Sen. McCain's Lack of Fiscal Knowledge

During Wednesday's CNN Republican debate, Senator McCain was asked what he would do to reduce the national debt.  The Senator's answer showed his ignorance of the subject matter and why he should not be taken seriously as a candidate.

 

McCain, in his answer, once again invoked Ronald Reagan.  McCain said that he would use Reagan's veto pen on excess spending to hold the line on spending while eliminating pork.  The Senator used the wrong President.  Ronald Reagan never balanced one federal budget in his 8 years in office and gave the country record deficits at that time.  The national debt increased $1.9 trillion on his watch and spending  was up over the previous administration (Jimmy Carter). 

If McCain plans to emulate Reagan on fiscal matters, he will instead increase the debt and give the country even more deficit spending.  For a person who claims to "shoot straight" and have experience, his answer indicates he is lost when it comes to fiscal matters. The American people need to understand that when Bush leaves office ,the last 3 Republican presidents will not have balanced one budget in the 20 years they served and have increased the national debt by over $7 trillion. 

 

The Republican plan can be plainly understood.  They want to bankrupt the country to eliminate social security, medicare, and other government programs that truly help the American people.  At the same time, they support corporate welfare for the richest corporations and tax cuts and other benefits that go to the most wealthy people. 

 

The Republican's hands have been laid bare.  The GOP candidates have proven (with the exception of Ron Paul) that they care nothing for being fiscally responsible.  Remember, it was Bill Clinton who turned 12 straight years of deficit spending by Reagan-Bush into record surpluses.  Also it was Bill Clinton's administration who paid down a net of $14.2 billion of the national debt.  The people should remember that when they vote in the next presidential election. 

11/28 GOP Debate Review: Romney Scores Big

Tonight, the Republican Presidential hopefuls gathered in front of a Florida crowd and answered questions from ordinary people via YouTube. With the Iowa caucus just a few weeks away, the candidates went all out to differentiate themselves from each other, and most of them were successful.

From the very opening of the debate, the fight was on between the two GOP frontrunners, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. It was in that opening exchange, on the topic of illegal immigration, that Romney got the upper hand and set the tone for the rest of the night. To put it simply, agree with him or not, Romney creamed Giuliani. From that point on, Giuliani was mostly on the defense for the rest of the night, while Romney was red-hot. Romney is often called a "flip-flopper", but tonight he actually appeared the most socially conservative candidate. While I might strongly disagree with Romney's positions, his statements tonight were right on point with the right wing of the GOP. Romney was unquestionably the winner of the debate and I am even more confident in my earlier prediction that Romney will be the Republican nominee.

Two other candidates who I thought had a great night were John McCain and Mike Huckabee. McCain gained major points in my view for standing up to the other candidates and the traditional Republican view that waterboarding is okay. McCain made it clear that waterboarding is indeed torture and is indeed illegal and indeed should never be practiced by the U.S. On that issue I have major respect for McCain. Huckabee, yet again, was the most charming candidate on the stage. He is consistently able to make his point and state his positions without appearing negative. He also had the best line of the night when he said that Jesus was too smart to get involved in politics.

As far as the losers, I would say that there were two big ones. The first loser was Sen. Fred Thompson. Thompson needed to re-establish his frontrunner status, but he utterly failed. I have yet to see Thompson come out firm on a single issue. His debate style is also lacking to say the least. Thompson has a problem with taking long, odd pauses during the middle of his responses or taking several seconds to stare into space while trying to think of a response. If anyone is wondering why Thompson is doing so poorly, just watch this debate and you'll quickly realize why.

The biggest loser of the night, however, was Rudy Giuliani. This was Rudy's worst debate performance. Romney completely destroyed Rudy during the immigration debate early on and also later when it came to Rudy's pro-gun control stances. With Romney gaining on Giuliani in Iowa, New Hampshire, and now leading in South Carolina, tonight was Rudy's chance to gain back some of that support. He didn't though. If anything, Rudy did more to lose support to Romney than he did to win it.

I am going to point out one thing that was said that I take absolute exception to. Duncan Hunter said that the majority of people who join the military are conservative. I take great exception to the claim that liberals don't stand up to serve their country. The fact is that the military is just as diverse as America is as a whole. To imply that liberals don't serve their country is disgraceful and frankly Rep. Hunter should apologize.

The tide is turning on the Republican side. I think in the coming weeks we're going to see the decline of Rudy and the rise of Romney. Romney will win Iowa, win New Hampshire, win South Carolina and then have enough momentum to propel himself through Florida and beyond.

Diplomacy: Democrats Force Realty On Bush

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a lecture at Kansas State University ,said that the U.S. must improve its diplomacy.  He is asking for an increase in not only his department's budget but also the State Department budget.  Gates said we must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military and that there is a need for dramatic increases in spending on the civilian instruments of national security.  That is an astounding statement coming from someone in this administration.  (Diplomacy has always been a part of Democratic administrations concerning national security.)

 

Gates pronouncements is an admission of Mr. Bush's failed foreign policy that has been based on the U.S.'s military might which led to the war and occupation in Iraq over WMD that did not exist.  The people realized long ago that diplomacy was abandoned by Mr. Bush.  Gates has followed the same path with the surge and continuation of the war in Iraq.  They are both trying now to salvage what is left of their reputations.  Gates wants more money for his department even as spending for his department is at record levels and that does not include the billions spent for the war.  That money could be better used for more important issues.  Diplomacy for one.

 

Mr. Gates supported the military option in Iraq over diplomacy.  We know from his and Bush's statements that they want a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq.  Will they define that as military diplomacy?  The civilian instruments of national security would be a better choice.  The Democratic position on diplomacy through many past presidents have served our nation well and kept our country safe.  They answered the military call when it was necessary to protect our national interest but never was in fear of using diplomacy.  They also kept our country free of such a massive foreign terror attack as occurred on 9-11.

