6 or 7. I guess it proves that the right-wing base loves crazy conservatives from Colorado. I was thinking he was going to drop out, but he may have enough steam for a few more weeks, at least until the next debate. Ron Paul, my man, came in at number 5, a little disappointing to me, but good none the less. For a man who has been polling at 0%, number 5 is okay...for him. I do actually hope he stays in the campaign to the end, just so republicans have a choice of becoming sane and choosing an anti-war candidate. Anything below number 5 is a sign you should drop out. Tommy Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and John Cox came in 6th, 7th, and 8th respectively. Tommy Thompson has already said that if he didn't finish at the top, he would drop out, so I guess its bye bye Tommy. Duncan Hunter has contributed nothing to the debates and hasn't made any impact what-so-ever on this campaign. Its time for him to go and I believe he will. And what can I say about John Cox? The man got 41 votes. When you can't even get 50 out of 14,000 votes, its a problem. I would say that he is going to drop out, but he's been holding strong even though no one has a clue who the hell he is, so maybe he's just going to stay in it to the end, hoping he'll get a spot in one of the debates once the other drop out.
Now onto the other candidates. Mike Huckabee did well, yet he was always the favorite to come in at number two. He had been polling increasingly well in Iowa, most recently tying with John McCain. His win was no doubt a shot in the arm that could help his campaign, but he still badly lost to Romney, who had nearly double his votes. Sam Brownback, who just for the record gives me the creeps, needed to take the second spot(he came in third). He's going to have a rough time continuing his campaign. He's a one issue man: abortion, and in this day and age, I just don't think the issue of abortion is important to main-stream america. We have a war, an immigration problem, a falling economy, a terrible infrastructure, a heath care crisis, and all Sam Brownback wants to talk about is how he is pro-life. If he wants to win the nomination or a general election, he's going to have to address some of these other issues.
Tom Tancredo surprised me a little. I did not expect him to come in at number four, more like 6 or 7. I guess it proves that the right-wing base loves crazy conservatives from Colorado. I was thinking he was going to drop out, but he may have enough steam for a few more weeks, at least until the next debate. Ron Paul, my man, came in at number 5, a little disappointing to me, but good none the less. For a man who has been polling at 0%, number 5 is okay...for him. I do actually hope he stays in the campaign to the end, just so republicans have a choice of becoming sane and choosing an anti-war candidate. Anything below number 5 is a sign you should drop out. Tommy Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and John Cox came in 6th, 7th, and 8th respectively. Tommy Thompson has already said that if he didn't finish at the top, he would drop out, so I guess its bye bye Tommy. Duncan Hunter has contributed nothing to the debates and hasn't made any impact what-so-ever on this campaign. Its time for him to go and I believe he will. And what can I say about John Cox? The man got 41 votes. When you can't even get 50 out of 14,000 votes, its a problem. I would say that he is going to drop out, but he's been holding strong even though no one has a clue who the hell he is, so maybe he's just going to stay in it to the end, hoping he'll get a spot in one of the debates once the other drop out.
A special Sunday post by John Lucia: The GOP, the party of hypocrisy
The Grand Old Party of hypocrisy came about around 1993 when the so called "Gingrich Revolution" started to brand Democrats as lacking in family and moral values. The neocon republicans who participated in the so called Revolution set them selves up as the pillar of moral and family values and self righteousness. But before long their self serving statements revealed their hypocrisy and the real truth about their own lack of moral and family values. The steady exposure of their hypocrisy since the early 90's was again made evident recently when it was revealed that one of their Senator's name appeared on the D.C. madam's phone records. The Senator in a self serving statement then said he was forgiven by God and his wife for his sins. Newt Gingrich and many of his neocon friends who's real character have been exposed represent the height of hypocrisy and the real threat to civility and morality. One of the main problems we face as a society are television journalists who are willing to promote the neocon's talking points while questioning other's morality. It was said many years ago when one politician questions another's character, you can be sure that it is the one who raises the question that has the character problem. For the past 13 years history has proven that to be a fact as the neocon's, one after another, came tumbling down. That says it all. Does the Grand Old Party have any moderates or progressive members who can stand up, be counted and bring some character to the Party? I don't recall any who have stood up recently, that door is still open.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Iowa Straw Poll: quick results
Here is a quick look at how the candidates fared in the Iowa Straw Poll, I will be back tomorrow morning for a full analysis.
1. Mitt Romney 4516 votes
2. Mike Huckabee 2587
3. Sam Brownback 2192
4. Tom Tancredo 1961
5. Ron Paul 1305
6. Tommy Thompson 1009
7. Duncan Hunter 174
8. John Cox 41
*While the following we're not actively taking part in the Straw Poll their names were still on the ballot:
Fred Thompson 231 votes
Rudy Guiliani 183
John McCain 101
1. Mitt Romney 4516 votes
2. Mike Huckabee 2587
3. Sam Brownback 2192
4. Tom Tancredo 1961
5. Ron Paul 1305
6. Tommy Thompson 1009
7. Duncan Hunter 174
8. John Cox 41
*While the following we're not actively taking part in the Straw Poll their names were still on the ballot:
Fred Thompson 231 votes
Rudy Guiliani 183
John McCain 101
The Military Draft: against the rights of every citizen
When asked about the draft, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said the following:
"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it."
