Wow, what an interesting debate last night. If anyone watched the debate, you know exactly what single issue the entire 2 hour debate was about----Sen. Hillary Clinton. I know I talked about Barack Obama coming out and highlighting the differences between him and Clinton, and he did indeed do that...and more. I'll start with that issue first.
From the first question of the night, Obama "laid the smackdown" on Hillary Clinton. And for the most part, for his campaign, his policy attack's on Clinton were effective. I might not agree with Obama at all on policy issues, but I'm glad he at least laid the differences out on the table. The only problem I had with Obama's, and for that matter Edwards', performance was that they began to personally go after Clinton. At times, both men basically called Clinton a liar to her face and, in my opinion, there is no need for that. As Bill Richardson said, Hillary is no doubt a trustworthy, honest candidate. Richardson went on to say that although he disagrees with Clinton on many levels, he trusts her and he knows she is honest and would never question that. Quite frankly these personal attacks by Obama and Edwards are sickening to me. They started to act like Republicans by attacking Hillary on a personal level. And I'm not just saying that because I support Sen. Clinton. I feel all attacks on a candidate's integrity, honesty, and truthfulness are wrong except when an issue is explicitly obvious. There is no evidence what so ever to back up Obama and Edwards' claim that Clinton is a phony and a liar. She has stayed true to herself for years. But, none the less, Obama and Edwards still did themselves good by going after Clinton----I just wish they had done it in a more respectful way. We should leave nasty personal attacks to the GOP. I don't want our party to become corrupted with constant, unwarranted personal attacks.
Sen. Clinton too had a good night. I will say, because of her being taken on by Obama and Edwards, she was not the clear winner of the debate as she was of past ones. I must say that I, as many, was surprised and confused by Clinton's answer on immigration. I don't think she was double talking, as Edwards' claimed, but I'm not sure what her point was. Other than that moment, Clinton held her own. It can't be easy taking a constant barrage of attacks for 2 hours straight. Despite the attacks, Clinton stayed strong and presidential. I think Obama and Edwards were trying to "draw blood" and fluster Clinton. But they didn't succeed. Just as well as Obama and Edwards dished it out against Clinton, Clinton convincingly defended her positions. It was ironically Chris Dodd, who is one of the tiniest threats to Clinton, who appeared to have flustered Clinton. If Obama or Edwards were able to do that, I may have been able to declare one of them the winner. I also must note that Clinton still appears the most electable in these debates regarding the general election. I talked to some moderate Republicans today who watched the debate and came away saying, "She's actually not that bad." Her tough, yet diplomatic, stance on foreign policy is possibly her biggest asset in winning in 2008.
As far as the other candidates go, there is not much to say. Joe Biden certainly had the best line of the night when he talked about every sentence from Rudy Giuliani going, "noun, verb, 9/11." Biden has been consistently good in these debates and last night was no exception. Dodd and Richardson were kind of "just there". Kucinich definitely gave me a good laugh when he admitted to seeing a UFO. Other than that, there was nothing that special about the "2nd and 3rd tier" candidates.
I'll close by saying that there truly was no clear winner. Obama and Edwards can be seen as winners for finally making clear distinctions between them and Clinton. Clinton can be seen as the winner for so effectively rebutting those attacks. At the same time, Obama and Edwards can be seen as losers for stooping to the Republican's low of cheap, baseless, personal attacks. Clinton could be seen as a loser for not clearly articulating her position on the immigration issue. I will also say that I was disappointed in the moderating. I knew from the last debate that Russert wasn't going to be any good, but I expected better from Brian Williams. Well, thats my rap-up. I am excited to see how Obama and Edwards will capitalize after a good showing last night and if Clinton sees a dip in the poll numbers after the attacks against her.
I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on the debate, please comment below.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Debate Moderators Wanted
Last night's Democratic debate should be the last debate for Brian Williams and Tim Russert to moderators. They are hopeless at asking questions of candidates that reflect what a candidate would do if elected and what their Presidency would look like. We all know what the candidates positions are concerning Iraq and Iran yet their questions are a rerun of previous debates.
How do the candidates plan to reverse the eight years of record deficit spending when Bush leaves office? How do they plan to restore the moral mantle of world leadership that our past presidents enjoyed? How do they plan to once again bring accountability to our leaders? How do they plan to restore the basic rights of Americans that have been violated in the name of fighting terror?
The news was out before the debate that John Edwards and Barrack Obama were going to go after Senator Clinton and her positions. Williams and Russert made sure that happened by asking the questions those candidates said they would raise. Williams and Russert actually enjoyed asking those questions, but unfortunately, it did nothing to further educate the people who would like to hear how the candidates will deal with the many serious problems that will be left to the next president.
Brian Williams and Tim Russert. Both are poor excuses for moderators and demonstrated journalism at its worst last night.
Republicans Talk Tough----But Is Anyone Listening?
But lets examine the facts anyway. Ronald Reagan said soon after he was elected President and even during his campaign "Terrorist can run but they can't hide." He continued his tough talk and then sent our marines to Beruit as peace keepers after Israel invaded Lebanon and the killing that followed.
Terrorists then truck bombed our marines compound while many were sleeping and killed 241 marines in the attack. It was the same Reagan administration who sold arms to Iran for hostages after he told the American people he would never negotiate with terrorists.
George W. Bush also talked tough before and after his election concerning terrorism. Yet, the worst foreign terror attack on U.S. soil happened in the midst of his tough talk. Despite Mr. Bush's tough talk he had no plan in effect prior to or on 9-11 to address the threat from Al Qaeda. His failure to protect the country and its people was an embarrassment to Mr. Bush, so he laid the ground work for a war and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist.
Those are not the only terrorist attacks against Americans that occurred on Reagan and Bush's watch while they were trying to act tough. But it was the worst because of the number of people killed. Now the present Republican Presidential candidates who are seeking the nomination are trying to out talk each other on being tough on terrorist.
They are trying to talk tough on Iraq and are now going out of their way to act and talk tough about Iran. Maybe the GOP thinks that tough talk scares the terrorists. But it clearly does not. The fact is that more terror attacks have occurred. The voters seem to like tough talk. It worked for Reagan and Bush in their reelections. But the tough talk did not make America safer and in fact increased American hatred around the world. Al Qaeda in Iraq was no where to be found prior to our war and occupation in Iraq.
Other past Presidents faced more severe threats to our country and its people and handled those threats successfully with out the so called brag of talking tough. They realized it would take more than tough talk to solve the problems. Those who like to sound tough would have our country and men and women in uniform in an ongoing war far into the future. The American people need to reject tough talk as a policy to deal with terrorists, or for that matter, anything, when they vote for the next president.
People would do well to remember that the leaders of Israel have been talking tough for over 40 years, yet they are still fighting terrorism or so they tell us. That policy has also been a failure. Our country needs a foreign policy based on understanding how to best deal with the problem with wisdom and character that best represents what America stands for. The voters can keep electing the tough talkers, but what will that accomplish?
Monday, October 29, 2007
Fox and Bill O at it Again
Just when you think Fox News can't get any lower, they do. It all started last week on The O'Reilly Factor. Bill O claimed that the "liberal media" was somehow avoiding the truth about how the war in Iraq is going. He claims that the "liberal media" is making the war seem worse than it actually is. He cited so called factual reports that claimed zero Americans were killed in Iraq last week.
That, as you can guess, was a lie. The truth is that, sadly, 6 of our brave men and women lost their lives in Iraq last week. There is a reason the "liberal media" was not talking about it-----because maybe the "liberal media" likes to present facts.
The next night, Bill O apologized, citing that there was a mistake in the information he received. Not that I believe O'Reilly; I'm sure what he said was said for his partisan purposes, but whatever. Lying to make his Republican friends look good and right on all the issues is nothing new for Bill O. But then this story hit a new low.
After Bill O has publicly apologized and acknowledged that he was wrong, Fox used this same information again. This time it was on Fox and Friends. Maybe one time can pass as "just a mistake", but when it happens twice, especially after the mistake had been acknowledged, it is no mere coincidence.
The truth is, that while people on Fox claim that "us liberals" don't care about our troops, I think the exact opposite might be true. The "liberal media" tells the American people the truth. There is nothing rosy about the Iraq War. People are being killed needlessly over there. By Fox making up their own facts and pretending that all is going well is unfair to the American people who are looking for the facts. It is especially unfair to those 6 who lost their lives that week. They were basically thrown to the side by Fox in order for them to make themselves and the GOP look good.
***I would also like to say, on a side note, that I'm sick of Republicans calling the media "liberal". I mean, seriously, liberal??? There is only one show where I can see a clear liberal bias as far as the news stations are concerned, and thats Keith Olberman. I mean, for crying out loud, we have a whole channel of nothing but GOP conservatives. Talk Radio is dominated by Conservative voices. So I wish before Republicans would criticize the media for being too liberal, they should look at the facts. But then again, it seems like saying the truth and giving the facts is considered being "liberal" to Republicans. Apparently their new synonym for truth is "liberal". So if I, and others, are "liberals" because we give the American people the cold hard facts, then I'm glad to be called "liberal".***
That, as you can guess, was a lie. The truth is that, sadly, 6 of our brave men and women lost their lives in Iraq last week. There is a reason the "liberal media" was not talking about it-----because maybe the "liberal media" likes to present facts.
The next night, Bill O apologized, citing that there was a mistake in the information he received. Not that I believe O'Reilly; I'm sure what he said was said for his partisan purposes, but whatever. Lying to make his Republican friends look good and right on all the issues is nothing new for Bill O. But then this story hit a new low.
After Bill O has publicly apologized and acknowledged that he was wrong, Fox used this same information again. This time it was on Fox and Friends. Maybe one time can pass as "just a mistake", but when it happens twice, especially after the mistake had been acknowledged, it is no mere coincidence.
The truth is, that while people on Fox claim that "us liberals" don't care about our troops, I think the exact opposite might be true. The "liberal media" tells the American people the truth. There is nothing rosy about the Iraq War. People are being killed needlessly over there. By Fox making up their own facts and pretending that all is going well is unfair to the American people who are looking for the facts. It is especially unfair to those 6 who lost their lives that week. They were basically thrown to the side by Fox in order for them to make themselves and the GOP look good.
***I would also like to say, on a side note, that I'm sick of Republicans calling the media "liberal". I mean, seriously, liberal??? There is only one show where I can see a clear liberal bias as far as the news stations are concerned, and thats Keith Olberman. I mean, for crying out loud, we have a whole channel of nothing but GOP conservatives. Talk Radio is dominated by Conservative voices. So I wish before Republicans would criticize the media for being too liberal, they should look at the facts. But then again, it seems like saying the truth and giving the facts is considered being "liberal" to Republicans. Apparently their new synonym for truth is "liberal". So if I, and others, are "liberals" because we give the American people the cold hard facts, then I'm glad to be called "liberal".***
All Eyes on Philly
With the January presidential caucuses and primaries growing closer and closer, all eyes will be tuned in for tomorrow's Democratic debate on NBC. The debate will emanate from Philadelphia and Brian Williams (w/ Tim Russert) will moderate. All the Democratic contenders, with the exception of Mike Gravel, will be there and we all know who the bull's eye will be on-----Hillary Clinton.
The big story of the night will be, as I mentioned, the way in which Hillary is targeted. There is a sense of franticness among the other Democrats' campaigns. Everyone else in the race realizes that Clinton, despite their attacks against her, is not only staying a strong candidate, but is becoming even more popular. There was one mistake, in my opinion, that one candidate made leading up to this crucial debate.
Right there, on the front page of the New York Times is Sen. Obama talking about how he is going to go after Clinton at the debate tomorrow. He doesn't just stop there either. He proceeds to tell the world, obviously including the Clinton campaign, what issues he is going to attack her on. I can assure you that Hillary will have all those issues, and more, ready to answer for now. If Obama would have kept his mouth shut, he could have potentially surprised her on a number of issues. This is just another example of the inexperience of Obama. Obama needs to realize he is fighting a war against Clinton for the nomination, and in a war, you don't tell your enemy how you're going to attack them days before the actual battle.
There is another thing that the candidates have to be careful about when they inevitably go after Clinton. Obama, Edwards, and other have all brought it up. They continue to say (or imply) that voting for Hillary would be like a vote for the 90s again with Bill. Do they not realize that talk like that works against them? Is it just me, or isn't Bill Clinton, and his time as president, one of the best in history? The point is----that in the current state of the world, people, especially Democrats, look back on the time of Bill Clinton as, "heaven". In fact, about 70% of all Americans (Democrats and Republicans) liked Bill Clinton as President. Thats compared to about 25% for our current President.
One last thing I must caution the candidates about when going after Hillary: Don't be a hypocrite. She will undoubtably be attacked for her Iran vote. The problem is that Obama, and others, supported and voted for a bill, just like the recent one, back in April. And to make matters even worse for Obama, he didn't even bother to show up to vote against this bill thats he is all of a sudden dead set against. It's hard to claim that you're a leader on an issue when you simply don't show up to vote on it.
I must say that I am definitely looking forward to tomorrow's debate. I think we will finally see some fireworks between the candidates. This is Obama's chance to "chop" away at the support of Hillary. But, Hillary also has a chance to do something big. She can, with a good, convincing argument, effectively shut down the Obama machine. What I mean by that is this----if Obama comes at her full force, and Hillary can counter-argue his points in her favor, then she makes it just about impossible for Obama to do anything more to hurt her chances at the nomination. In simple terms---it's do or die for Obama. He has to put all his cards on the table and hope that they work. If they don't, its over; he's out of the game; he doesn't have any more cards to play, and Hillary wins. As for the other 5 candidates, quite frankly, they don't have a chance. This is a two person race, and, after tomorrow's debate, it could become a one person race.
The big story of the night will be, as I mentioned, the way in which Hillary is targeted. There is a sense of franticness among the other Democrats' campaigns. Everyone else in the race realizes that Clinton, despite their attacks against her, is not only staying a strong candidate, but is becoming even more popular. There was one mistake, in my opinion, that one candidate made leading up to this crucial debate.
Right there, on the front page of the New York Times is Sen. Obama talking about how he is going to go after Clinton at the debate tomorrow. He doesn't just stop there either. He proceeds to tell the world, obviously including the Clinton campaign, what issues he is going to attack her on. I can assure you that Hillary will have all those issues, and more, ready to answer for now. If Obama would have kept his mouth shut, he could have potentially surprised her on a number of issues. This is just another example of the inexperience of Obama. Obama needs to realize he is fighting a war against Clinton for the nomination, and in a war, you don't tell your enemy how you're going to attack them days before the actual battle.