 

Mr. Bush's arrogance, reckless behavior and lack of true diplomacy lost him the moral mantle of world leadership that America was known to possess.  Diplomacy could have saved the lives of thousands of Americans and Iraqis in the war in Iraq if Mr. Bush had used his responsibility as a leader with wisdom.  America's role in the world today has been tainted by the President's reckless behavior.  If he and Gates are ready to use diplomacy as an admission of their failure, let them start with Iraq and bring this war to an end with diplomacy.  It is not to late.

Rudy Giuliani----My Take

If there is only one person America should be fearful of having as its next President, it's Republican Rudy Giuliani. The term "Bush-Cheney lite" has been used often in this campaign, but let me assure you that Rudy is certainly not "Bush-Cheney lite". He is Bush-Cheney on steroids.

Rudy Giuliani is the most unqualified candidate to be President from either side of the isle. What exactly did this man do anyway? All he is known for is 9/11, but even that record is not as great as Rudy wants people to believe. Rudy wants to be seen as the hero of America; as "America's Mayor", but the fact is that Rudy is truly neither. If anything, Rudy can be blamed for some of the casualties on 9/11 for his failure to properly prepare for what many knew was an almost certain future attack. In 1994, it was determined that the FDNY's radios were faulty and failed to work properly under rough conditions. Knowing this problem and receiving many complaints from firefighters prior to 9/11, Rudy failed to equip the FDNY with working radios. Those brave first-responders were consequently unable to hear the call to evacuate the WTC and were buried under the rubble when the buildings collapsed. Rudy is also to blame for the illnesses of hundreds of 9/11 clean up workers who were not provided with the proper protective gear while working at Ground Zero. America's Mayor? The hero of 9/11? I think not.

And now that Rudy is running for President, he is looking to even further exploit his supposed heroism on 9/11 for political gain. If you ask me, it is absolutely sickening for Rudy to try to and succeed in making political gain off of the tragedy that was 9/11. Rudy Giuliani wasn't the hero. The first responders who went selflessly into harm's way to save lives are the heroes, as are those who stayed at Ground Zero searching for survivors. I even challenge the claim that Rudy is responsible for "uniting the city and the country on 9/11". Al Sharpton was absolutely correct when he said, "You didn't bring us together, our pain brought us together and our decency brought us together. We would have come together if Bozo was the mayor." The disgust for Rudy is even more evident when you go where people know him best-----New York City itself. Rudy can say what he wants, but the citizens of NYC, who were there pre-9/11, there on 9/11, and there today, want the country to know something---Rudy is a fraud: "Giuliani has exaggerated the role he played after the terrorist attacks, casting himself as a hero for political gain." Perhaps still what is the most disturbing fact is the personal gain that Rudy has earned from "cashing in" on his fame gained on 9/11. On 9/11, Rudy was worth about $2 million. But since that tragedy, Rudy is worth more than 30 times that amount with most of that money being made from speaking appearances concerning 9/11 as well as other 9/11 related events. Now maybe its just me, but if Rudy really cared about those affected by 9/11, wouldn't he have donated most of that money to the 9/11 relief fund or to the families who lost loved ones? But no, Rudy used and continues to use the tragedy of 9/11 for his own gain, thinking nothing of the people who were actually affected.

When you look at his foreign policy, Rudy is even more of a neoconservative warmonger than Bush and Cheney. Giuliani practically lights up whenever he is asked about Iran and gets to respond that he is ready to attack if necessary and that he would not talk to Irani leaders. The fact is though, that if you refuse to negotiate and talk with Iran, then you leave yourself no option but war. And to make Rudy's policy towards Iran even more radical, he has said that he is not sure if conventional weapons would be enough. I can understand saying that nothing should be taken off the table, but Rudy makes it sound as if he looks forward to getting his hands on the U.S.'s nukes and blowing Iran apart.

Giuliani has also been Bush's biggest supporter concerning the Iraq War. Just a few days ago, Rudy said that he thinks President Bush handled the war perfectly and that he would have acted the same way. To say that it was handled without a single flaw is ridiculous and outrageous. Even avid war supporters like John McCain have criticized Bush's handling of the war.

The final thing that irks me about Rudy is his sudden change of position on key issues. As Mayor, Rudy was an unequivocal pro-choice politician, but now that he is running for President, Giuliani says that he would appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court who would ultimately like to overturn Roe v. Wade. Giuliani can't have it both ways---he either supports a women's right to privacy or he doesn't. It's the same case with Rudy's immigration policy. While Mayor, he was a strong advocate for sanctuary cities, but now he says that he wants an immediate end to illegal immigration and wants harsh punishments for undocumented workers. Another perfect example of Rudy straddling the line is his stance on gun control. While Mayor he was strongly pro-gun control, but now he says that he fully supports every individual's right to own a weapon. As far as I'm concerned, this "wishy-washy" stance on issues is even worse and more annoying than Romney's flip-flopping. At least when you flip-flop you end up with just a single position, but Rudy is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

So if there ever was a candidate that Democrats, and for that matter sane Republicans, need to stand up to, its Rudy Giuliani. America doesn't need a President who uses tragic events for personal and political gain. America doesn't need a President who would rather nuke a country than negotiate for peace. America doesn't need a President who can't admit when he was wrong. America doesn't need Rudy Giuliani.

Photo credit: Phelan M Ebenhack/AP

New Reports Paint Bad Picture

There are two new reports out concerning the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The war in Afghanistan is in its 6th year and the war in Iraq has been going on for almost 5 years and neither report paints a favorable picture.

 

The Washington Post reported that strategic goals that the Bush administration set out for 2007 in Afghanistan have not been met according to a White House assessment.  Individual battles with the Taliban have been successful, but the Taliban has had unchallenged expansion into new territory.  The U.S. military and intelligence have sharp differences as to where the war is going.

 

2007 has been the deadliest year for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.  The U.S. and NATO forces clear an area out and hold on to it  for a while only for it to be taken back by the Taliban.  The war is being fought in no man's land.  The Reagan-Bush administration armed the Taliban to fight the Soviet occupation and now the Taliban is fighting the U.S. and NATO occupation.  After 6 years there is still no one who can tell the American people how the war will turn out and how many more Americans will lose their lives in an unstable country in an unstable part of the world.