The draft should never be re-instated. Every citizen in this country should have the right to do what they want with their life, when they want to do it. No matter what the benefits that might come with the draft, no body wants to be told what to do, nor should they be told. And the United Nations knew this. Here are just a few clauses in the Declaration of Human Rights that would be violated if there ever was another draft:
-Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.
-Article 4: no one shall be held in mandatory servitude
-Article 20: no one may be forced to belong to an association
-Article 23: Everyone has the right to choice of employment
Hopefully there never will be another draft, but if there is, expect chaos. There is a voluntary service and that is how it should stay. And to be honest, I do not expect a draft any time soon. Politicians who would have to vote for it know that they would never win re-election and more importantly wouldn't want to send their own sons into battle.
"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it."
The draft should never be re-instated. Every citizen in this country should have the right to do what they want with their life, when they want to do it. No matter what the benefits that might come with the draft, no body wants to be told what to do, nor should they be told. And the United Nations knew this. Here are just a few clauses in the Declaration of Human Rights that would be violated if there ever was another draft:
-Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.
-Article 4: no one shall be held in mandatory servitude
-Article 20: no one may be forced to belong to an association
-Article 23: Everyone has the right to choice of employment
Hopefully there never will be another draft, but if there is, expect chaos. There is a voluntary service and that is how it should stay. And to be honest, I do not expect a draft any time soon. Politicians who would have to vote for it know that they would never win re-election and more importantly wouldn't want to send their own sons into battle.
Cindy Sheehan: For Real?
In early July 2007, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan made a bold statement: either Nancy Pelosi will introduce articles of impeachment against Bush, or she would run against Speaker Pelosi in 2008 as an independent. After waiting a month to see if her ultimatum would be met, Cindy Sheehan announced that she is indeed running against Pelosi in 2008.
The question is, is Cindy Sheehan for real? Can she make a successful bid for the House of Representatives? All indications so far are no, that Pelosi's popularity in San Francisco will allow for another easy win. But don't be surprised if Sheehan does better than expected. San Francisco as a whole is utterly anti-war. If Sheehan can raise enough money, she could prove to be a bigger threat to Pelosi than some are saying. Not only will she get money from anti-war citizens in San Francisco, but also from anti-war activists around the country. In the end, Pelosi will prevail, but Sheehan is going to make her work harder then ever at keeping her job.
Now for my take on Cindy Sheehan. I feel so bad that she lost her son. She has a legitimate reason to be upset at the Bush administration, as we all do. But there is a point where you have to stop. At one point Sheehan said that she would rather live under Chavez than Bush. She has also made remarks hinting that 9/11 was an inside job. She should be continuing her anti-war activism, which helped bring attention to the war, instead of making foolish statements and saying anything to get in the press. There is no reason for her to blame Pelosi or the democrats when it comes to the war or impeachment. You can bet that this war would have been ended and both Bush and Cheney would have been impeached if it was possible. But with just the narrow led the democrats have in Congress, it is impossible for them to override a veto and it would be impossible for the Senate to impeach Bush. And Sheehan knows that. Cindy, blame the GOP, but support those who are fighting for what you too are fighting for. Thats the way to get things accomplished.
The question is, is Cindy Sheehan for real? Can she make a successful bid for the House of Representatives? All indications so far are no, that Pelosi's popularity in San Francisco will allow for another easy win. But don't be surprised if Sheehan does better than expected. San Francisco as a whole is utterly anti-war. If Sheehan can raise enough money, she could prove to be a bigger threat to Pelosi than some are saying. Not only will she get money from anti-war citizens in San Francisco, but also from anti-war activists around the country. In the end, Pelosi will prevail, but Sheehan is going to make her work harder then ever at keeping her job.
Now for my take on Cindy Sheehan. I feel so bad that she lost her son. She has a legitimate reason to be upset at the Bush administration, as we all do. But there is a point where you have to stop. At one point Sheehan said that she would rather live under Chavez than Bush. She has also made remarks hinting that 9/11 was an inside job. She should be continuing her anti-war activism, which helped bring attention to the war, instead of making foolish statements and saying anything to get in the press. There is no reason for her to blame Pelosi or the democrats when it comes to the war or impeachment. You can bet that this war would have been ended and both Bush and Cheney would have been impeached if it was possible. But with just the narrow led the democrats have in Congress, it is impossible for them to override a veto and it would be impossible for the Senate to impeach Bush. And Sheehan knows that. Cindy, blame the GOP, but support those who are fighting for what you too are fighting for. Thats the way to get things accomplished.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)