There is another thing that the candidates have to be careful about when they inevitably go after Clinton. Obama, Edwards, and other have all brought it up. They continue to say (or imply) that voting for Hillary would be like a vote for the 90s again with Bill. Do they not realize that talk like that works against them? Is it just me, or isn't Bill Clinton, and his time as president, one of the best in history? The point is----that in the current state of the world, people, especially Democrats, look back on the time of Bill Clinton as, "heaven". In fact, about 70% of all Americans (Democrats and Republicans) liked Bill Clinton as President. Thats compared to about 25% for our current President.
One last thing I must caution the candidates about when going after Hillary: Don't be a hypocrite. She will undoubtably be attacked for her Iran vote. The problem is that Obama, and others, supported and voted for a bill, just like the recent one, back in April. And to make matters even worse for Obama, he didn't even bother to show up to vote against this bill thats he is all of a sudden dead set against. It's hard to claim that you're a leader on an issue when you simply don't show up to vote on it.
I must say that I am definitely looking forward to tomorrow's debate. I think we will finally see some fireworks between the candidates. This is Obama's chance to "chop" away at the support of Hillary. But, Hillary also has a chance to do something big. She can, with a good, convincing argument, effectively shut down the Obama machine. What I mean by that is this----if Obama comes at her full force, and Hillary can counter-argue his points in her favor, then she makes it just about impossible for Obama to do anything more to hurt her chances at the nomination. In simple terms---it's do or die for Obama. He has to put all his cards on the table and hope that they work. If they don't, its over; he's out of the game; he doesn't have any more cards to play, and Hillary wins. As for the other 5 candidates, quite frankly, they don't have a chance. This is a two person race, and, after tomorrow's debate, it could become a one person race.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Tim Russert: The Voice Of The Republican's
On "Meet the Press" on October 28, Tim Russert once again proved he is the voice for the Republican Party and George Bush concerning the war in Iraq. Senator Chris Dodd was asked his position on the Iraq War several times and Russert then put statements on the screen that Dodd made in the past that represented only part of what he said. Dodd had to point out on two occasions that Russert should go back to the statement he made in 2004 to get the full story.
It is typical of Russert to quote only part of people's statement and then try to use that to show a lack of consistency. A few weeks ago on Meet the Press, presidential candidate John Edwards also had to correct Russert when he showed a partial statement concerning Mrs. Edwards.
Then Russert asked Senator Dodd, "Are we safer today...and if our men and women in uniform in Iraq have died in vain?" The fact is we are not safer today. We have lost almost 4000 troops in Iraq and over 2000 people in the tragic attack of 9-11. Both events happened on Bush's watch. Mr. Russert needs to understand our men and women in uniform are Americans so therefore America is less safe. The Clinton administration went 7 years and 9 months without a foreign terror attack on U.S. soil. George Bush's administration will never match that safety record for this great country.
Our men and women in uniform go where the President and Commander in Chief tells them to go. They do their duty, serve their country, and therefore never die in vain. George Bush started a war and occupation in Iraq and committed our troops to an unnecessary war over WMD that did not exist. The casualties that America has suffered are the result of his reckless behavior and incompetent decisions and not providing our troops with the proper equipment to protect themselves from the type of attacks the war has exposed them too.
Mr. Russert, like Bush, is careless when talking about this war and asking if our troops have died in vain. Russert should ask Mr. Bush why he did not possess the wisdom, character, or maturity to make sure his information was rock solid before starting a war and occupation over WMD that did not exist. The best intelligence on the ground in Iraq before Bush started this war was the U.N. inspectors. They said over and over again that Iraq was disarmed of those weapons but Bush tried to play god and disregarded their findings.
This is the same Russert who let Dick Cheney tell the american people on Meet the Press, prior to the war, that Iraq reconstituted its nuclear program and then never asked Cheney for proof. And this is the same Russert who months after the war started had Cheney back on his show and Cheney said he was wrong about Iraq reconstituting its nuclear program. This statement came after no WMD were found and many lives were lost and Russert let that statement slip by without pressing Cheney for some answers about his and Bush's incompetence. I those those who watch Meet the Press will realize the lack of creditability on the real issues that really matter and I hope they themselves will look for the facts, because Tim Russert can not be trusted to give them.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Iraq: Bush's Bottomless Money Pit
The President announced that he would seek $196.4 Billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year beginning October 1, which is an increase from his previous announced $141.7 Billion. This is the same President who recently vetoed a program to increase the children's health insurance program that was paid for by an increase in the tobacco taxes. The Republicans in congress up held his veto.
Now it is time for congress to end the war with a date certain for a safe withdrawal of our troops and no longer fund the war beyond that date. Congress should also pass legislation for the Defense Department to draw up plans for the safe withdrawal of our troops by that date certain. The nation can not trust Mr. Bush to act properly or Presidential concerning this issue.
The war in Iraq is costing the U.S. over $10 Billion a month and total of over $500 billion since it began. And more important than the cost of money, there is of course the cost of lives, all over WMD that did not exist. It should also be noted the President has never intended to have a plan to pay for this war except to mortgage our children and grandchildren's future.
It is past time for congress to step in and put a stop to Mr. Bush's madness. Our country, our people, and especially our men and women in uniform are paying a harsh price for Bush's reckless behavior and incompetence.
What we will begin to see now is the all to familiar spin of Mr. Bush. He will direct people in his administration and our military leaders to go on the offense and tell the American people how wonderful everything is going in Iraq. He and other Republicans already are using the "support our troops" or be branded as "unpatriotic" ultimatum. Republicans can not be allowed to tell the American people that those who are against the war are "unpatriotic". It is a lie and it's wrong.
The only thing for certain about this unnecessary war is that in the final analysis, when all is said and done, Iraq will be aligned with Iran and the billions of dollars spent by the U.S. because of Bush's policy will have gone for naught.
In the last few days we have seen the President plead with Turkey's prime minister Erdogan not to invade Iraq in pursuit of the PKK rebels who have been attacking Turkey. Bush said that action would destabilize Iraq-----Bush should know since his own order to invade and occupy Iraq destabilized both it and the Middle East.
Make no mistake about the fact that the war itself proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was an unnecessary war over WMD that did not exist. Saddam was a threat to no one except his own people. George Bush knew those WMD did not exist. I will cover that story in a future commentary. In the meantime brace yourself for the coming spin for the fifth straight year about this war.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Brownback To Endorse Giuliani?
As we all know, Sen. Sam Brownback dropped out of the race for president a couple of weeks ago. We also know that Rudy Giuliani is the frontrunner of the GOP Presidential candidates. What we do not know is whether or not Sam Brownback will throw his support behind his Mayor Giuliani.
Now the general consensus with anyone reading this question would be "of course not". Brownback is the picture-perfect conservative. His presidential campaign had one focus----what Brownback called his "moral" credentials. He wanted to "rebuild the family". Brownback is strongly pro-life, strongly anti-gay, and strongly against gun control. Giuliani, on the other hand, is pro-choice, pro-gay, and strongly for gun control(well, he used to be before he "refined" his positions). So the question is: why has Brownback been seen talking highly favorable of Rudy Giuliani? Was it not just a few debates ago when Brownback said the GOP would "never nominate a pro-abortion candidate"? Well now it seems that a Brownback endorsement of Giuliani is not too far away.
If Brownback does indeed endorse Giuliani, he will claim it will be because of Giuliani's tough stance on foreign issues. I can assure you Brownback will conveniently forget Rudy's liberal social views. My thought----Brownback is a sell-out. Now, to give him the benefit of the doubt, Brownback hasn't endorsed Rudy yet, but he has been clearly warming up to the idea of a Giuliani presidency. If anything, if Browback truly feels the way he does on social issues, he should be using everything in his power to keep Giuliani from becoming the nominee. But he won't. Brownback, like many politicians, wants to "get in good" with the candidate who is most likely to win. I hope, if Brownback continues to show support for Giuliani, or if an endorsement does take place, that the Christian Right raises hell with Brownback. There is nothing I hate more than people suddenly changing their opinions when it suits them.
Now the general consensus with anyone reading this question would be "of course not". Brownback is the picture-perfect conservative. His presidential campaign had one focus----what Brownback called his "moral" credentials. He wanted to "rebuild the family". Brownback is strongly pro-life, strongly anti-gay, and strongly against gun control. Giuliani, on the other hand, is pro-choice, pro-gay, and strongly for gun control(well, he used to be before he "refined" his positions). So the question is: why has Brownback been seen talking highly favorable of Rudy Giuliani? Was it not just a few debates ago when Brownback said the GOP would "never nominate a pro-abortion candidate"? Well now it seems that a Brownback endorsement of Giuliani is not too far away.
If Brownback does indeed endorse Giuliani, he will claim it will be because of Giuliani's tough stance on foreign issues. I can assure you Brownback will conveniently forget Rudy's liberal social views. My thought----Brownback is a sell-out. Now, to give him the benefit of the doubt, Brownback hasn't endorsed Rudy yet, but he has been clearly warming up to the idea of a Giuliani presidency. If anything, if Browback truly feels the way he does on social issues, he should be using everything in his power to keep Giuliani from becoming the nominee. But he won't. Brownback, like many politicians, wants to "get in good" with the candidate who is most likely to win. I hope, if Brownback continues to show support for Giuliani, or if an endorsement does take place, that the Christian Right raises hell with Brownback. There is nothing I hate more than people suddenly changing their opinions when it suits them.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
How Much More?
The newest projection of the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan show that the the two conflicts could cost $2.4 trillion. It is also important to take into account that this analysis was done by a non-partisan group, the Congressional Budget Office. Here is a quote from CBO Director Peter Orszag:
"It's clear under analysis that the nation is on an unstable fiscal path ... with the higher debt and interest costs."
Congressman Rahm Emaneul weighed in on the situation on Hardball on MSNBC:
"America's future is being held hostage by the cost of the war."
So with the newest projections, I must ask: How much more? How much more money for this needless war? How much more are we going to spend acting as a police force in a foreign country instead of helping our own people? If there was no war in Iraq, we would have a budget surplus right now. We could have the social security problem largely fixed. We could have provided healthcare for every American. Or how about this----we could have spent the money actually fighting terrorists.
There is no excuse for this. Americans for generations will be forced to pay the price for this war. Enough is enough. And it's not just the Democrat's fault. What happened to the so called "fiscal conservatives"? Why is it that the only two presidents to balance the budget in the past 50 years, were Democrats? Why is it that two of our most conservative Presidents, Reagan and Bush, wrecked the economy by adding billions of debt? The Republicans have got to jump on board with the American people and the Democrats and vote to bring this war to a safe end. America can not afford this war any longer-----not the cost and certainly not the lives of our brave men and women. So I say with more urgency than ever: this war must end. If Bush and the GOP don't, it is the duty of us to elect a President who will end this war.
***On a side note, my thought and prayers go out to all those affected by the wildfires in Southern California. I can't help but feel that the recovery effort would be much easier if California had its National Guards(who are serving in Iraq). It seems more and more everyday we are seeing the unnecessary costs of this war in all aspects of American life.***
"It's clear under analysis that the nation is on an unstable fiscal path ... with the higher debt and interest costs."
Congressman Rahm Emaneul weighed in on the situation on Hardball on MSNBC:
"America's future is being held hostage by the cost of the war."
So with the newest projections, I must ask: How much more? How much more money for this needless war? How much more are we going to spend acting as a police force in a foreign country instead of helping our own people? If there was no war in Iraq, we would have a budget surplus right now. We could have the social security problem largely fixed. We could have provided healthcare for every American. Or how about this----we could have spent the money actually fighting terrorists.
There is no excuse for this. Americans for generations will be forced to pay the price for this war. Enough is enough. And it's not just the Democrat's fault. What happened to the so called "fiscal conservatives"? Why is it that the only two presidents to balance the budget in the past 50 years, were Democrats? Why is it that two of our most conservative Presidents, Reagan and Bush, wrecked the economy by adding billions of debt? The Republicans have got to jump on board with the American people and the Democrats and vote to bring this war to a safe end. America can not afford this war any longer-----not the cost and certainly not the lives of our brave men and women. So I say with more urgency than ever: this war must end. If Bush and the GOP don't, it is the duty of us to elect a President who will end this war.
***On a side note, my thought and prayers go out to all those affected by the wildfires in Southern California. I can't help but feel that the recovery effort would be much easier if California had its National Guards(who are serving in Iraq). It seems more and more everyday we are seeing the unnecessary costs of this war in all aspects of American life.***
Clinton: "Absolutely" Would Give Up Some Power
Many Democrats have greatly criticized the power grab made by the Bush Administration. The Bush administration has given itself power that is arguably unconstitutional and the conservative Supreme Court and the GOP Congress of the last 7 years have done nothing about it. The next President, Republican or Democrat, will have to, in my book, relinquish some of the power that the Bush administration claims belongs to the office of the President. The Constitution and the law must be reinstated. The fear I have, is that if someone like Rudy gets elected, the powers of the President will grow even more than the Bush administration. This neocon philosophy is one that is dangerous to America and its people and the Constitution. That is why I was very pleased when Sen. Clinton strongly addressed this issue on Tuesday:
“There were a lot of actions which they (Bush-Cheney) took that were clearly beyond any power the Congress would have granted, or that in my view that was inherent in the Constitution."
Asked whether she would “actually give up some of this power in the name of constitutional principle,” Sen. Clinton answered, “Absolutely.”
Kudos to Sen. Clinton for leading on yet another issue. For those who still question why she is so far ahead in the polls, it is because of things like this. No matter how much Obama and Edwards say "change", they have yet to step up as Clinton has and answer questions directly and clearly. It's not enough to say that the Bush administration has done wrong. Obama and Edwards need to be clear of what Bush and Cheney have done wrong and they have to address all of those issues. And even more important, they need to say what they'll do when they get in office, to fix it. While Obama is supporting a known homosexual basher, Clinton is leading on the issues that matter to all Americans. That is why she is leading in the polls and that is why she is likely to be the next President.
“There were a lot of actions which they (Bush-Cheney) took that were clearly beyond any power the Congress would have granted, or that in my view that was inherent in the Constitution."
Asked whether she would “actually give up some of this power in the name of constitutional principle,” Sen. Clinton answered, “Absolutely.”