 

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports Al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Islamic Iraq Council, said that the U.S. has not backed up claims that Iran is fueling violence in Iraq.  Al-Hakim spent years in exile in Iran and is considered close to Iran's leaders.  Al-Hakim is also thought to be Iraq's most influential Shiite politician.

 

I wrote in several past commentaries that however and whenever this war ends, Iraq and Iran will be allies.  The Shiite majority in both countries will stand together.  It is past time to bring our troops home.  One more American death will be too many.  Saddam is long gone, there were no WMD, and we are not fighting the people who are responsible for the tragic events of 9-11.  The new leaders of Australia and Poland have it right.  Both parties in Congress have to get their act together and end the Iraq war as well as work on a solution for the growing violence in Afghanistan.

Ron Paul----My Take

Today, I continue the "My Take" series with a look at internet phenomenon, Ron Paul. Paul is a Texas Congressman and was the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988. Paul is currently running as a Republican, although a much different Republican from every other GOP contender in the field. Recently, Paul's campaign has been energized by raising $4.2 million in a single day (setting a new political record) as well as the fact that Paul is on the rise in New Hampshire polling (currently ahead of Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee at around 8% support).

The truth is that I have very mixed feelings about Ron Paul. I love the fact that he is strongly opposed to the Iraq War and wants to bring our troops home. Paul is also 100% correct on issues such as domestic surveillance and the Patriotic Act. However, on most other issues, Paul is dead wrong.

For example, I completely disagree with Paul's position that the U.N. and NATO are evil and that we need to immediately withdraw from them. Also, while the abolition of the income tax is a grand idea in theory, when it comes right down to it, where is the government going to get the money to do the things that the government needs to do? We would be forced to borrow even more money from foreign countries which leads to a host of all other kinds of problems.

A huge issue I would question Paul on is the issue of abortion. His position seems directly contrary to his Libertarian and Constitutionalist values. Doesn't the Constitution guarantee an individual his/her right to privacy? Doesn't the government have no place to get involved in a individual's personal life according to the Libertarian platform? If Paul believes in the Constitution, why is he staunchly opposed to a woman's right to choose, which is protected under the right to privacy? I don't think anybody is personally in love with the idea of a woman having an abortion, but it is a fact that abortion is a necessary choice for a woman to have.

Another issue that Ron Paul is dead wrong on is the issue of universal healthcare. Paul has said that if the government just stays out of the healthcare world, then somehow more people would be able to afford healthcare. It is simply insane to think that the healthcare crisis will simply fix itself; it won't. As far as I'm concerned, healthcare should be a constitutional right guaranteed to every American. It is literally a life or death matter. To think that there are people who die because they do not have access to quality healthcare is something that everyone should be outraged at. I admit, sometimes the government gets involved where it shouldn't, but healthcare is one area where it is essential for the government to act and act quickly. Universal healthcare is long overdue in this country and I can only hope that in 2008 America elects a President who will bring about it.

I'll close by saying something else positive about Ron Paul besides his opposition to the Iraq war and domestic surveillance. Paul, unlike most of the GOP candidates, is someone who I feel is being true to himself. Paul's positions have been consistent and he's not afraid to speak his mind and speak it forcefully. Although I may disagree with him on many issues, I truly have a lot of respect for his honesty and boldness. America needs a leader who is not afraid to stand up for what he/she believes in and, love him or hate him, Paul does just that. In fact, Paul may be the only Republican in years to do that. Thats why I feel it really is a shame that Paul doesn't have a chance to do better in the nomination process. For once I would like to see the Republicans nominate someone who at least tries to work for the good of the American people. The last thing I'll say though is that I don't think Paul is just going to go away. As I've said before, I could see him running as a third party candidate in the general election, which would be interesting to say the least.

Troops Surge, But Still No Political Progress

Every reason George Bush gave the American people for going to war in Iraq either never happened or was wrong.  Misleading America is the one thing Bush will be remembered for.

Almost one year ago Bush ordered a surge in troops in Iraq.  His stated purpose, he told America, was to reduce the violence so that the Iraqi government would make the needed reforms to unify their country.  Well, as of right now, the Iraqi's have achieved very little, if any, of that unity.  American's and Iraqi's are still being killed in a civil war and it is now reported the Bush administration has lowered its political expectations in Iraq to a few limited goals.  This is just one more blunder and policy failure added to the many other ones. 

 

As of this very moment, our military and civilian leaders say our military can't change Iraq's need for political settlement.  Senator Joe Biden has been saying that for over 3 years.  Al Sidar, one of the Shiite's militant leaders, ordered his army to stand down for 6 months and they have done so.  However, even with the stand down of the militants, the Iraqi government can not reconcile its political differences.

 

It is past time Mr. Bush realize what other countries have already figured out.  It is time to bring our brave men and women in uniform home.  This war over WMD that did not exist was won before it even started.  Mr. Bush just did not have the wisdom to understand that because he and his neocon friends wanted to play God in the Middle East and now America and its people are paying the price.  

The World Is Letting Itself Be Known: Get Out Of Iraq

A former diplomat and labor leader, Kevin Rudd, defeated Australian Prime Minister John Howard to lead the Australian people in a new direction.

 

Mr. Rudd campaigned and promised the Australian people that he would withdraw Australian troops from Iraq and sign the Kyoto Protocol on Global Warming.  Mr. Howard was a staunch supporter of President Bush and his Iraq policy and refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocal.

 

The defeat was so decisive it was reported Howard would probably loose his parliamentary seat altogether.  That would be only the second time in Australia's history.  The defeat of Howard is a continuation of the fallout from the Iraq War.  Donald Tusk, Poland's new Prime Minister, said in his inaugural address just recently that Poland would withdraw its troops from Iraq by the end of 2008. 

 

People around the world are making it known that the occupying forces in Iraq should be withdrawn.  The American people share that same feeling, despite the state of denial the Bush administration and many Republicans are still in.  Hopefully, next year, the American people will speak out as loudly against the war as people in Australia and Poland and around the world did, and elect a President who is committed to bringing the war to a safe end.

John Edwards----My Take

Sen. John Edwards used to be considered a frontrunner in the crowded race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Well now that frontrunner status of Edwards has faded to a point where, at best, Edwards is in the upper second-tier of candidates. There are several reasons to blame for his political demise, all of which were brought upon by John Edwards himself.

The John Edwards of 2004 was a cheerful, hopeful, friendly, semi-populist candidate. His message was one that resonated with many Americans. So when John Edwards entered the 2008 race, he was immediately one of my favorites. But as the campaign dragged on, Edwards underwent a noticeable transformation. He went from the cheerful candidate of '04, who always had a smile on his face and appeared to be the nicest person in the world, to a harsh, angry populist. Now, don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the populist message, and in fact I agree with much of it, but any candidate who appears angry is an immediate turn-off.

And while Edwards was getting angrier and angrier, he was simultaneously moving further and further to the left of his opponents. The mainstream appeal that Edwards had in '04 was quickly eroding. I would find myself watching clips of Edwards' speeches or reading transcripts and thinking to myself, "what exactly is this man thinking?" He began saying the most radical things and, at times, sounded certifiably insane. I suppose Edwards moved radically to the left to pick up the support of the far left wing of the Democratic Party, but if anything, his leftward journey backfired. As Edwards was pulled to the left, his poll numbers, both in Iowa and nationally, dropped. He may have picked up the votes of the more radical liberals, but he alienated mainstream Democrats and Independents, including myself. Edwards had always been my second choice after Sen. Clinton, but I was and still am baffled by his dramatic shift to the left. I consider myself a 100% liberal Democrat, but not a radical left wing Democrat. I'll also point out that the further a candidate moves away from mainstream America's ideals, the harder it is for him to win a general election. And to anyone who disagrees with that point, how exactly would you explain the fact that Sen. Clinton, and to a lesser extent Obama, run better against top GOP candidates than Edwards? The more centrist positions of Edwards in '04 led me to become a supporter of his, but this time around he has completely turned me off on the idea of voting for him.

The final straw for Edwards came in September when he was (despite what he would want you to believe) forced into taking public financing for his campaign due to his dismal fundraising. The fact is that by doing this, Edwards appeared desperate and needy. Voters want someone who is strong and has the ability to out raise the Republican opposition. For those that know and follow politics, they know that by taking matching funds, Edwards severally handicapped himself if he was to somehow win the nomination. From the start of the primary season to the DNC in August, Edwards would essentially be broke, and hence unable to respond to the sure firestorm of attacks by the Republicans. The last thing Democrats need is a candidate who is unable to put up a fight against the GOP for nearly 6 months. Its hard to make-up for 6 months of constant onslaught and attacks in just 2 and half months. Democrats would fare much better with a candidate who can respond to Republican attacks and put up their own ads to gain crucial momentum and support heading into November 2008.

And now, just under 6 weeks from the Iowa caucus, John Edwards is trying to fight his way back up to the top. The problem for him is that many Democrats, such as myself, have completely tuned Edwards out. His constant negativity and growing unelectablity have put him out of the running for the Democratic nomination. It is no longer Clinton vs. Edwards vs. Obama, but rather its just Clinton vs. Obama with Edwards being the pesky little fly that just won't go away but has no shot at stopping the big dogs.

Why I Support Hillary Clinton For President

I had planned to write a long post on why exactly I believe Sen. Hillary Clinton is the best choice for President, but then I came across this video and it says everything I wanted to say and says it way more articulately than I ever could.

Barack Obama----My Take

What I am about to write is partially in response to the post I had written earlier this week comparing the foreign policy credentials of Democratic Presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I had cross posted that post as a diary on DailyKos and (to put it gently) the general response I got from readers was that they wanted to know exactly why I thought Obama shouldn't be President.

I'll start by asking: What exactly has Obama done to qualify for the job of leading the entire free world? In my opinion, absolutely nothing. He was elected to the Illinois State Senate in '96. He was then elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. So if you want to go in terms of actual public service, then Obama has a little more than 10 years, but in terms of readiness to be President, you really have to look at Obama's record and experience in the U.S. Senate. No offense to state senators, but that job doesn't exactly prepare you for Presidential politics, much less for the actual job of being President (not that there is anything that can truly prepare you, but you get my point). The truth is that basically whichever candidate has the most signs in a local community will win State Senate. There are no real debates and no real tests for the job of a State Senator, but rather the person whose name is most recognizable on the ballot when a voter votes will win . It's that simple. It doesn't take much work or ability.

That brings me to Obama's big U.S. Senate win in '04. Or was it so big? I mean, seriously, Obama's opponent was Alan Keyes. Sure, Obama had good ideas and ideals, but it wasn't exactly a tough campaign for Obama. He has yet to face a true, tough opponent in a big election scenario and I'm not sure Democrats should want the 2008 Presidential Election to be Obama's practice.

It's not that I hate Obama, but I just do not think he is ready to compete in what is sure to be one of the closest, toughest elections in U.S. history. I do not think he is ready to inherit the office of President with his lack of experience. As several candidates have said, the next President will not have time for, "on the job training". That phrase might seem like nothing more than old political rhetoric, and it could very well be, but the phrase is nonetheless true. There is such a myriad of problems facing the country that the next President will have to deal with: the Iraq War, healthcare, the environment, the economy, immigration, etc. It is my feeling that the next President will have to have experience to deal with those issues.

Obama and his supporters like to throw out the fact that he has "judgment" and "judgment trumps experience". Make no mistake about it, judgment is important, but judgment and experience can coexist. The fact is that Obama might have been against the Iraq War in 2003, but he didn't have to vote on it. He has said several times in interviews that he does not know how he would have voted if indeed he was in the U.S. Senate at that time. Other candidates were in the Senate at that time and did vote for authorizing the war, but that does not mean they do not have good judgment. Those who voted for the war were lied to and told that Iraq had WMDs and was a threat to the U.S. If those facts had been true, then the correct judgment would have been to defend our country. The problem was that President Bush and his administration lied to Congress. There was no reason for Sen. Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, and Biden to believe that Iraq didn't have WMDs; there was no reason at that time to believe they were being lied to. They voted to protect the country based on what they were told and protecting the country is always the right vote. Every single one of the Democrats who voted for the war have long since said that if they had known that Iraq didn't have WMDs and that they were lied to, they wouldn't have voted for the war. So while "judgment" is very important, Obama has no justification for claiming that he somehow has better judgment than everyone else.