Kudos to Sen. Clinton for leading on yet another issue. For those who still question why she is so far ahead in the polls, it is because of things like this. No matter how much Obama and Edwards say "change", they have yet to step up as Clinton has and answer questions directly and clearly. It's not enough to say that the Bush administration has done wrong. Obama and Edwards need to be clear of what Bush and Cheney have done wrong and they have to address all of those issues. And even more important, they need to say what they'll do when they get in office, to fix it. While Obama is supporting a known homosexual basher, Clinton is leading on the issues that matter to all Americans. That is why she is leading in the polls and that is why she is likely to be the next President.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
10/21 GOP Debate Thoughts
Well I must admit, aside from a few things, I was pleasantly surprised with tonight's Republican debate. I think the moderators did several of things I talked about earlier----pointing out that McCain runs better against Hillary in General Election polls than Rudy and giving Huckabee adequate time to showcase his credentials to be president.
Huckabee was the star of the debate. He got in quite a few good one liners and was funny, charming and looked as if he was the only major GOP candidate who would be able to put America ahead of his party. McCain also had a good night. Whether you agree or disagree with his positions, and I do disagree with them, you must admit McCain is an honorable guy who says what he means and means what he says.
I was disappointed that the moderators didn't press Giuliani on what makes him supposedly so experienced on foreign policy. I think McCain tried to bring up the fact that he is more experienced than Giuliani, but the moderators failed to follow up. I think its crucial, for this country's future, to point out that, on many issues, Rudy is simply a fraud. That was my first out of two major complaints about the debate.
My second complaint is, yet again, that Ron Paul got no respect for the other candidates, and especially the crowd in attendance. I can understand if they do not agree with his policies (which, by the way are the best of all the GOP candidates'), but to boo Paul is just rude and unnecessary. It shows the character of those GOP voters in attendance. I don't care what conservatives say about us liberals, we are polite and give candidates, regardless of whether or not we agree with them, respect.
Here are a few of my other thoughts: It is a shame that Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo probably only got 10 minutes combined. The moderators would rarely go to them with questions and that is just not fair to voters who haven't made up their mind. They are essentially being denied, by the media, an opportunity to hear from certain people. I'll also say Fred Thompson performed slightly better than last time, but still far from great. He has a serious problem getting his point across and just comes across as sloppy. Rudy did okay. My problem with him is that he makes things up as he goes along. Last debate he said Romney raised taxes (Romney actually lowered taxes considerably); tonight Rudy said that he wasn't like Hillary on abortion, gun control, and gay issues. Well in fact, Rudy is indeed just like Hillary, if not even more liberal, on those issues. And finally, Mitt Romney continues to do well. He did a good job tonight defending his "flip-flops" and he definitely made an attempt to win over the Christian Right. He, even more so that Huckabee, flaunted his conservative credentials. Now whether or not his positions are genuine is a different story, but Romney did do an excellent job of making himself look like the most socially conservative candidate tonight.
So here are my rankings:
1. Mike Huckabee----the most charming candidate and the one who best connected with the audience
2. John McCain------his "straight-shooter" attitude, along with flaunting his foreign policy experience, made this one of McCain's best debate performances
3. Mitt Romney------he continues to make the case for why he is a true conservative, and it worked tonight
4. Rudy Giuliani-----for some reason beyond my comprehension, he is a favorite among the crowd and (sadly) does a good job at fooling them into believing he is someone he is clearly not
5. Ron Paul---------his anti-war message might have been unpopular with the audience tonight, but as anti-war sentiment grows among moderate Republicans, Paul's performance proves why he is their candidate
6, 7, 8: Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson---I didn't even get to hear enough from Tancredo and Hunter to rate them, but I do know that Thompson still performed far below expectations and his poll numbers will continue to show that these poor debate performances are having a negative effect
So there are my thoughts. If anyone saw the debate, I would love to hear yours.
Huckabee was the star of the debate. He got in quite a few good one liners and was funny, charming and looked as if he was the only major GOP candidate who would be able to put America ahead of his party. McCain also had a good night. Whether you agree or disagree with his positions, and I do disagree with them, you must admit McCain is an honorable guy who says what he means and means what he says.
I was disappointed that the moderators didn't press Giuliani on what makes him supposedly so experienced on foreign policy. I think McCain tried to bring up the fact that he is more experienced than Giuliani, but the moderators failed to follow up. I think its crucial, for this country's future, to point out that, on many issues, Rudy is simply a fraud. That was my first out of two major complaints about the debate.
My second complaint is, yet again, that Ron Paul got no respect for the other candidates, and especially the crowd in attendance. I can understand if they do not agree with his policies (which, by the way are the best of all the GOP candidates'), but to boo Paul is just rude and unnecessary. It shows the character of those GOP voters in attendance. I don't care what conservatives say about us liberals, we are polite and give candidates, regardless of whether or not we agree with them, respect.
Here are a few of my other thoughts: It is a shame that Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo probably only got 10 minutes combined. The moderators would rarely go to them with questions and that is just not fair to voters who haven't made up their mind. They are essentially being denied, by the media, an opportunity to hear from certain people. I'll also say Fred Thompson performed slightly better than last time, but still far from great. He has a serious problem getting his point across and just comes across as sloppy. Rudy did okay. My problem with him is that he makes things up as he goes along. Last debate he said Romney raised taxes (Romney actually lowered taxes considerably); tonight Rudy said that he wasn't like Hillary on abortion, gun control, and gay issues. Well in fact, Rudy is indeed just like Hillary, if not even more liberal, on those issues. And finally, Mitt Romney continues to do well. He did a good job tonight defending his "flip-flops" and he definitely made an attempt to win over the Christian Right. He, even more so that Huckabee, flaunted his conservative credentials. Now whether or not his positions are genuine is a different story, but Romney did do an excellent job of making himself look like the most socially conservative candidate tonight.
So here are my rankings:
1. Mike Huckabee----the most charming candidate and the one who best connected with the audience
2. John McCain------his "straight-shooter" attitude, along with flaunting his foreign policy experience, made this one of McCain's best debate performances
3. Mitt Romney------he continues to make the case for why he is a true conservative, and it worked tonight
4. Rudy Giuliani-----for some reason beyond my comprehension, he is a favorite among the crowd and (sadly) does a good job at fooling them into believing he is someone he is clearly not
5. Ron Paul---------his anti-war message might have been unpopular with the audience tonight, but as anti-war sentiment grows among moderate Republicans, Paul's performance proves why he is their candidate
6, 7, 8: Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson---I didn't even get to hear enough from Tancredo and Hunter to rate them, but I do know that Thompson still performed far below expectations and his poll numbers will continue to show that these poor debate performances are having a negative effect
So there are my thoughts. If anyone saw the debate, I would love to hear yours.
What I Want to See at Tonight's GOP Debate
Tonight, live from Miami, Fox News will host another Presidential debate for the Republican candidates. I am looking forward to seeing if Fred Thompson can fix some of the damage done by his last debate performance. This could be make or break for Thompson and his campaign. He has got to show some enthusiasm and knowledge about running for President and he has got to energize the live audience and the viewers watching at home.
Also look for the feud between Romney and Rudy to continue from the last debate. Romney needs to set himself up as the conservative alternative to Giuliani, while Giuliani needs to gain strength in the early primary states where Romney is far ahead.
What I'm hoping most for is good moderating. I want the moderators to point out that there are real conservatives, like McCain and Huckabee, in the race. I have a feeling that a lot of the time being spent tonight will be on who the "true" Republican is in the field. The moderators can not just sit back, as they did in the past, and let lies spew forth from some of the candidates and not call them out on it. It is the duty of the moderator to point out facts and to speak out when one of the candidates claims something absurd.
The other portion of the debate, one would have to assume, will be devoted to foreign policy. It's highly unlikely, (seeing Fox's apparent love for Rudy Giuliani) but I would like to see Rudy questioned on what exactly he has done to give him experience on foreign issues. I don't see how Rudy can claim to have so much foreign policy experience when he was just a mayor. John McCain has a ton more foreign policy credentials than Rudy does, and that needs to be pointed out.
What also needs to be pointed out by the moderators, is the fact that while Rudy says he is the only GOP candidate who can beat Hillary, the polls show different. In head-to-head match-ups, John McCain either does just as well as Rudy or occasionally better. With Rudy as the frontrunner, he must be questioned more on his statements, as some of his are either ludicrous or just plain false. Fox News has no problem nitpicking every little thing Hillary says; they claim that she should be scrutinized because she is the frontrunner and people need to know her positions. Well, I only ask Fox to do the same for Rudy, and quite frankly, the other Republican candidates as well.
And lastly, I just hope the moderators and the other candidates show Ron Paul some respect. I was so disgusted at the last debate to see the obvious bias of the moderators against Ron. The others candidates were extremely disrespectful as well; Rudy could be heard laughing whenever Ron answered a question. Ron Paul is possibly the only Republican with real solutions, and the media and the other candidates would do themselves, and the American people, much good to pay some attention to him and his policies.
I hope everyone has a chance to watch the debate tonight and I look forward to reading some of your thoughts in the comments below. I'll be back later on tonight with a recap and review of the debate and who I believe were the winners and losers.
Also look for the feud between Romney and Rudy to continue from the last debate. Romney needs to set himself up as the conservative alternative to Giuliani, while Giuliani needs to gain strength in the early primary states where Romney is far ahead.
What I'm hoping most for is good moderating. I want the moderators to point out that there are real conservatives, like McCain and Huckabee, in the race. I have a feeling that a lot of the time being spent tonight will be on who the "true" Republican is in the field. The moderators can not just sit back, as they did in the past, and let lies spew forth from some of the candidates and not call them out on it. It is the duty of the moderator to point out facts and to speak out when one of the candidates claims something absurd.
The other portion of the debate, one would have to assume, will be devoted to foreign policy. It's highly unlikely, (seeing Fox's apparent love for Rudy Giuliani) but I would like to see Rudy questioned on what exactly he has done to give him experience on foreign issues. I don't see how Rudy can claim to have so much foreign policy experience when he was just a mayor. John McCain has a ton more foreign policy credentials than Rudy does, and that needs to be pointed out.
What also needs to be pointed out by the moderators, is the fact that while Rudy says he is the only GOP candidate who can beat Hillary, the polls show different. In head-to-head match-ups, John McCain either does just as well as Rudy or occasionally better. With Rudy as the frontrunner, he must be questioned more on his statements, as some of his are either ludicrous or just plain false. Fox News has no problem nitpicking every little thing Hillary says; they claim that she should be scrutinized because she is the frontrunner and people need to know her positions. Well, I only ask Fox to do the same for Rudy, and quite frankly, the other Republican candidates as well.
And lastly, I just hope the moderators and the other candidates show Ron Paul some respect. I was so disgusted at the last debate to see the obvious bias of the moderators against Ron. The others candidates were extremely disrespectful as well; Rudy could be heard laughing whenever Ron answered a question. Ron Paul is possibly the only Republican with real solutions, and the media and the other candidates would do themselves, and the American people, much good to pay some attention to him and his policies.
I hope everyone has a chance to watch the debate tonight and I look forward to reading some of your thoughts in the comments below. I'll be back later on tonight with a recap and review of the debate and who I believe were the winners and losers.
Jindal wins Governorship
I am sad to announce that Republican Bobby Jindal has won the election for Louisiana Governor. I don't think there could be a worst person for the job. Bobby has agreed with everything President Bush has done----including his handling of Hurricane Katrina, and everyone knows that was a disaster.
One of the reasons for Jindal's clean, easy victory was his name recognition. Jindal represents the New Orleans metropolitan area in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was also a candidate for governor in 2003 against Kathleen Blanco. Blanco, deciding not to run for re-election, essentially left the seat for the taking of Bobby Jindal.
Big name Louisiana Democrats such as Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu(who by the way easily won re-election tonight) and former U.S. Sen. John Breaux decided not to run. These democrats could have won the election, but by not running, they left Jindal with virtually no big-name opposition. Democratic State Senator Walter Boasso was Jindal's only true competition, yet Jindal had millions more to spend and hence won the Governorship.
All I can do now is pray that, regardless of party affiliation, Jindal will do the right things for the people of Louisiana, and that means standing up to his good 'ole friend, Pres. Bush, and actually helping the state, unlike the President. Unfortunately, I don't think Jindal will do that. All you have to do is look at his Congressional record. He was ranked 432th out of 439 places on terms of leadership and effectiveness representing his people. Can Jindal get past his partisanship and actually help those in Louisiana who are desperate for change? I surely hope so, but sadly, I think not. He has proven, like many other Republicans lately, that he cares more about his own party, than the people he is elected to serve.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Romney Wins Over Conservatives.....Barely
At a Christian Conservative Conference, organized by the Family Research council, Gov. Mitt Romney won a straw poll with 27.6% of the "value voter's" votes. Mike Huckabee, who in my opinion is one of the strongest GOP candidates, finished at a very close second with 27.1%. Ron Paul came in third with 15% favoring him.
It proved to be a disappointing night for the two national frontrunners, however. Fred Thompson, who was hoping for the support of the Christian right to propel his campaign, only received about 9%. Rudy Giuliani, whose campaign banked on his (so called) national security credentials to overcome the social issues when it comes to winning over Christian conservatives, finished with under 2%.
Several important things strike me from the results of the straw poll. Now obviously, this isn't even close to all the Christian Conservative voters' support, but it is meaningful. It tells who the "value voter" community is drifting towards. First, I 'll be honest, I was shocked that Romney finished first. I thought for sure his flip-flop on abortion would keep him from being the favorite among Christians. Mike Huckabee, finishing a strong second, illustrates a trend in the campaign----his growing support. If Huckabee can finish strong in the early primaries, he might just be able to win enough Christian votes in the Southern states to win the GOP nomination. Another major upset has to be the fact that Ron Paul came in third. I could honestly see, if Rudy becomes the nominee, that Paul would run as a third party, anti-war, pro-life candidate and get the backing of some Christian conservatives. This could have the Nader effect on the GOP in '08 in some key battle ground states.
Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani can not be too happy tonight. If Fred can not rally up the Christian right, I don't see how he has a shot at the nomination. I think, as we get closer to January, that Huckabee will slowly over come Thompson in the polls and will prove to be the candidate of choice for the Christian Right. And finally we can see that Rudy is not winning over the social conservatives. Rudy himself has stated in the past that the way he will win the nomination is by convincing "value voters" that, while he might not be as socially conservative as they may like, he is the toughest candidate on national security. Well it seems that they're not buying it. I predict as we get closer to the primaries, and more people start paying close attention to the race, Rudy will lose some support once people know his positions.