A second argument Obama supporters like to make is that Obama is the only candidate who can bring about change. Just the thought of that should outrage all Democrats. What is the one name you think of when someone says the complete opposite of Bush? The name Clinton comes to mind. The truth is that any Democrat would bring radical change from the current administration. And again I'll point out that change and experience can effectively coexist. This too might be a talking point of several candidates, but it is true that someone must have experience to make change happen. Clinton, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, and to some extent, Edwards, have decades of experience fighting for change. Obama has only a few years (I'll also point out that he voted exactly the same way as Clinton, Dodd, Biden, etc. did when he was elected in the U.S. Senate on all the important issues, including the Iraq War). Hillary first starting working for change in 1977 when she worked (without pay) for the protection and rights of women and their children. She also worked hard to expand medical privileges to the poorest areas of Arkansas. Some say that Hillary's position as First Lady of Arkansas and the U.S. does not count as experience, but when you looked at what she fought for and accomplished in those years, it is clear that Hillary worked just as hard as any State or a U.S. Senator. Who can forget her daring attempts to get universal healthcare in '93 and '94. Dodd, Biden, and Richardson have equally impressive resumes when it comes to fighting for change. So while it is great that Obama wants to bring change, other candidates have actually brought change. "Change" is not just a word that can be thrown around. A candidate has to have the strength to bring about the change and quite frankly Clinton, Dodd, Biden, etc. have shown that they know how to bring about real change. Obama has not.

So, as you can hopefully see, it's not that I hate Barack Obama, it's just that I do not feel he is ready to be President. There are far more qualified candidates who have an actual record of achieving meaningful goals. Obama "talks the talk", but the others "walk the walk". And let's face it, the only reason Obama is so well known is because of an awesome, inspiring speech he gave at the 2004 DNC. But let's remember that there have been many great speakers, but not many great Presidents. We need a great President, not a great speaker in 2008 (although hopefully a better speaker than Dubya). Maybe Obama will be ready to be President in the future, but he is just not ready at this time.

Cuba: A Missed Opportunity for America

Approximately 90 miles from the U.S. shore is the island of Cuba, an ally of the United States when it was governed by dictatorship.  Fidel Castro came to power when he overthrew Cuba's dictatorship and our relationship has never been the same.

 

The next President should hold meetings with Castro or whomever the Cuban leader is at the time with the intent to open and have diplomatic relations with Cuba.  Cuba and America could become full trading partners and in time Cuba could become a free country for its people.  Fifty plus years of sanctions and boycotts never achieved its goal---the overthrow of Castro by its people; it is time to try something different.

The idea of Cuba being more inline with our enemies than with America is unacceptable after all these years.  President Kennedy before his death had plans to start a dialog with Cuba to bring them back in our hemisphere.  He had the wisdom to realize the communist hold on Cuba had to be broken.  Unfortunately, his untimely death put an end to this endeavor.

 

An independent, free Cuba would make our hemisphere safer.  Our relationship with Cuba should be a strong, mutual one; not one where the U.S. dominates.  The United States should not be worried because Cuba is communist.  That will fall soon enough from natural forces just like communism in Russia fell.

 

The next President will have to stand up to the Cuban people in Florida who will not take kindly to this new policy.  President Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 called Cuba, "that imprisoned island."  Almost 50 years later, our foreign policy toward Cuba has not changed that.  The time for action is way over due.

Picture: © Rafael Perez/Corbis 

Corporate America: Leaving the Average American in the Dust

Corporate America has the power to transform the quality of life for its employees and the people of this country.  They have failed to do so because of their greed.  They give exorbitant bonuses, stock options, and the like to their CEOs and executives, even when their companies are losing money.  This is done at the expense of their faithful employees who make everything possible for the company.

 

At a time when health insurance and retirement benefits are being reduced for the average worker, (some benefits are being eliminated) CEOs and executives are still receiving their exorbitant bonuses and stock options.  All the while corporate America enjoys the advantage of loop holes in federal tax laws that allows them to pay less tax than the average American.

 

They also enjoy corporate welfare from the federal government under the disguise of need.  If CEOs and Executives were given bonuses and stock options at a ratio that can be related to their average worker's salary, the excess they are now being paid could be diverted to a health insurance fund for their employees.  That would alleviate the reduction in health coverage employees are experiencing.  But, of course, greed gets in the way. 

 

It is also corporate America that spends millions of dollars to hire lobbyists, some have their own lobbyists within their company.  Their purpose is to influence Congress and State Legislatures so they can receive special treatment while the average American, when contacting their representatives, receive either a standard reply or none at all.  

It is time for Congress and State Legislatures to show lobbyists the door and treat them like the average American.  Corporate America and their lobbyists have destroyed the checks and balances that were created to take care of the average person's business.  Their greed has corrupted our system and something must be done to change it. 

Scott McClellan Speaks Out

Just when everybody thought the White House couldn't possibly come under any more scrutiny, it does. In a book to be released next April, former Press Secretary Scott McClellan is supposedly going to tell "what happened" concerning his and others' involvement in the Valerie Plame-CIA leak case. In an excerpt released yesterday, McClellan wrote,

"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. There was one problem. It was not true. I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the Vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself."

So there you have it. McClellan clearly states that indeed Cheney and Bush were involved. Today McClellan came out and said that he did not intend to imply that the President lied.....yet he DID imply that in the excerpt. In fact, not only did he imply it, he wrote it. You can go through and parse the excerpt however you like, but McClellan undoubtably did state that Bush and Cheney were involved in the cover-up.