One thing is for sure coming out of this conference----it is essentially a battle between Romney and Huckabee for the Christian Right vote in the primaries. Also it's clear that Rudy is not going to get a majority of Christian votes and that Fred is, slowly but surly, fading away.
It proved to be a disappointing night for the two national frontrunners, however. Fred Thompson, who was hoping for the support of the Christian right to propel his campaign, only received about 9%. Rudy Giuliani, whose campaign banked on his (so called) national security credentials to overcome the social issues when it comes to winning over Christian conservatives, finished with under 2%.
Several important things strike me from the results of the straw poll. Now obviously, this isn't even close to all the Christian Conservative voters' support, but it is meaningful. It tells who the "value voter" community is drifting towards. First, I 'll be honest, I was shocked that Romney finished first. I thought for sure his flip-flop on abortion would keep him from being the favorite among Christians. Mike Huckabee, finishing a strong second, illustrates a trend in the campaign----his growing support. If Huckabee can finish strong in the early primaries, he might just be able to win enough Christian votes in the Southern states to win the GOP nomination. Another major upset has to be the fact that Ron Paul came in third. I could honestly see, if Rudy becomes the nominee, that Paul would run as a third party, anti-war, pro-life candidate and get the backing of some Christian conservatives. This could have the Nader effect on the GOP in '08 in some key battle ground states.
Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani can not be too happy tonight. If Fred can not rally up the Christian right, I don't see how he has a shot at the nomination. I think, as we get closer to January, that Huckabee will slowly over come Thompson in the polls and will prove to be the candidate of choice for the Christian Right. And finally we can see that Rudy is not winning over the social conservatives. Rudy himself has stated in the past that the way he will win the nomination is by convincing "value voters" that, while he might not be as socially conservative as they may like, he is the toughest candidate on national security. Well it seems that they're not buying it. I predict as we get closer to the primaries, and more people start paying close attention to the race, Rudy will lose some support once people know his positions.
One thing is for sure coming out of this conference----it is essentially a battle between Romney and Huckabee for the Christian Right vote in the primaries. Also it's clear that Rudy is not going to get a majority of Christian votes and that Fred is, slowly but surly, fading away.
The Four Ring Circus
Republican Presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain are going at each other as to who is the real conservative among them. These children, dressed up like adults, are a sad bunch representing the Republican party who are trying to attract their base----those who prefer to wear the mantle of moral and family values.
History has proven those who talk most about having family and moral values are the one who often violate those values. We have seen many of them exposed in the last few years. The people who really believe and practice family and moral values very seldom have to speak about those values because they live them. In other words they lead by their deeds.
Has anyone heard this circus talk about being an American first? I would bet not; their ideology and political persuasion comes first. They think of being an American only when they need the extra votes. The election of any one of these four children as President will just be an extension of the Bush administration with more reckless behavior and more reckless decisions, more attacks by Al Qaeda on the U.S., and more unnecessary wars.
Mr. Bush and his tough talking neocon friends failed to protect the country and its people on 9-11 from the worst foreign terror attack on U.S. soil. And now this circus of four neocon's running for President are also trying to talk tough. The American people are well aware of which party can best protect our country and people, and it is not the Republican Party.
It is almost laughable when you see them go after each other. They can't live up to their positions on the issues, and when all else fails, they invoke the name of Reagan. It must remind them of the Iran-Contra scandal. Maybe that is why they are so casual about going to war with Iran. Their motive must be to get back those weapons Reagan sold to Iran.
Lets see, Giuliani likes to cross dress and hide behind the podium during the debates; Thompson is an actor with an undistinguished record while serving in Congress; McCain's wheels of his straight talking express came off a long time ago, and Romney is still trying to explain his positions. What a four ring circus with these children leading the Republican field for their party's leadership.
Are any of these four the best candidates to lead our country in the future? The present administration has already set America back a decade with its reckless behavior. When introducing the candidates for the next debate, maybe the moderator should just sing, "Send In The Clowns."
Friday, October 19, 2007
Why Not McCain?
Throughout this campaign season, we are hearing more and more about how GOP voters want a social-conservative who, at the same time, can be super-hawkish when it comes to Iraq and the Middle East. Many social conservatives say they wouldn't normally vote for a man with Giuliani's past(pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro- gun control, pro-illegal immigration, etc.), but they feel he is the only man with "enough experience" to protect the country. Well, I wish these conservatives would wake up. There is already a frontrunner who is a social conservative and who does have experience on foreign issues. So I ask them----why Giuliani, why not McCain?
John McCain, regardless of how much I might disagree with him, fits the description of what I hear every "value voter" wanting---someone who has a clear record of being pro-life, socially conservative, fiscally conservative, AND he, by far, has the most foreign policy experience and knowledge out of any GOP candidate. I'd like to know how exactly some people think Giuliani has "foreign policy experience". How do you get foreign policy experience from just being a mayor? You don't, and people should realize that. The only past discrepancy that I see affecting McCain is his stance on immigration reform. But that still doesn't explain why they would so quickly turn from McCain, who was the early front-runner, to Giuliani who is even more pro-illegal immigration that McCain.
I suppose it just angers me to continue to see Giuliani rise in the polls for reasons that simply aren't true. I might not vote Republican or even share their "values", but I must admit there are better people out there to be president than Giuliani. Someone who exploits the lives of those lost on 9/11 does not deserve to be president. Someone who is so willing to commit troops to another war with Iran does not deserve to be president. Someone who will forget his past positions and adopt new ones, just to win an election, doesn't deserve to be president. Someone who speaks out against children getting healthcare does not deserve to be president. In case you haven't caught on, that "someone" is Giuliani. This man is a disgrace to America. I ask all you conservatives, if you are truly concerned with social issues and national security, do not look to Rudy. Look to McCain, he has stood for your principles for as long as he has been in politics, and you conservatives have literally paid him nothing but hatred in return. So don't go on the news and complain you don't have a candidate, you do, and his name is John McCain. Conservatives do have a choice; it's not like Rudy is being pushed down their throats. I just hope they realize their choices before its too late.
John McCain, regardless of how much I might disagree with him, fits the description of what I hear every "value voter" wanting---someone who has a clear record of being pro-life, socially conservative, fiscally conservative, AND he, by far, has the most foreign policy experience and knowledge out of any GOP candidate. I'd like to know how exactly some people think Giuliani has "foreign policy experience". How do you get foreign policy experience from just being a mayor? You don't, and people should realize that. The only past discrepancy that I see affecting McCain is his stance on immigration reform. But that still doesn't explain why they would so quickly turn from McCain, who was the early front-runner, to Giuliani who is even more pro-illegal immigration that McCain.
I suppose it just angers me to continue to see Giuliani rise in the polls for reasons that simply aren't true. I might not vote Republican or even share their "values", but I must admit there are better people out there to be president than Giuliani. Someone who exploits the lives of those lost on 9/11 does not deserve to be president. Someone who is so willing to commit troops to another war with Iran does not deserve to be president. Someone who will forget his past positions and adopt new ones, just to win an election, doesn't deserve to be president. Someone who speaks out against children getting healthcare does not deserve to be president. In case you haven't caught on, that "someone" is Giuliani. This man is a disgrace to America. I ask all you conservatives, if you are truly concerned with social issues and national security, do not look to Rudy. Look to McCain, he has stood for your principles for as long as he has been in politics, and you conservatives have literally paid him nothing but hatred in return. So don't go on the news and complain you don't have a candidate, you do, and his name is John McCain. Conservatives do have a choice; it's not like Rudy is being pushed down their throats. I just hope they realize their choices before its too late.
Is Giuliani Becoming Too Conservative?
The answer is yes, he is. Now most analysts would say that Giuliani becoming more and more conservative is a good thing. The truth is they are right, but only partially. In his attempt to get the Republican nomination, Giuliani has "modified" several of his positions to appear more in line with the GOP base. He has become, by far, the most hawkish candidate, drawing the nickname of "Bush on steroids". He has refined his pro-choice by stating that he would appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court. Instead of being very pro-gun control, Rudy now says that he respects the 2nd Amendment. All of these policy shifts have put Giuliani more in line with the Republican base, but it could hinder one of his very important arguments for being the nominee------that he could put some traditionally "blue states" into play.
By becoming more conservative, Giuliani is clearly hurting his chances among moderate voters in states such as New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Florida, and even California. The "old Giuliani" had a better chance to win these states than the "new, conservatively improved Giuliani". Its highly unlikely that he will draw support from Independents who are overwhelmingly against this war and for withdrawal. Pro-choice, pro-gun control urbanites are already showing dissatisfaction at Giuliani's new stances. Polls show many feel Giuliani is selling his soul, so to speak, to conservatives just to get the nomination.
Polls reflect this showing as well. While 6 months ago, Florida and Pennsylvania Independents were leaning towards Giuliani; now they lean significantly towards Clinton. Giuliani's new found conservative nature might get him the support of the Republican base, but it is already losing him the support of many moderates. By the time the 2008 election rolls around, Giuliani may be getting the onslaught from two key voting blocks-----strict social conservatives who say they would never trust Giuliani and moderate Independent voters. Take those two voting blocks away from Giuliani and you make it impossible for him to win the White House.
By becoming more conservative, Giuliani is clearly hurting his chances among moderate voters in states such as New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Florida, and even California. The "old Giuliani" had a better chance to win these states than the "new, conservatively improved Giuliani". Its highly unlikely that he will draw support from Independents who are overwhelmingly against this war and for withdrawal. Pro-choice, pro-gun control urbanites are already showing dissatisfaction at Giuliani's new stances. Polls show many feel Giuliani is selling his soul, so to speak, to conservatives just to get the nomination.
Polls reflect this showing as well. While 6 months ago, Florida and Pennsylvania Independents were leaning towards Giuliani; now they lean significantly towards Clinton. Giuliani's new found conservative nature might get him the support of the Republican base, but it is already losing him the support of many moderates. By the time the 2008 election rolls around, Giuliani may be getting the onslaught from two key voting blocks-----strict social conservatives who say they would never trust Giuliani and moderate Independent voters. Take those two voting blocks away from Giuliani and you make it impossible for him to win the White House.
Failure At the Top
President Bush's job approval rating, according to a poll released October 17, stands at 24%. Last month it was at 29%. Those who watched Mr. Bush's performance at his news conference that same day can easily understand why.
The President was childish at times, then reverted to his scare tactic of fear and spoke about "WWIII" as if we are headed directly for it. No Commander in Chief should speak of war so casually. Our past Presidents have a record of doing what is necessary to avoid war if at all possible. When one thinks about the troubles this President has brought upon our country and our men and women in uniform the only conclusion is that he is unfit for the office.
When he can't or doesn't want to deal with reporters' questions, he tries to be funny. His answers are scripted and gets off the subject matter with long drawn out answers unrelated to the questions. Deep into the fifth year of war in Iraq over WMD that did not exist, he still can not tell the people how this war will end, when it will end, nor what will Iraq look like if it ever ends. Even though it is the United States who is training the Iraqi's, he still can not tell the nation when the Iraqi's will be ready to take over the security of their own country.
Our nation is without a true leader at a time when our country needs leadership to face the challenges that the free world is exposed to. Reckless and incompetent decisions have put America and our Armed Forces in harms way and now Mr. Bush is talking about WWIII. History will not wait 15 to 20 years to judge Mr. Bush's presidency as he has said so often. The facts have been revealed and the people have already spoken. The Worst President and Commander in Chief in History, and sadly, the most childish is George W. Bush.
Israel: Just Another Middle East Menace?
The major obstacle to peace between Israel and Palestine are the leaders of Israel and those who support their loose cannon strategy. The leaders of Israel order so called preemptive strikes against the Palestinian people and kill innocent men, women and children in their attacks and then just shrug it off and say those things just happen in war.
If one listens closely to their talk you would think Syria, Iran, Iraq, and the Palestinian people are responsible for the holocaust. Israel is a nuclear power with stock piles of WMD. They won't admit it and America and other world leaders don't talk about it, but it is a fact. They refused to join the Non Proliferation Treaty that requires open inspections of Nuclear facilities but they want other nations to comply. It is time for world leaders to demand that Israel join the N.P.T. ditto India and Pakistan.
The leaders of Israel are not friends of America. They would love to see the U.S. go to war with Iran, just like the U.S. did in Iraq over WMD that did not exist. They love when we adopt their preemptive policy regardless of the loss of innocent life. They would like nothing more than for America to stoop to their level in order to justify their own actions.
The leaders of Israel like to use their military power with impunity. That is an indication of unstable leadership, lack of moral values, and a disregard for human life. They have created more terrorists with their actions much like our invasion of Iraq did. If anyone has any doubts about the leaders of Israel I suggest reading the book "Body of Secrets". It tells the story about Israel's attack on the United States' ship Liberty and acts of Israel against Egypt.
America needs a President who will reassess our relationship with the leaders of Israel. And America needs a congress that will reassess what military equipment and supplies we sell to Israel.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Bush Warns about "World War III"
Our great President, "Dubya", has said many outrageous and ignorant things during his presidency, but this one has to be near the top of the list:
"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
You just don't talk about a World War, especially one that would be nuclear, that lightly. It's irresponsible and foolish. There is no reason why Iran could or would start a World War. Iran is no threat to the U.S. or Israel currently. If the U.S. or Israel wanted, Iran could be wiped off the map in an instant. And, if Bush's argument is that Iran can not be in control of nuclear weapons, then I agree. I don't think any politician, Democrat or Republican, wants Iran to have nukes.
But the thing is, and this is where Republicans and Democrats differ, we don't need to start a war to keep Iran from getting WMDs. We need to first try tough sanctions and rigorous diplomacy. It looks like it is working with North Korea, so why can't it work with Iran? And, if Iran still doesn't comply, then all we have to do is an air strike on the nuclear facility. We don't need to invade Iran, or attack its civilians. By just taking out the nuclear reactor, we essentially solve the problem---quickly, safely, and without conflict. And it's not exactly like Iran would be capable of attacking the U.S. back. But, before we even think about a military strike, we must try strong diplomacy, but at the same time, letting other countries know that Iran know that they mustn't be allowed to get WMDs. Why?----simple, they themselves would not launch an attack, but they would give WMDs to terrorists who would use it in Israel, Western Europe, and eventually the U.S.
Another problem that needs to be addressed is restoring our standing in the world with countries such as Russia. Russia is becoming an ally with Iran and is supporting their nuclear development program. The U.S. can argue with Russia and Putin all we want, but the fact is that the foreign policies of the Bush administration have alienated Russia(and many others). With the next president, we have got to work hard and quickly to restore our standing in the eyes of the world. We have got to regain our allies. The time of "cowboy diplomacy" must end.
Again I repeat: We can not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, but there are so many things we can and must try before resulting to a military strike. And even then, there is no need for a war, just an air strike. Talking about WWIII is not even relevant, and if, God forbid, there is a World War in the near future, it will be the fault of President Bush and his policies. Perhaps that is the saddest though yet----that the U.S. could be responsible for a World War---but then again, those are not my words, there the President's.
"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
You just don't talk about a World War, especially one that would be nuclear, that lightly. It's irresponsible and foolish. There is no reason why Iran could or would start a World War. Iran is no threat to the U.S. or Israel currently. If the U.S. or Israel wanted, Iran could be wiped off the map in an instant. And, if Bush's argument is that Iran can not be in control of nuclear weapons, then I agree. I don't think any politician, Democrat or Republican, wants Iran to have nukes.
But the thing is, and this is where Republicans and Democrats differ, we don't need to start a war to keep Iran from getting WMDs. We need to first try tough sanctions and rigorous diplomacy. It looks like it is working with North Korea, so why can't it work with Iran? And, if Iran still doesn't comply, then all we have to do is an air strike on the nuclear facility. We don't need to invade Iran, or attack its civilians. By just taking out the nuclear reactor, we essentially solve the problem---quickly, safely, and without conflict. And it's not exactly like Iran would be capable of attacking the U.S. back. But, before we even think about a military strike, we must try strong diplomacy, but at the same time, letting other countries know that Iran know that they mustn't be allowed to get WMDs. Why?----simple, they themselves would not launch an attack, but they would give WMDs to terrorists who would use it in Israel, Western Europe, and eventually the U.S.
Another problem that needs to be addressed is restoring our standing in the world with countries such as Russia. Russia is becoming an ally with Iran and is supporting their nuclear development program. The U.S. can argue with Russia and Putin all we want, but the fact is that the foreign policies of the Bush administration have alienated Russia(and many others). With the next president, we have got to work hard and quickly to restore our standing in the eyes of the world. We have got to regain our allies. The time of "cowboy diplomacy" must end.
Again I repeat: We can not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, but there are so many things we can and must try before resulting to a military strike. And even then, there is no need for a war, just an air strike. Talking about WWIII is not even relevant, and if, God forbid, there is a World War in the near future, it will be the fault of President Bush and his policies. Perhaps that is the saddest though yet----that the U.S. could be responsible for a World War---but then again, those are not my words, there the President's.
Bush At It Again
George W. Bush is once again pulling out the spin in trying to persuade the people that he and his administration have pursued fiscally responsible policies by using his veto of the Children's Health Insurance program passed by both houses of Congress.
Lets look at the facts. This President has broken all deficit spending records and did not veto any spending bills while the Republicans controlled Congress. The Bush administration has added over $4 trillion to the national debt and his deficit spending has passed the $1 trillion mark and he still has 14 months to serve and accumulate more debt.
When Mr. Bush leaves office after 8 years he will not have balanced one federal budget nor will he have sent one balance budget to congress---this, despite the trillions of dollars in surplus left over from the Clinton administration.
The latest poll shows only 27% of the people believe in his fiscal policies. When you look at his records of failure: Iraq, Veterans Health Care, Foreign Policy, Spending, and the tragic events of 9-11, you see a President who has been reckless, incompetent and fiscally destructive.
So now he takes it out on the Children's Health program with a veto. Mr. Bush can't claim any fiscal responsibility with that veto. If the Republicans in Congress up hold his veto, it will only prove how reckless they have become in trying to manipulate the truth about the fiscal disaster created on the President and their watch.
The latest poll shows 64% of the people want congress to override the President's veto. If enough republicans vote to sustain the veto it will be one more example of their incompetence concerning priorities and those things that really matter and make a difference for the country and its people. Republicans have refused to do the will of the American people.
Keep in mind, the war in Iraq (over WMD that did not exist) has already cost the country and its people over $500 Billion and many lives. That is the legacy of George W. Bush. Its to bad Alan Greenspan did not speak out concerning Mr. Bush's reckless spending habits while he was Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank. I guess he believed in Ronald Reagan's 11 commandment, never speak ill of a fellow Republican. What is good for the country and the people just doesn't matter to these Republicans.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The Man the GOP Just Can't Get Rid Of
I'm sure from reading the title everyone knows who I'm talking about----Sen. Larry Craig. For those of you who haven't heard, the Idaho Senator was caught soliciting sex in a men's restroom in an airport in Minneapolis. At the time, he pleaded guilty to the charges. When the story broke, however, he quickly said that he wasn't guilty but that he would resign from the Senate. Then he said he would try to withdraw his guilty plea. A few days later, Craig announced that, even though he said he was going to resign, he decided not to. And ever since the GOP leadership has been trying to get him out of Congress. Here's my take:
I don't personally harbor resentment towards Craig for the act. Everyone makes mistakes. I do, however, have a problem when a man preaches about being "moral" and he consistently votes against gay rights and then goes and does what Craig did. Craig can say he didn't do it, but, from listening to the police tape, its obvious Craig was guilty. And for Craig to deny the obvious just further infuriates me. If there is any reason why Craig should resign, it is because of his hypocrisy and his clear failure to live up to what he promised his constituents----"good, moral, family values."
The problem I have with the GOP is that they don't want Craig to leave because of the crime or even because he is a hypocrite. They want him to leave because he is gay. Republicans can deny it all they want, but if it really is because of "moral reasons", then Sen. David Vitter should be pressured to resign as well. The GOP doesn't find it necessary to speak out against hiring prostitutes(as Vitter did), but they do for Craig? My problem is, not that I'm defending Craig, that he was treated completely unfairly solely because he's gay(or should I say we all know he's gay even thought he won't officially confirm it).
The Republicans feel Craig, a gay man, tarnishes their "family values" appearance. News to the GOP: you lost that warm, family appearance when you voted not to give children healthcare, and when you called for an 8 year old to be hung, or when you refused to raise the minimum wage for years. "Compassionate Conservative"-----give me a break.
I don't personally harbor resentment towards Craig for the act. Everyone makes mistakes. I do, however, have a problem when a man preaches about being "moral" and he consistently votes against gay rights and then goes and does what Craig did. Craig can say he didn't do it, but, from listening to the police tape, its obvious Craig was guilty. And for Craig to deny the obvious just further infuriates me. If there is any reason why Craig should resign, it is because of his hypocrisy and his clear failure to live up to what he promised his constituents----"good, moral, family values."
The problem I have with the GOP is that they don't want Craig to leave because of the crime or even because he is a hypocrite. They want him to leave because he is gay. Republicans can deny it all they want, but if it really is because of "moral reasons", then Sen. David Vitter should be pressured to resign as well. The GOP doesn't find it necessary to speak out against hiring prostitutes(as Vitter did), but they do for Craig? My problem is, not that I'm defending Craig, that he was treated completely unfairly solely because he's gay(or should I say we all know he's gay even thought he won't officially confirm it).
The Republicans feel Craig, a gay man, tarnishes their "family values" appearance. News to the GOP: you lost that warm, family appearance when you voted not to give children healthcare, and when you called for an 8 year old to be hung, or when you refused to raise the minimum wage for years. "Compassionate Conservative"-----give me a break.
Are We Heading Towards a National Primary?
This just in: The Republicans have again moved up the their Iowa Caucus date to January 3; expect the Democrats to do similar. This means New Hampshire too will move up, which sets in effect a chain reaction: basically, all the primaries move up. So with this news, the question must be asked, are we headed towards a national primary for future elections and what would be the pros and cons of one?
In my opinion, we are headed towards a national primary. For God sakes, we could theoretically have caucuses starting in December this year if we continue this trend of states moving their caucuses/primaries earlier and earlier. Every state wants to be as close to Iowa and New Hampshire as possible so that they can exercise their influence on the nomination process. What this in turns leads to is an absolutely chaotic schedule which gets more chaotic each and every week as states decide that they want to go earlier and earlier. Regardless of what you think should be done, I think we can all agree that something needs to be done. More and more attention is being paid to what state is going when instead of the real issues at hand.
One option, I suppose, would be to set, in law, a schedule for the primaries every election year. That way, there is no confusion of who goes first when the election comes around. Another option is the one I mentioned earlier: a national primary. Basically, as the name implies, all the states would vote in their respective primary/caucus on the same day. Consider it a "Super" Super Tuesday. There are advantages and disadvantages however to a national primary that would have to be taken into account.
The positives are clear----it would end this needless, petty, and foolish competition between states to see who can go the earliest. It is a waste of time to be so concerned with the primary calendar and it serves as more of a distraction for the candidates and the voters than anything else. Not one state could claim to have more of a hand in the decision making process than another. The disadvantage can be seen when we look back in history. The perfect example is 2004. If it was a national primary, Howard Dean would have clearly won. However, because Iowa and New Hampshire was able to go first, and hence influence the proceeding primaries, John Kerry was able to win the nomination. The same can be seen in this election. If it was a national primary, Hillary and Rudy would be the two nominees without a doubt. But, because of the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have a very good shot at "stealing" the nomination from the national front-runners.
I suppose the question this country will have to answer is, "Do the pros of a national primary outweigh the cons?". I'm not sure if there is a clear answer, but I am sure of one thing----people better start asking themselves that question now, because I can truly see this country shifting towards a national primary in the near future.
In my opinion, we are headed towards a national primary. For God sakes, we could theoretically have caucuses starting in December this year if we continue this trend of states moving their caucuses/primaries earlier and earlier. Every state wants to be as close to Iowa and New Hampshire as possible so that they can exercise their influence on the nomination process. What this in turns leads to is an absolutely chaotic schedule which gets more chaotic each and every week as states decide that they want to go earlier and earlier. Regardless of what you think should be done, I think we can all agree that something needs to be done. More and more attention is being paid to what state is going when instead of the real issues at hand.
One option, I suppose, would be to set, in law, a schedule for the primaries every election year. That way, there is no confusion of who goes first when the election comes around. Another option is the one I mentioned earlier: a national primary. Basically, as the name implies, all the states would vote in their respective primary/caucus on the same day. Consider it a "Super" Super Tuesday. There are advantages and disadvantages however to a national primary that would have to be taken into account.
The positives are clear----it would end this needless, petty, and foolish competition between states to see who can go the earliest. It is a waste of time to be so concerned with the primary calendar and it serves as more of a distraction for the candidates and the voters than anything else. Not one state could claim to have more of a hand in the decision making process than another. The disadvantage can be seen when we look back in history. The perfect example is 2004. If it was a national primary, Howard Dean would have clearly won. However, because Iowa and New Hampshire was able to go first, and hence influence the proceeding primaries, John Kerry was able to win the nomination. The same can be seen in this election. If it was a national primary, Hillary and Rudy would be the two nominees without a doubt. But, because of the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have a very good shot at "stealing" the nomination from the national front-runners.
I suppose the question this country will have to answer is, "Do the pros of a national primary outweigh the cons?". I'm not sure if there is a clear answer, but I am sure of one thing----people better start asking themselves that question now, because I can truly see this country shifting towards a national primary in the near future.
Monday, October 15, 2007
UPDATE: Another Sign of Democrats' Strength Heading into '08
Yesterday I wrote a post about Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu's impressive fundraising numbers(considering she's the one Democrat who is expected to lose in '08). Here is an update, again showing the strength of the Democrats, even in traditionally red states.
In Virginia, a Republican state for the most part, a Democrat has more than double the amount of cash on hand than that of his two Republican opponents combined. Democrat Mark Warner has raised $1.1 million since he entered the race on 9/13. That means he raised over a million dollars in just two weeks (the money count was totaled at the end of September). His two potential GOP opponents, Jim Gilmore and Tom Davis, raised $200,000 and $222,000 respectively.
In Virginia, a Republican state for the most part, a Democrat has more than double the amount of cash on hand than that of his two Republican opponents combined. Democrat Mark Warner has raised $1.1 million since he entered the race on 9/13. That means he raised over a million dollars in just two weeks (the money count was totaled at the end of September). His two potential GOP opponents, Jim Gilmore and Tom Davis, raised $200,000 and $222,000 respectively.
Let the Debate Continue
One of my goals when I began Politidose was to get feedback from different people, whether they agreed or disagreed with me and my beliefs. I truly believe the one thing that is crucial to keep our democracy alive is good, honest, debate. So what I have here are comments that came from two of my posts("Al Gore: A True American Hero" and "A Message to Barack Obama: Shut Up"). The debate, in essence, is about whether or not Hillary Clinton is a strong candidate:
-lacyadjuster said...
The ONLY reason why 53% of the people are on a poll supporting Hillary is because Al hasn't said he will run. If he ran, the polls supporting the current Democratic nominees would nosedive. Don't you get it? Pointing to the polls is inaccurate argument for why Al shouldn't run.
-joseph patrick said...
The polls do show that democrats are very happy with their current choices. There is not a clear, defined niche where Gore is needed.
-johnny said...
Democrats were also very happy with their choices in the election years when they nominated Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. That doesn't mean the current group of nominees are the best candidates in the election. Neither democrats nor republicans elect the president. It's the independents who eventually determine the election and I'm not sold on Hillary Clinton's electability.
-joseph patrick said...
I agree with you there, but Hillary has a record of getting Independents to vote for her, as do the Clintons in general. Also, I believe, as Clinton is the most moderate, most centrist, out of all the candidates, she would do the best in a general election.
johnny said...
One of my problems with Hillary is that you don't really know where she stands. Her opinions seem to be poll driven. After criticizing Obama for saying he'd talk with Iranian leaders with no holds barred, Hillary has now taken the same stance. ~ AP "During a Democratic presidential debate in July, Obama said he would be willing to meet without precondition in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Standing with him on stage, Clinton said she would first send envoys to test the waters and called Obama's position irresponsible and naive. But asked about it Thursday by a voter, the New York senator said twice that she, too, would negotiate with Iran 'with no conditions.'"
-joseph patrick said...
^I too had heard that from the AP, but as it turns out they were actually wrong. Here is the correction: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/10/associated_pres_8.php Basically it says she did not say what AP is saying: "Hillary is saying here that her administration would negotiate with Iran the country unconditionally -- something she's said in various forms repeatedly in the past. She is not saying -- as Barack Obama did -- that she'd personally meet with Iranian leaders without preconditions. Their dispute centered around whether to engage in unconditional personal diplomacy. Whichever side you take, and whatever you think of this distinction, there's just no meaningful flip-flop here."
-johnny said...