My only question for McClellan is why did he not come out with this sooner? Why when the Libby trial was going on did he not come forth with this important piece of information? As far as I'm concerned, it was his duty as an American citizen to let the truth be known. If we have a criminal as a President, and I'm convinced we do, then the American people deserve to know. Justice deserves to be served.

One theory that many have come up with is that President Bush was lied to by Vice-President Cheney and hence that is why Bush "passed on misleading information" to McClellan. There is one flaw with that theory however. If Cheney did lie to the President, and its Cheney who is the criminal, not Bush, then when the truth came out, why didn't Bush get rid of Cheney. I know Bush is loyal, but I couldn't even imagine Bush keeping Cheney around if Cheney lied to him. That leads me to one conclusion: Cheney AND Bush were knowingly involved in the cover-up. Any sensible person can look at this situation and see that the pieces of this puzzle just don't match up unless Bush himself was knowingly and willingly involved.

So today when the editor of McClellan's book says that McClellan didn't "intend to suggest Bush lied to him," but also says that the reader can make up his or her own mind concerning Cheney's involvement, I would argue that there is no way one could be involved without the other. And by saying (to Chris Mathews) that the reader can make up his own mind concerning Cheney, the editor and McClellan are by default saying that Cheney was involved. And as I said earlier, if Cheney was involved, so was Bush. Its also interesting to note that although given the opportunity, McClellan did not come out and say that Bush wasn't involved, he just said that he didn't intend to suggest that he was involved.

I'll close by saying that I am very disappointed in the mainstream media for not covering this story the way it should be covered. Many are claiming that this is just "old news". Well I have news for them, this is not "old news". This is extremely important news that points toward our President, the leader of the free world, being a criminal. I urge the media to get this story out there to the American people. By standing by and decreeing this as "old news", the media is letting the Bush administration get away with a potential crime. I would, however, like to commend both Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman of MSNBC for giving this story proper coverage. I hope to see the rest of the media follow suit in the coming days.

The Debate About The Debate

David Broder of the Washington Post recently wrote an editorial "Sound and Fury, Signifying a Debate," concerning the last Democratic debate in Las Vegas.  The thrust of Mr. Broder's article was that the debate moderators are so eager for headlines, they rarely pause to ask the candidates for evidence to support their opinions or assertions.  As I've stated in the past, I agree with Mr. Broder on this issue.

 

However, Mr. Broder has the same problem as the moderators because when he appears on many cable shows, he speaks about candidates' positions but fails to tell the full story himself.  A prime example is promoting Republican talking points on national security as if they were fact, but not following up with any evidence to support his claims. Mr. Broder has done that several times just within the past few months.

 

Mr. Broder was also one of many journalists who never sought evidence to back up the claim that Iraq had WMD stockpiled and ready to use against America or transferred to terrorists as the President and other Republicans asserted.  Yet he says moderators don't seek evidence from candidates to support their opinions.  Mr. Broder is guilty of the same thing.

 

Mr. Broder ends his editorial in these words, "can't these debates be rescued."  The answer is of course they can, but they won't because journalists and the media put hype, spin, and show business first.  What Mr. Broder should be asking is when will the candidates face questions about the 20 years of record deficit spending by the Reagan-Bush and George W. Bush administrations.  Mr. Broder does not have to wait for the moderators to address that  and other issues.  He writes an editorial column; he can write about anything any time he wants to. 

Obama Wants You To Know That He DOES Have Foreign Policy Experience

It's no secret that the campaign is getting heated and possibly the most heated battle is between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama's argument has been that Clinton is too "old school", while Clinton touts that Obama is way too inexperienced to be President. Well, Obama is going to put an end to the notion that he is too inexperienced on foreign policy. Here is Obama's own words on his foreign policy credentials:

"Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia."

Yup, thats right, I guess all I have to do to be President is to go live in Indonesia for four years. Here is Sen. Clinton's response:

"Voters will have to judge if living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face. I think we need a president with more experience than that, someone the rest of the world knows, looks up to and has confidence in."

So, I guess the question is who is more experienced on foreign policy---someone who lived in Indonesia for 4 years when he was a child, or someone who has traveled the world and met with the leaders of dozens of countries? This is where I would normally interject to give my thoughts on who is most qualified to be President, but I think you can decide that.

Kerry Will Prove His Case

The American people have seen first hand how many Republicans have attacked the patriotism of many veterans who wore the uniform of their country during their generations war.  It came to a head when veterans questioned the way Mr. Bush has managed the war in Iraq.  I mentioned before in a previous commentary how a good many of the neocons who clamored for war in Iraq either never wore the uniform of their country or joined the reserve to dodge the draft.

 

Now we know that T. Boone Pickens, an oil tycoon, provided $3 million to bankroll the group "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" (the group that ran the attack adds against Senator John Kerry).  Mr. Pickens is a well known neocon and was willing to be used by the Bush campaign during the 2004 elections to try and discredit Kerry's election bid and service to his country.  Pickens said he would pay $1 million to anyone who can disprove even a single charge against Kerry made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

 

Senator Kerry is taking Mr. Pickens up on the challenge and now Mr. Pickens is throwing up road blocks to that challenge.  It is interesting to note that T. Boone Pickens was of prime age during his generations war but according to several sources, he has no military record.  If that is true, he follows the pattern of so many neocons in this administration who love to see other's children go off to war while they stay home and count their money.  The neocons feel inadequate so they take it out on our veterans who volunteered their service to their country, one of the highest acts of patriotism. 

The Iraq War---the Effect on our Military

FACT: desertion rates for the U.S. Army are up 80% since the Iraq war started.  It is at its highest level since 1980 according to Roy Wallace, Director of Plans and Resources for Army personnel as reported by the Associated Press.

 

The desertion rate jumped 42% just over the past year.  One of the reasons is repeated tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The Army has been stretched to the breaking point because of this and will only be reversed by an increase in Army personnel.

 

This is the war that was supposed to be a cakewalk.  The President, Vice President, and the other neocons who clamored for this war and told America we would be welcomed with open arms have done an injustice to our men and women in uniform.  Almost 53 months ago Mr. Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and proclaimed "mission accomplished" and that "major combat operations were ended."  And now as we speak, 53 months later, our brave men and women in uniform are still paying the ultimate price over a war and occupation over WMD that did not exist. 

 

The reckless, arrogant, and casual way this president took our country to war with out the proper planning and equipment to protect our troops in a prolong war was irresponsible and flagrant.  The President and many Republicans are still in denial.  The fallout from this unnecessary war continues to worsen on a daily basis. 

 

The President could end this war tomorrow if he had the character to do so, but he lacks the wisdom to do so because he can not admit to any mistakes.  In fact he has already told the people the next President will have to deal with the problem.  A truly strong leader would put our country and our men and women in uniform first.  Bush doesn't.  I hope the American people elect someone in '08 who will.  

The Key To Ending The War: The News Media

Yes, there is a way to end this unnecessary war in Iraq.  And it can happen rather quickly if the news media cooperates.  It was television journalists who failed to seek the truth concerning Iraq having WMD in the lead up to the war, mainly because they let themselves be intimated by the President.

 

This is what television journalists should do.   Rerun all the speeches Mr. Bush gave the american people during the run up to war in Iraq when he repeated over and over he knew for sure Iraq possessed WMD that were stockpiled and ready to use against america or transferred to terrorists.  Rerun his speeches over and over every night so the people would be reminded just how reckless this president was and still is.  Rerun all his speeches about Saddam trying to buy uranium from Niger and trying to tie Iraq to the tragic events of 9-11. 

 

Rerun the president's speeches when he told the people Iraq reconstituted its nuclear program and then talked about a "mushroom cloud".  Then rerun over and over all the other charges he made about Iraq that were completely false.  Journalists need to step up to the plate to make up for their own reckless behavior by promoting on their own that Iraq had these WMD.

 

Mr. Bush has always tried to change history and change the reason why he took the country to war in Iraq after no WMD were found.  Rerunning his speeches will remind the people of the real reasons he is so incompetent and the real reasons why he started this war and blatantly misled the American people.  And most importantly it will remind the American people why there needs to be change in '08.  

11/15 Debate: Hillary "Turns up the Heat"

I just finished watching tonight's Democratic Presidential Debate on CNN and I must say I was very impressed with Sen. Clinton. I commented after the last debate in Philly that there was no clear winner. Well tonight, there was definitely a clear winner. Like her or not, Sen. Hillary Clinton won the debate hands down.

What is interesting to note is that most of the sparks in the debate took place in the first 15 minutes or so. Right from the start, Obama and Edwards went after Clinton, but unlike previous debates, Clinton responded. Clinton's forceful responses were spot on and she super-effectively made the case that she is the most qualified candidate to be President. I also find it interesting that after Clinton responded to her attackers, both Edwards and Obama left her alone for the remainder of the debate; she essentially shut them up.

Clinton's best response came when she was asked about playing "the gender card". Clinton correctly responded by saying that her opponents were not ganging up on her because she was is a woman, but rather because she is ahead. Another fact that will play to Clinton's favor is that she answered every question directly. No one can accuse her of parsing her answers or trying to get around the question. If anything, Obama had problems answering the questions directly; he himself got tripped up on the immigration question that Hillary messed up on in the last debate.

In the past few weeks, Obama has really grown as a candidate. He got a huge boost coming out of the last debate, but he completely failed to capitalize on that momentum tonight. Obama completely lost tonight. He indeed had one of his worst debate performances.

It would not surprise me if Hillary regains her strength and Obama loses his. Tonight was a complete win for the Clinton campaign and really a huge loss for everyone else involved. You could tell this by the crowd reaction. At the start of the debate, the audience was evenly split between Hillary, Edwards, and Obama. By the end of the night, the crowd loudly booed anything Obama or Edwards said negatively about Clinton. Clinton had managed to win over about 90% of the Las Vegas audience by the end of the night. And possibly the most important thing of all, Clinton looked the most presidential and she succeeded in presenting herself as the strongest, toughest, and most experienced candidate in the race.

As many of you know, I typically rank the candidates in the order in which I think they scored, but tonight there is simply no need for that. Sen. Clinton is the solid #1 winner. There is no reason to rank anyone else, because frankly, Clinton was in a totally different league then everyone else tonight.

With that being said, if you saw the debate and have any thoughts, please share them. I want to know what you think.

Presidential Primary Season

The beginning of the Presidential primary season is just around the corner and in the near future we will know the Democratic and Republican nominees.  Hopefully the American people will take this process seriously and truly vote for the person they think can best lead our country into the future.

 

What the candidates say is very important even with their double talk.  Those candidates who presently hold office and those that did in the past will be saying things that don't add up when compared to their actual record.  The most important thing to listen for is what they say they will actually do if they are elected President.

 

Candidates who resort to personal attacks on character, morals, and family values and try to tell people what other candidates will do have a big problem.  They do that because they can't tell the people what they themselves stand for nor can they articulate their positions.

 

It is noticeable in the debates that many candidates spend their time attacking others and fail to inform the people what they are going to do if they are elected President.  The primary season is when candidates should inform the American people how they are going to handle the many problems they will inherit.  It is unfortunate the people will get no help from the moderators of the debates.  Moderators are stuck on questions concerning the past and not on the future.

 

Voters should resist when a candidate tries to paint another as unfit because of a single issue such as abortion, immigration, or religion.  The people also need to understand that journalists on the cable networks have to fill up so much time that they try to create issues that are not there.  They are really a sad bunch.

 

There is no one candidate on either side who is perfect and without imperfection, so the people will have to choose the candidate who can best lead our country for the next four years and possible eight years and reverse the calamity the nation has been exposed too for the past seven years.  Listen closely to the candidate who talks about the future and has the character to explain the direction he or she purposes to take the country.  Our future depends on it.

America's Right to Privacy----Under Siege

The Patriot Act, surveillance without a warrant, and torture----all in the name of protecting America by the most secret administration in history.  And make no mistake about it, the secrecy started prior to the tragic events of 9-11.  The President believes privacy is only a right for himself and his administration, but not for the American people.