How exactly do you meet with a "Country unconditionally" but not that country's leaders? Exactly WHO would she be meeting with? That's like Iran saying that they will meet with US unconditionally but NOT our government's leaders? If that's Hillary's explanation, it's going to be a hard one to sell to the majority of the electorate. Don't think that I'm coming down especially hard on Hillary because of her front-runner status because when the general election comes, I don't think the independents and undecideds are going to buy that explanation and they're the ones who decide the elections in November.
-joseph patrick said...
If you listen to the question posed to Hillary at the event, the question was about her administration, not herself personally. She answered the question with saying yes, but the question wasn't about her, it was about her administration. So I assume she meant people like the Secretary of State, etc. And that explanation is not actually from the Hillary campaign, its from Fox News, who for once actually did some good by playing back the question then the answer.
-johnny said...
You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to... It's all about semantics and when you have to get into technical terms, you lose most of the voters, who now think you're crawfishing.
-joseph patrick said...
I get what you're saying, but as honest people, shouldn't we stand up and tell the AP:"wait, you took Hillary out of context." Isn't it our duty as Americans to search for the truth and not just eat everything we're fed by the media?
So let the debate continue---I want to hear your opinions and get your feedback. What are your opinions of Hillary Clinton?
-lacyadjuster said...
The ONLY reason why 53% of the people are on a poll supporting Hillary is because Al hasn't said he will run. If he ran, the polls supporting the current Democratic nominees would nosedive. Don't you get it? Pointing to the polls is inaccurate argument for why Al shouldn't run.
-joseph patrick said...
The polls do show that democrats are very happy with their current choices. There is not a clear, defined niche where Gore is needed.
-johnny said...
Democrats were also very happy with their choices in the election years when they nominated Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. That doesn't mean the current group of nominees are the best candidates in the election. Neither democrats nor republicans elect the president. It's the independents who eventually determine the election and I'm not sold on Hillary Clinton's electability.
-joseph patrick said...
I agree with you there, but Hillary has a record of getting Independents to vote for her, as do the Clintons in general. Also, I believe, as Clinton is the most moderate, most centrist, out of all the candidates, she would do the best in a general election.
johnny said...
One of my problems with Hillary is that you don't really know where she stands. Her opinions seem to be poll driven. After criticizing Obama for saying he'd talk with Iranian leaders with no holds barred, Hillary has now taken the same stance. ~ AP "During a Democratic presidential debate in July, Obama said he would be willing to meet without precondition in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Standing with him on stage, Clinton said she would first send envoys to test the waters and called Obama's position irresponsible and naive. But asked about it Thursday by a voter, the New York senator said twice that she, too, would negotiate with Iran 'with no conditions.'"
-joseph patrick said...
^I too had heard that from the AP, but as it turns out they were actually wrong. Here is the correction: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/10/associated_pres_8.php Basically it says she did not say what AP is saying: "Hillary is saying here that her administration would negotiate with Iran the country unconditionally -- something she's said in various forms repeatedly in the past. She is not saying -- as Barack Obama did -- that she'd personally meet with Iranian leaders without preconditions. Their dispute centered around whether to engage in unconditional personal diplomacy. Whichever side you take, and whatever you think of this distinction, there's just no meaningful flip-flop here."
-johnny said...
How exactly do you meet with a "Country unconditionally" but not that country's leaders? Exactly WHO would she be meeting with? That's like Iran saying that they will meet with US unconditionally but NOT our government's leaders? If that's Hillary's explanation, it's going to be a hard one to sell to the majority of the electorate. Don't think that I'm coming down especially hard on Hillary because of her front-runner status because when the general election comes, I don't think the independents and undecideds are going to buy that explanation and they're the ones who decide the elections in November.
-joseph patrick said...
If you listen to the question posed to Hillary at the event, the question was about her administration, not herself personally. She answered the question with saying yes, but the question wasn't about her, it was about her administration. So I assume she meant people like the Secretary of State, etc. And that explanation is not actually from the Hillary campaign, its from Fox News, who for once actually did some good by playing back the question then the answer.
-johnny said...
You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to... It's all about semantics and when you have to get into technical terms, you lose most of the voters, who now think you're crawfishing.
-joseph patrick said...
I get what you're saying, but as honest people, shouldn't we stand up and tell the AP:"wait, you took Hillary out of context." Isn't it our duty as Americans to search for the truth and not just eat everything we're fed by the media?
So let the debate continue---I want to hear your opinions and get your feedback. What are your opinions of Hillary Clinton?
The True Conservative Republican?
The week has only just begun, but the battle of words is already in full swing. What we have this time is a sort of four-way argument between Rudy, Romney, McCain, and Thompson on who is the true conservative in the race. The battle stems from a comment Romney made, stating that he is the only candidate that represents "the Republican wing of the Republican Party". This, along with the rest of his speech, was an obvious jab at Giuliani. Romney consistently challenges Rudy on his liberal social positions, his illegal immigration positions, and his multiple wives, citing that he(Romney) is a "family man" while Rudy is not.
Yet after Romney's comments about being from "the Republican wing of the Republican Party", another candidate jumped in the mix. Sen. John McCain's campaign responded with the following:
"Mitt Romney actively worked to defeat the Republican candidate trying to reclaim my old congressional seat. Therefore, I'm amazed that Romney would claim to represent the Republican wing of the Republican Party -- because when Romney had a chance to contribute to a New Hampshire Republican, he chose to fund a liberal New Hampshire Democrat instead."
McCain has also been bringing up Romney's change of position on issues such as abortion, essentially branding Romney with the stereotypical "Massachusetts-liberal" label.
And then, of course, we had to get the "new Reagan", Fred Thompson, to join in on the fun. Fred brought up that he "was a conservative Republican in the Senate, (he) is a conservative Republican today, and will be one as President." Fred also stressed that he is the only "true Republican" in the race.
The truth is, there is no ideal, true conservative in the race among the frontrunners. Giuliani is a pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights, pro-illegal immigration Republican. Romney was a pro-choice Republican until his "revelation" that came just in time for the 2008 election. McCain's most questionable past issue was his recent attempt at immigration reform where he was accused of being "pro-amnesty". Even "the Reagan conservative" Thompson is not as strict of a conservative as many would like. He is divorced, married to a trophy wife, he has stated that he doesn't go to church, and he has lobbied for pro-choice groups.
What strikes me as odd is that you have all these Republican voters who say they aren't happy with their choice of candidates because there is no "true conservative" or "true Republican". But the truth is, there are "true conservatives" and "true Republicans" in the race. Mike Huckabee is extremely conservative and there is nothing questionable about him from his past. Possibly the most conservative candidate is Ron Paul. He is very conservative on all social issues, he is a fiscal conservative, he wants smaller government, AND he embodies the good old Republican ideal of non-interventionism when dealing with foreign countries who don't pose a threat to the U.S. My point: There are real choices for Republican voters so I don't know why they complain when they have everything they want right in front of them.
Yet after Romney's comments about being from "the Republican wing of the Republican Party", another candidate jumped in the mix. Sen. John McCain's campaign responded with the following:
"Mitt Romney actively worked to defeat the Republican candidate trying to reclaim my old congressional seat. Therefore, I'm amazed that Romney would claim to represent the Republican wing of the Republican Party -- because when Romney had a chance to contribute to a New Hampshire Republican, he chose to fund a liberal New Hampshire Democrat instead."
McCain has also been bringing up Romney's change of position on issues such as abortion, essentially branding Romney with the stereotypical "Massachusetts-liberal" label.
And then, of course, we had to get the "new Reagan", Fred Thompson, to join in on the fun. Fred brought up that he "was a conservative Republican in the Senate, (he) is a conservative Republican today, and will be one as President." Fred also stressed that he is the only "true Republican" in the race.
The truth is, there is no ideal, true conservative in the race among the frontrunners. Giuliani is a pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights, pro-illegal immigration Republican. Romney was a pro-choice Republican until his "revelation" that came just in time for the 2008 election. McCain's most questionable past issue was his recent attempt at immigration reform where he was accused of being "pro-amnesty". Even "the Reagan conservative" Thompson is not as strict of a conservative as many would like. He is divorced, married to a trophy wife, he has stated that he doesn't go to church, and he has lobbied for pro-choice groups.
What strikes me as odd is that you have all these Republican voters who say they aren't happy with their choice of candidates because there is no "true conservative" or "true Republican". But the truth is, there are "true conservatives" and "true Republicans" in the race. Mike Huckabee is extremely conservative and there is nothing questionable about him from his past. Possibly the most conservative candidate is Ron Paul. He is very conservative on all social issues, he is a fiscal conservative, he wants smaller government, AND he embodies the good old Republican ideal of non-interventionism when dealing with foreign countries who don't pose a threat to the U.S. My point: There are real choices for Republican voters so I don't know why they complain when they have everything they want right in front of them.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Another Sign of Democrats' Strength Heading into '08
It has been said that 2008 should be another very good year for Democrats as far as elections are concerned. As I was checking out some Senate campaign sites today, I found one that really attested to the strength of the Democratic party.
It is generally agreed upon that just about all of the Democratic Senate seats up for reelection in '08 are safe, except for one. That one Democratic seat that many have said could go to Republicans is that of Senior Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu. What shocked me is that although that sentiment is that Landrieu very well could lose in '08, she has raised five times the amount of cash she did in the 3rd quarter during the 2002 campaign. During the last two quarters, she has raised $3.4 million. That, for a small state Senator who many expect to lose, is extremely impressive. It is just another sign of the Democrats' strength, especially considering Louisiana is trending more and more Republican.
It is also important to note that the GOP has not yet announced a candidate to challenge Landrieu in 2008. From what I've heard, Republicans are having a problem finding someone with enough electability to go up against Landrieu. So, if the Democrat who is most expected to lose in '08 has raised $3.4 million so far, and doesn't even have a challenger, I guess that says a lot about the Republican Party----it's in shambles.
On a side note, Sen. Landrieu's brother, current Lousiaina Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, is rumored to challenge David "I'm a family man even though I higher prostitutes" Vitter for the Senate in 2010.
It is generally agreed upon that just about all of the Democratic Senate seats up for reelection in '08 are safe, except for one. That one Democratic seat that many have said could go to Republicans is that of Senior Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu. What shocked me is that although that sentiment is that Landrieu very well could lose in '08, she has raised five times the amount of cash she did in the 3rd quarter during the 2002 campaign. During the last two quarters, she has raised $3.4 million. That, for a small state Senator who many expect to lose, is extremely impressive. It is just another sign of the Democrats' strength, especially considering Louisiana is trending more and more Republican.
It is also important to note that the GOP has not yet announced a candidate to challenge Landrieu in 2008. From what I've heard, Republicans are having a problem finding someone with enough electability to go up against Landrieu. So, if the Democrat who is most expected to lose in '08 has raised $3.4 million so far, and doesn't even have a challenger, I guess that says a lot about the Republican Party----it's in shambles.
On a side note, Sen. Landrieu's brother, current Lousiaina Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, is rumored to challenge David "I'm a family man even though I higher prostitutes" Vitter for the Senate in 2010.
Do Endorsements Matter?
With all the talk of Al Gore possible endorsing a candidate for president, I asked myself, "Do endorsements matter in today's world?". Here are my thoughts:
Would a Gore endorsement help any candidate? My guess is not significantly. Remember, Gore endorsed Howard Dean in '04, and Dean didn't win a single primary except for Vermont. While a Gore endorsement might give a slight boost to either the Obama or Edwards' campaign, there won't be a long term impact. Voters are looking to the candidates themselves these days to determine who to vote for. They are not looking to another politician to, in a sense, tell them who to vote for.
What I just talked about was a "national" endorsement. There are "local" endorsements that do matter and are significantly more important to a candidate than a national endorsement. Local endorsements matter because the national candidate gets local resources. A perfect example of this is former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack's endorsement of Hillary Clinton. I give a lot of credit to Vilsack's endorsement of Hillary for her rise in polls in Iowa. Just six months ago she was about 10% behind Edwards. Now she is polling 3-10% ahead of Edwards, depending on what poll you look at. Endorsements from mayors and councilmen give even a greater advantage to candidates. All their local connections and resources are essentially given to the presidential candidate to use at their disposal, and that can be a huge advantage in early primary states and in swing districts in the general election.
So, do endorsements matter? Yes and no. National endorsements don't really have a long term effect. Local endorsements, on the other hand, can make a difference. Thats why it is always more important to look at the local organization of these campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire, than their national organization. The perfect example of this is the situation between Rudy and Romney. Rudy might have many national endorsements and might be leading in national polls, but Romney has much local support in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan. And, if Romney can use that localized support properly, he can, despite Rudy's large national lead, win the GOP nomination. My point: national endorsements are often nothing more than symbolism; the local endorsements are the ones that win elections.
Would a Gore endorsement help any candidate? My guess is not significantly. Remember, Gore endorsed Howard Dean in '04, and Dean didn't win a single primary except for Vermont. While a Gore endorsement might give a slight boost to either the Obama or Edwards' campaign, there won't be a long term impact. Voters are looking to the candidates themselves these days to determine who to vote for. They are not looking to another politician to, in a sense, tell them who to vote for.
What I just talked about was a "national" endorsement. There are "local" endorsements that do matter and are significantly more important to a candidate than a national endorsement. Local endorsements matter because the national candidate gets local resources. A perfect example of this is former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack's endorsement of Hillary Clinton. I give a lot of credit to Vilsack's endorsement of Hillary for her rise in polls in Iowa. Just six months ago she was about 10% behind Edwards. Now she is polling 3-10% ahead of Edwards, depending on what poll you look at. Endorsements from mayors and councilmen give even a greater advantage to candidates. All their local connections and resources are essentially given to the presidential candidate to use at their disposal, and that can be a huge advantage in early primary states and in swing districts in the general election.
So, do endorsements matter? Yes and no. National endorsements don't really have a long term effect. Local endorsements, on the other hand, can make a difference. Thats why it is always more important to look at the local organization of these campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire, than their national organization. The perfect example of this is the situation between Rudy and Romney. Rudy might have many national endorsements and might be leading in national polls, but Romney has much local support in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan. And, if Romney can use that localized support properly, he can, despite Rudy's large national lead, win the GOP nomination. My point: national endorsements are often nothing more than symbolism; the local endorsements are the ones that win elections.
We Are All Americans (special editorial by John Lucia)
**Note: from now on, all posts written by John Lucia will not have his name in the title, but his name will appear at the end of the posts as a signature**
Through all walks of life, the American people have always wanted what is best for themselves, their children and grandchildren. A steady job to earn a decent wage, a home, those things that are necessary to live life and the safety to move about freely without harm.
So why are we such a divided country? Are we not all Americans first and foremost? Our political persuasion may be Liberal, Conservative, Moderate and etc, but we all seek the same security and freedom for our family. We are supposed to be in the age of advance technology, how can this be happening? Is this the future we are passing on to our children and grandchildren?
We are bombarded 24 hours a day by the news media, especially television and it is sad to say, but the news is more negative than positive. Why? And why do we accept that? Why do we believe everything we hear even though they are too many times when no evidence is offered to support the stories? Why not tune out the negative news media?
Our political system has become poison in the last 20 or so years. Personal attacks rule the day. It is standard procedure now for some politicians to attack others character and patriotism just because they disagree. The worst part of it all is that it works. Has it produced better leaders? I think not, with the President's approval rating at 29% and congress even lower. So what has divisive politics accomplished for the people and our country?
Has it made our country fiscally sound? Not even close. Has it made our country safer? Not a chance. Has it produced a better quality of life for our people? That also would have to be answered in the negative. Will we continue to choose division or ideology as a way of being governed? Or will we stand up and be counted as Americans first. The choice is ours to make and I hope we make the right one.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The Relevance of JFK (a special editorial by John Lucia)
The American people realize that President Bush has the most secret administration in recent memory. In fact, I go back to the WWII generation and can't remember a more secretive one. That is the way he and V.P. Chaney operate; it is part of their culture. They don't believe in the checks and balances of a Democracy and they use the tragic events of 9-11 and fear to deceive the country.
The problem is compounded by the news media in general and more specifically by T.V. journalists and their networks. They have been intimidated by Bush and Chaney and have failed to investigate and report the many misdeeds by them. They failed to seek the truth about the so called threat from Iraq prior to the invasion and occupation of that country. They actually promoted Iraq as having WMD on their own with out asking or seeking proof. And now we know that those weapons did not exist.
Journalists only started to report the falsehoods and the facts after several books were written about the failures of Mr. Bush especially concerning Iraq. Then the election of Democrats to congress in the November 2006 elections opened them up a little more.
The news media, the President, and the Vice President failed the American people. The following is a statement made by President John F. Kennedy in February 1962 on the twentieth anniversary of the Voice of America.
"You are obliged to tell our story in a truthful way, to tell it, as Oliver Cromwell said about his portrait, 'Paint us with all our blemishes and warts, all those things about us that may not be so immediately attractive.'
We compete with those who are our adversaries who tell only the good stories. But the things that go bad in America, you must tell that also. And we hope that the bad and the good is sifted together by people of judgment and discretion and taste and discrimination, that they will realize what we are trying to do here.
We seek a free flow of information. We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
Those words of President Kennedy over 40 years ago are more timely and relevant today than ever before. If Mr. Bush and the news media followed his words America and its people would be much safer and better off today.
The problem is compounded by the news media in general and more specifically by T.V. journalists and their networks. They have been intimidated by Bush and Chaney and have failed to investigate and report the many misdeeds by them. They failed to seek the truth about the so called threat from Iraq prior to the invasion and occupation of that country. They actually promoted Iraq as having WMD on their own with out asking or seeking proof. And now we know that those weapons did not exist.
Journalists only started to report the falsehoods and the facts after several books were written about the failures of Mr. Bush especially concerning Iraq. Then the election of Democrats to congress in the November 2006 elections opened them up a little more.
The news media, the President, and the Vice President failed the American people. The following is a statement made by President John F. Kennedy in February 1962 on the twentieth anniversary of the Voice of America.
"You are obliged to tell our story in a truthful way, to tell it, as Oliver Cromwell said about his portrait, 'Paint us with all our blemishes and warts, all those things about us that may not be so immediately attractive.'
We compete with those who are our adversaries who tell only the good stories. But the things that go bad in America, you must tell that also. And we hope that the bad and the good is sifted together by people of judgment and discretion and taste and discrimination, that they will realize what we are trying to do here.
We seek a free flow of information. We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
Those words of President Kennedy over 40 years ago are more timely and relevant today than ever before. If Mr. Bush and the news media followed his words America and its people would be much safer and better off today.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Al Gore: A True American Hero
First of all, I would like to say congratulations to Al Gore, who has won the Nobel Peace Prize. He is truly an American, and in fact, an international, hero. Some might be afraid to admit it, but Global Warming is real and the reality is scary. We've seen some of its frightening affects already: rising temperatures, longer summers, shorter winters, rapidly melting ice caps, rising sea levels, more frequent and stronger hurricanes, etc. The world can not afford to ignore Global Warming any longer and we can credit Gore for bringing this once taboo topic to the forefront of issues being discussed globally. It might sound very "superman-like", but I can truly attest that Al Gore is trying to save the planet(and us) from its own destruction. He, more than anyone else, deserves the Nobel Peace Prize and I know that he will continue to work for the betterment of our planet and for that, we all owe Gore a huge thank you.
Secondly, I want to talk about the possibility of Gore in '08. Many want Gore to enter the race for the presidency, and I too wouldn't mind it. He is ready to be president, and should be, as he DID win in 2000. But thats another story. Back on topic, I honestly don't see Gore running in 2008. He would technically have to enter in the next few weeks to have any shot at winning the nomination. The problem is that democrats are satisfied with their current candidates and Gore doesn't want to, and shouldn't, come in just to lose. Hillary Clinton, polls show, has 53% of democrat's support. Obama and Edwards are also strong candidates. There just doesn't seem to be a niche for Gore, and I'm sure Gore recognizes that. He can probably have just as much influence serving as an adviser to the next President on environmental issues and serving as an environmental ambassador around the world as he would in the Oval Office himself.
So to end, I would just again like to say thank you to Al Gore for all his work and congratulations on his much deserved award. Keep up the good work, Al, the world needs you to.
Secondly, I want to talk about the possibility of Gore in '08. Many want Gore to enter the race for the presidency, and I too wouldn't mind it. He is ready to be president, and should be, as he DID win in 2000. But thats another story. Back on topic, I honestly don't see Gore running in 2008. He would technically have to enter in the next few weeks to have any shot at winning the nomination. The problem is that democrats are satisfied with their current candidates and Gore doesn't want to, and shouldn't, come in just to lose. Hillary Clinton, polls show, has 53% of democrat's support. Obama and Edwards are also strong candidates. There just doesn't seem to be a niche for Gore, and I'm sure Gore recognizes that. He can probably have just as much influence serving as an adviser to the next President on environmental issues and serving as an environmental ambassador around the world as he would in the Oval Office himself.
So to end, I would just again like to say thank you to Al Gore for all his work and congratulations on his much deserved award. Keep up the good work, Al, the world needs you to.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
A message to Barack Obama: Shut Up!
Democratic Presidential contender, Barack Obama, is at it again. And by "it", I mean he is attacking Hillary for something he didn't even take a stand on. First he attacked her for voting for the Iraq War, yet he wasn't even in the Senate then, so who knows how he would have voted. And to add to Obama's inconsistency on attacking Hillary on that issue, he continued to fund the war and go along with Bush when he was elected to the Senate. And to top it all off, it was Hillary, not Obama, who exhibited leadership when she asked the Pentagon for withdrawal plans.
But Obama has done it again. He is now criticizing Hillary for voting for a bi-partisan bill that puts tougher sanctions on Iran and urges diplomacy(by the way, isn't that something Obama advocated before Sen. Clinton voted for it?). But the thing that makes me upset was that instead of actually taking a stand on that issue, he didn't even vote yay or nay on it. He completely missed that entire week in the Senate because he was too busy campaigning. Is that real leadership??? If Clinton, Dodd, Biden, etc., can still campaign and stand up as leaders in the Senate, why can't Obama? And why did Obama seemingly advocate diplomacy with Iran and now is saying that Hillary's vote is somehow authorizing Bush to go to war with Iran. But here is another problem with Obama's idea that Hillary is "aiding" Bush in going to war with Iran: Hillary co-sponsors a bill that says that Bush can not, under any circumstances, attack Iran without full approval from Congress. So if Obama doesn't want Bush to take us to war with Iran, why didn't he stand up as a leader, as Hillary did, and co-sponsor that bill?
So my message to Obama is this: either show some leadership or stop criticizing others when they do show it. And, Mr. Obama, if you can't do that, then shut the hell up, because this country needs a strong leader, and you're demonstrating you're certainly not that.
But Obama has done it again. He is now criticizing Hillary for voting for a bi-partisan bill that puts tougher sanctions on Iran and urges diplomacy(by the way, isn't that something Obama advocated before Sen. Clinton voted for it?). But the thing that makes me upset was that instead of actually taking a stand on that issue, he didn't even vote yay or nay on it. He completely missed that entire week in the Senate because he was too busy campaigning. Is that real leadership??? If Clinton, Dodd, Biden, etc., can still campaign and stand up as leaders in the Senate, why can't Obama? And why did Obama seemingly advocate diplomacy with Iran and now is saying that Hillary's vote is somehow authorizing Bush to go to war with Iran. But here is another problem with Obama's idea that Hillary is "aiding" Bush in going to war with Iran: Hillary co-sponsors a bill that says that Bush can not, under any circumstances, attack Iran without full approval from Congress. So if Obama doesn't want Bush to take us to war with Iran, why didn't he stand up as a leader, as Hillary did, and co-sponsor that bill?
So my message to Obama is this: either show some leadership or stop criticizing others when they do show it. And, Mr. Obama, if you can't do that, then shut the hell up, because this country needs a strong leader, and you're demonstrating you're certainly not that.
10/9 Republican Debate (a special editorial by John Lucia)
Tuesday's Republican debate in Michigan was billed as the debate about economics. Some one should have told moderators Chris Matthews and Maria Bartiroma that because, to the delight of the candidates (except Ron Paul), it was never mentioned that this Republican administration and the Republican controlled congress (first 6 years) were the biggest deficit spenders of all time.
They have broken all deficit and spending records and added more to the national debt than any administration and congress in History. Candidates Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson supported and voted for this record spending, and of course Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney supported George Bush's policies. Ron Paul tried to talk about this record spending and debt and mentioned several things that has been affected by it but the moderators would not pursue the subject.
Likewise, when the moderators talked about the war in Iraq and going to war with Iran Mr. Paul pointed out we have a constitution to go by and suggested his rivals should read it every now and then. The moderators would not pursue that either but instead pursued the feud between Romney and Giuliani.
The deficit spending candidates who served in congress during this administration all said spending should be cut, but did not say what should be cut or how they were going to do it. The moderators never followed up and asked what they would cut and how. So much for an economic debate. The people have a right to know when a Presidential candidate says we are over spending and how they are going to put a stop to it, especially since they themselves are the over spenders. I doubt if any Republican candidate, with the exception of Ron Paul, can remember the last time a Republican balanced a federal budget.
They have broken all deficit and spending records and added more to the national debt than any administration and congress in History. Candidates Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson supported and voted for this record spending, and of course Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney supported George Bush's policies. Ron Paul tried to talk about this record spending and debt and mentioned several things that has been affected by it but the moderators would not pursue the subject.
Likewise, when the moderators talked about the war in Iraq and going to war with Iran Mr. Paul pointed out we have a constitution to go by and suggested his rivals should read it every now and then. The moderators would not pursue that either but instead pursued the feud between Romney and Giuliani.
The deficit spending candidates who served in congress during this administration all said spending should be cut, but did not say what should be cut or how they were going to do it. The moderators never followed up and asked what they would cut and how. So much for an economic debate. The people have a right to know when a Presidential candidate says we are over spending and how they are going to put a stop to it, especially since they themselves are the over spenders. I doubt if any Republican candidate, with the exception of Ron Paul, can remember the last time a Republican balanced a federal budget.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
New Polls Show Clinton as the Strongest General Election Candidate
Just as previous years' elections, it appears that Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida will be the deciding states in 2008. It was Florida that ultimately decided the 2000 election; Ohio did the same in '04. It is also interesting to note that a Republican has never won the presidency without winning Ohio, and it appears unlikely that one could do so this time around. Here's the latest polling data from Quinnipiac University's Swing State Poll:
-----Hillary leads by significant margin in all 3 swing states-------
Florida: Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 43
Ohio: Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 40
Pennsylvania: Clinton beats Giuliani 48 - 42
Other findings from Florida:
-Clinton tops McCain 46 - 42, Sen. Fred Thompson 48 - 39, and Gov. Mitt Romney 48 - 37
-Giuliani bests Obama 42 - 39 and edges Edwards 43 - 41
-Obama beats Thompson 45 - 36 and Romney 43 - 36, but trails McCain 41 - 39
Other findings from Ohio:
-Clinton beats McCain 48 - 38, Thompson 50 -36, and Romney 51 - 34
-Obama tops Giuliani 44 - 38 percent, McCain 43 - 39, Thompson 44 - 33, and Romney 47 - 31
Other findings from Pennsylvania:
-Clinton tops McCain 48 - 41, Thompson 50 - 39, and Romney 49 - 37
-Giuliani edges Obama 45 - 43 and gets 44 percent to Edwards' 43 percent
-Obama beats McCain 45 - 41, Thompson 45 - 37, and Romney 49 - 33
Obama and especially Edwards are going to have to change their tune about saying that they are more electable than Clinton; the numbers show differently. The GOP should also take a warning: they are not going to easily beat Clinton. She is a far more formidable opponent than Gore and Kerry. Couple that with the fact that Americans agree with her policies, she has an excellent chance to win in '08, and polling shows more and more to prove that every month. Clinton's lead is ever widening. She lost to all Republicans in those swing states in polling earlier this year. Now she convincingly defeats them and there is no sign of her lead shrinking. Expect it to grow.
-----Hillary leads by significant margin in all 3 swing states-------
Florida: Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 43
Ohio: Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 40
Pennsylvania: Clinton beats Giuliani 48 - 42
Other findings from Florida:
-Clinton tops McCain 46 - 42, Sen. Fred Thompson 48 - 39, and Gov. Mitt Romney 48 - 37
-Giuliani bests Obama 42 - 39 and edges Edwards 43 - 41
-Obama beats Thompson 45 - 36 and Romney 43 - 36, but trails McCain 41 - 39
Other findings from Ohio:
-Clinton beats McCain 48 - 38, Thompson 50 -36, and Romney 51 - 34
-Obama tops Giuliani 44 - 38 percent, McCain 43 - 39, Thompson 44 - 33, and Romney 47 - 31
Other findings from Pennsylvania:
-Clinton tops McCain 48 - 41, Thompson 50 - 39, and Romney 49 - 37
-Giuliani edges Obama 45 - 43 and gets 44 percent to Edwards' 43 percent
-Obama beats McCain 45 - 41, Thompson 45 - 37, and Romney 49 - 33
Obama and especially Edwards are going to have to change their tune about saying that they are more electable than Clinton; the numbers show differently. The GOP should also take a warning: they are not going to easily beat Clinton. She is a far more formidable opponent than Gore and Kerry. Couple that with the fact that Americans agree with her policies, she has an excellent chance to win in '08, and polling shows more and more to prove that every month. Clinton's lead is ever widening. She lost to all Republicans in those swing states in polling earlier this year. Now she convincingly defeats them and there is no sign of her lead shrinking. Expect it to grow.
Fox News: The Tragic Network (a special editorial by John Lucia)
It seems that every day the Fox News Network is promoting going to war with Iran. Their ticker that moves cross the television screen carries statements from neocons and others who propose striking Iran. They interview the neocons who clamored for war in Iraq and now want their adventure to extend over to Iran and other middle east countries.
They try to inflame the issue by injecting Israel as being threatened by Iran. However, Israel is a country that has WMD and can surely take care of themselves.
People who promote war, especially news networks, care nothing about our men and women in uniform who bear the hardships of war. They promote war from their ivory towers far from the battlefield. I wonder how many journalists with the Fox News Network wore the uniform of their country generations war?
Those who promote war would sell their soul to the highest bidder. They are a tragic people who put their ideology first and their country last. That says it all. Fox News programs are tilted toward divisive issues. They do that to mislead the American people. President Clinton once said Republican's use divisive issues to try to win elections. The Fox News Network is the spin capital of cable television. Fox purposely tries to mislead the country and its people have no shame. They represent the worst in television journalism.
They try to inflame the issue by injecting Israel as being threatened by Iran. However, Israel is a country that has WMD and can surely take care of themselves.
People who promote war, especially news networks, care nothing about our men and women in uniform who bear the hardships of war. They promote war from their ivory towers far from the battlefield. I wonder how many journalists with the Fox News Network wore the uniform of their country generations war?
Those who promote war would sell their soul to the highest bidder. They are a tragic people who put their ideology first and their country last. That says it all. Fox News programs are tilted toward divisive issues. They do that to mislead the American people. President Clinton once said Republican's use divisive issues to try to win elections. The Fox News Network is the spin capital of cable television. Fox purposely tries to mislead the country and its people have no shame. They represent the worst in television journalism.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
A Big Mistake for Some Democrats
Today was the deadline to withdraw your name from Michigan's Jan. 15 Presidential Primary and thats exactly what some candidates did. Every Democrat except for Clinton and Dodd will not be competing in the Michigan Primary, something that could turn out to be a huge mistake.
Apparently, because Michigan moved it primary up when the DNC didn't want them to, some candidates want to "punish" Michigan. Well I got news for the candidates, they could be punishing themselves.
Michigan falls just one day behind Iowa and has more than double the amount of delegates Iowa has. It certainly isn't as important as winning Iowa, but it could be extremely important for some candidates. For example, if Obama wins Iowa, he will not doubt get a boost of momentum, but by ceding Michigan to Hillary, she would basically cut off his momentum just one day after he gained it. Obama needed to ride out of Iowa with an upset victory and go on to win New Hampshire. But Clinton will undoubtedly stop, at least some of, Obama's momentum if he was to win Iowa. It was a huge mistake for some to skip Michigan and it could now be the deciding factor in this election.
If Florida doesn't begin to comply with DNC requests to move their primary back, will Obama and the others skip Florida as well? If they do, I will be ready to call the primary for Hillary Clinton. Whoever wins Florida will win the primary, Obama and the others can certainly not afford to skip it. With skipping Michigan, the candidates could be setting a precedent that they don't want to have to live up to.
Apparently, because Michigan moved it primary up when the DNC didn't want them to, some candidates want to "punish" Michigan. Well I got news for the candidates, they could be punishing themselves.
Michigan falls just one day behind Iowa and has more than double the amount of delegates Iowa has. It certainly isn't as important as winning Iowa, but it could be extremely important for some candidates. For example, if Obama wins Iowa, he will not doubt get a boost of momentum, but by ceding Michigan to Hillary, she would basically cut off his momentum just one day after he gained it. Obama needed to ride out of Iowa with an upset victory and go on to win New Hampshire. But Clinton will undoubtedly stop, at least some of, Obama's momentum if he was to win Iowa. It was a huge mistake for some to skip Michigan and it could now be the deciding factor in this election.
If Florida doesn't begin to comply with DNC requests to move their primary back, will Obama and the others skip Florida as well? If they do, I will be ready to call the primary for Hillary Clinton. Whoever wins Florida will win the primary, Obama and the others can certainly not afford to skip it. With skipping Michigan, the candidates could be setting a precedent that they don't want to have to live up to.
10/9 GOP Debate Review
Today, CNBC and MSNBC hosted yet another GOP Presidential Debate. If there was any one story coming out of this debate, it was Fred Thompson's debate debut. Also interesting to note was a heated exchange between Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani. So how did the candidates stack up? Here's my review:
First I'll start with Sen. Thompson. I know many of you disagreed with me when I said Thompson has no chance of winning the nomination, much less the general election. Well for all those who disagreed with me, just go watch this debate and you'll see why I said that. He lacks style. At times he mumbles, at other times he takes long, awkward, pauses, and other times he just completely fails to articulate a clear, understandable sentence. Thompson isn't just a bad debater/speaker, he's horrible at it. If anything, debates are supposed to make a candidate look strong, but for Fred, mark my words, it will unravel some of the support he has.
As I stated earlier, Romney and Guiliani had an interesting little exchange over taxes. Now while I do hate to defend Romney, I'm going to have to do it. Some of the claims Guiliani made against Romney were, from my knowledge, completely false. I love watching two candidates go at it, but I hate when one candidate makes false claims against another, whether I agree with that person or not. Thats exactly what Guiliani did with the issue of Romney and taxes. Whether Guiliani would like to admit it or not, everything I know suggests that Romney was a much stricter fiscal conservative than Guiliani ever was.
If I had to rank the GOP candidates based on style, content, and overall ability to debate, here is how I would rank them:
1. Mitt Romney----had a strong showing
2. John McCain----although a little uneasy at times, he stayed calm and collective and made some good points
3. Ron Paul-------if it wasn't for him getting a little uneasy at times, he would be #1 as I agree with a lot of his ideas
4. Mike Huckabee--he is by far the most charismatic and most well-spoken GOP candidate and he demonstrated that again tonight.
5. Rudy Guiliani----he had his facts messed up and failed to answer most of the questions
6-8: Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo: I group these men together because they all failed to leave me with an impression.
9. Fred Thompson--for all the reasons mentioned above; an absolutely horrible showing
First I'll start with Sen. Thompson. I know many of you disagreed with me when I said Thompson has no chance of winning the nomination, much less the general election. Well for all those who disagreed with me, just go watch this debate and you'll see why I said that. He lacks style. At times he mumbles, at other times he takes long, awkward, pauses, and other times he just completely fails to articulate a clear, understandable sentence. Thompson isn't just a bad debater/speaker, he's horrible at it. If anything, debates are supposed to make a candidate look strong, but for Fred, mark my words, it will unravel some of the support he has.
As I stated earlier, Romney and Guiliani had an interesting little exchange over taxes. Now while I do hate to defend Romney, I'm going to have to do it. Some of the claims Guiliani made against Romney were, from my knowledge, completely false. I love watching two candidates go at it, but I hate when one candidate makes false claims against another, whether I agree with that person or not. Thats exactly what Guiliani did with the issue of Romney and taxes. Whether Guiliani would like to admit it or not, everything I know suggests that Romney was a much stricter fiscal conservative than Guiliani ever was.
If I had to rank the GOP candidates based on style, content, and overall ability to debate, here is how I would rank them:
1. Mitt Romney----had a strong showing
2. John McCain----although a little uneasy at times, he stayed calm and collective and made some good points
3. Ron Paul-------if it wasn't for him getting a little uneasy at times, he would be #1 as I agree with a lot of his ideas
4. Mike Huckabee--he is by far the most charismatic and most well-spoken GOP candidate and he demonstrated that again tonight.
5. Rudy Guiliani----he had his facts messed up and failed to answer most of the questions
6-8: Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo: I group these men together because they all failed to leave me with an impression.
9. Fred Thompson--for all the reasons mentioned above; an absolutely horrible showing
Monday, October 8, 2007
Does Obama think of himself as a Messiah?
Democratic Presidential candidate, Barack Obama, spoke in South Carolina and had some rather odd comments to make. He, at one point, told the crowd that he will be an "instrument of God" and that people should pray for him. He finished his speech by saying:
"We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."
Why the hell would any candidate use that type of language? I mean "instrument of God" and "Kingdom" are not exactly phrases that should be used in politics. It strikes me as completely out of the blue and completely out of place.
Now I'm certainly not saying that candidates shouldn't be able to express their faith, but I think most people can agree calling yourself an "instrument of God" is a little extreme, not to mention a little self serving. I, for one, would like to ask Obama how exactly is he going to create a "Kingdom" right here on Earth. No offense to Obama, but he's not exactly a Messiah. I do not want us Democrats to fall into the Republican mold of using our faith to gain votes. Faith should be something personal, that is unique to every person, and that is, for the most part, not overused in politics. Talking about your faith with voters is absolutely fine and necessary, but calling yourself an "instrument of God" is, without a shadow of a doubt, overusing and exploiting religion.
"We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."
Why the hell would any candidate use that type of language? I mean "instrument of God" and "Kingdom" are not exactly phrases that should be used in politics. It strikes me as completely out of the blue and completely out of place.
Now I'm certainly not saying that candidates shouldn't be able to express their faith, but I think most people can agree calling yourself an "instrument of God" is a little extreme, not to mention a little self serving. I, for one, would like to ask Obama how exactly is he going to create a "Kingdom" right here on Earth. No offense to Obama, but he's not exactly a Messiah. I do not want us Democrats to fall into the Republican mold of using our faith to gain votes. Faith should be something personal, that is unique to every person, and that is, for the most part, not overused in politics. Talking about your faith with voters is absolutely fine and necessary, but calling yourself an "instrument of God" is, without a shadow of a doubt, overusing and exploiting religion.
The Republican Politics of Fear (a special editorial by John Lucia)
President Bush and VP Cheney love to govern by fear. The Republicans in Congress like to use fear in their legislative agenda. And now, with the exception of Ron Paul, the Republican candidates for President are trying to use fear in their campaigns. The fear of terror has become their number one weapon of choice.
Our past President's answered the call to war five times in the 20th century with character instead of fear. They cultivated the spirit of America to face our adversaries and governed with wisdom and strength. Now the Republican presidential candidates say that they and only they can protect America and that electing a Democrat would put our nation at risk. Their motive is to try to take the people's mind off the fact that the worst foreign terror attack on U.S. soil happened on George Bush and the Republican's watch. They failed to protect our country and people from the tragic events of 9-11 and then invaded Iraq over WMD that did not exist, creating more terrorists to threaten the United States than ever before.
Republican's can't seem to call on the spirit of America that is unity. They try to divide the country and its people with their talk of fear. They are obsessed by the word and want us to be in a perpetual war of fear. Our past leaders brought out the best in our people during trying times and moved our nation forward to face the challenges ahead, with out fear.
Fear is what dictators and people without character thrive on. Using fear as a tactic is not only against the basic principals of democracy, it is against the basic principals of life itself. The Republicans fear an informed people that can think for themselves, to them that is what is most frightening.
Our past President's answered the call to war five times in the 20th century with character instead of fear. They cultivated the spirit of America to face our adversaries and governed with wisdom and strength. Now the Republican presidential candidates say that they and only they can protect America and that electing a Democrat would put our nation at risk. Their motive is to try to take the people's mind off the fact that the worst foreign terror attack on U.S. soil happened on George Bush and the Republican's watch. They failed to protect our country and people from the tragic events of 9-11 and then invaded Iraq over WMD that did not exist, creating more terrorists to threaten the United States than ever before.
Republican's can't seem to call on the spirit of America that is unity. They try to divide the country and its people with their talk of fear. They are obsessed by the word and want us to be in a perpetual war of fear. Our past leaders brought out the best in our people during trying times and moved our nation forward to face the challenges ahead, with out fear.
Fear is what dictators and people without character thrive on. Using fear as a tactic is not only against the basic principals of democracy, it is against the basic principals of life itself. The Republicans fear an informed people that can think for themselves, to them that is what is most frightening.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
The Politics of Meet the Press (a special editorial by John Lucia)
Tim Russert, who moderated the Democratic Debate at Dartmouth, New Hampshire a week or so ago, had John Edwards as his guest on Meet the Press today. He asked Mr. Edwards once again the same question he asked him at the debates about all troops being out of Iraq by 2013.
Mr. Edwards gave his reply again. Evidently Mr. Russert has a problem understanding an answer. It has become a habit of Russert to ask questions of non events. He then asked Mr. Edward a question concerning a remark his wife made and put the remark up on the screen. Mr. Edwards then had to tell Russert his question was different than what he put up on the screen.
It has become evident that Russert has let his Republican leanings show when interviewing his guests. He often promotes the self serving statements of the Republican party. Now, it is the Republican hype that Senator Clinton can't win in the general election and he interjected some of those comments to John Edwards. Instead of focusing on what John Edwards would do if elected president, he talks about Senator Clinton. Tim Russert has a way of bringing discredit upon his profession. The previous moderators of Meet the Press must be holding their breath. Journalists need to start talking about the future when interviewing candidates, that is what the election is all about.
Mr. Edwards gave his reply again. Evidently Mr. Russert has a problem understanding an answer. It has become a habit of Russert to ask questions of non events. He then asked Mr. Edward a question concerning a remark his wife made and put the remark up on the screen. Mr. Edwards then had to tell Russert his question was different than what he put up on the screen.
It has become evident that Russert has let his Republican leanings show when interviewing his guests. He often promotes the self serving statements of the Republican party. Now, it is the Republican hype that Senator Clinton can't win in the general election and he interjected some of those comments to John Edwards. Instead of focusing on what John Edwards would do if elected president, he talks about Senator Clinton. Tim Russert has a way of bringing discredit upon his profession. The previous moderators of Meet the Press must be holding their breath. Journalists need to start talking about the future when interviewing candidates, that is what the election is all about.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)