 

And now it has been reported that Donald Kerr, a deputy director of national intelligence, wants the American people to change their definition of privacy.  In fact, he is quoted as saying privacy can no longer mean anonymity.  He wants government and businesses to safeguard people's private communications and financial information. (From Associated Press writer Pamela Hess)

 

Mr. Bush and the intelligence community want to shield telecommunication companies from lawsuits for giving the government access to people's private emails and phone calls with out a court order.  After the WMD fiasco concerning Iraq and the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, can anyone imagine trusting this administration or intelligence when it deals with protecting the privacy of millions of Americans?  The closer this administration gets to leaving office the more the people are going to discover just how reckless this President and his administration have been.

 

Telecommunication companies who turn over private records of  American citizens to intelligence agencies without a court order deserve no protection.  Those companies who said no to our government agencies when asked to do so without a court order should continue to stand tall.  It is called checks and balances and being patriotic the patriotic way. 

 

We know that this administration met with oil, gas, and other energy companies behind closed doors and never revealed what took place.  In fact they fought to keep their discussions secret.  Now we have lived with the most sustained price increase for oil and is now in the $90 barrel range. 

 

The absence of checks and balances during the run up to war in Iraq led to the President misleading the American people and the Congress.  Because of this administration,  men and women in uniform were committed to a war and occupation in Iraq over WMD that did not exist.  This administration has already failed the test.  No american should trust this administration to protect their privacy.  

Trouble Ahead: Pakistan, India, and Israel

All three countries have stockpiles of nuclear weapons and other WMD according to the experts.  None of them participate in the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.  The United States, Britain, France, Russia, China are all involved in the treaty, and yes, so is Iran.  The administration talks almost daily about the dangers of the proliferation of these WMD to other countries and parties, yet we have no foreign policy to put pressure on these 3 countries to join the treaty and open up their nuclear plants to inspection.  Has any one heard Mr. Bush, or for that matter any Republican, talk about this issue?

 

Now we have Pakistan  being declared in a state of emergency by President Pervez Musharraf.  He is still chief of staff of the Army and the Army is in charge of maintaining the order.  Finally after 6 years and $10 billion for Pakistan the administration is asking Mr. Musharraf to give up his Army role.  The country is in turmoil and the  Pakistani Army and Pakistani intelligence are in charge of protecting and preserving their nuclear stockpile.  Members of this administration and others say they believe the weapons are safe.  But suppose the Army splits and tries to overthrow their President, then how safe would those stockpiles be?  Remember, Mr. Musharraf himself came into power with a coup.

 

Adding to the mixture is former prime minister Benazir Bhutto back in Pakistan from exile.  The administration seems to favor her sharing power with Musharraf.  He does not seem to take to kind to that approach and just recently had her under house arrest.  The Shah of Iran was put in power by the United States and everyone knows what happened to that country down the road.   

 

It is past time for the U.S. and other governments to put pressure on Israel, Pakistan, and India to join the non-proliferation treaty and open up their facilities for inspection.  Is that too much to ask for in this dangerous world? I think not.  All three countries are in a part of the world that is unstable and is prone to radical ideas.  That's reason enough in my estimation.  

Pelosi and Reid Say "No More" To Bush

Finally, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are taking a firm stand against the Iraq War. Both Pelosi and Reid plan to present President Bush with a $50 billion measure for the Iraq War with the condition that the President begins to bring this disaster of a war to an end. This will be the toughest worded spending bill for the Iraq War since Democrats took control of Congress back last November. And if Bush goes against the wishes of the American people and vetoes the spending bill, he will not get his (and I emphasize "his") war funded for the rest of this year and possibly longer.

Even though I am enthralled that Democrats in Congress are finally taking strong, progressive steps to end the Iraq War debacle, I must admit that I wish it didn't come to this. I have stated in the past that it is the Republicans' responsibility to do what the American people want and bring this war to a safe end. Democrats have been fighting to end this war for years, but they simply do not have the numbers to overcome the Republicans. Pelosi and Reid do get unfairly blamed for not ending the war. Americans should not get angry at the Democrats for not ending the war, they should instead put pressure on the Republicans. It is the Republicans who keep the war going; not the Democrats.

With that being said, it is pretty clear that the Republicans weren't going to do the right thing. They refuse to break with their President and they continue to support a failed policy. So what were Pelosi and Reid going to do? I certainly do not think that funding should just be cut off all together. The troops, as Joe Biden has artfully pointed out, deserve to get the equipment that they need. Yet, at the same time, I feel we are doing them just as much harm by not ending this war. So what are we going to do?

Well, in Pelosi and Reid's proposal, I find a sort of "middle-ground." The Democrats are not cutting off funding for the troops; if anything, they are helping them. It is now on George Bush's hands to decide what course will be taken. Will he defy Congress and the American people yet again by continuing the war? Or will he finally recognize that the war is doing nothing but harming America in every way possible? If Bush does the former, he will be in essence cutting the funding off himself. It will then be the responsibility of the Republican's in Congress to override Bush's veto. If they don't, then they will be to blame for not supporting the troops. The Iraq War is no longer a partisan issue; Americans want it to end. And as usual, it is the Democrats who fight and who will continue to fight for the American people. I pray that the President and the GOP do the right thing and support this bill and begin to bring our brave men and women home...where they belong.

Let The Truth Be Known

President Bush, Mr. Cheney, many Republicans in Congress, and some running for their party's nomination are still trying to convince the American people that bin-Laden and al Qaeda attack and hate America because we are a Democracy who enjoys freedom.

 

Does anyone wonder how these people can get it so wrong and why they continue to mislead the country?  It's called fear.  Pat Buchanan, a true conservative Republican wrote a book titled "Where the Right Went Wrong."  He pointed out bin-Laden's own words on why he attacks and hates America.  He listed the reasons and not one has anything to do with Freedom and/or Liberty.  It is because western countries have in the past and still occupy muslim lands.  Bin-Laden is from Saudi Arabia and he has attacked Saudi Arabia because the United States had bases on their land that the Saudi's let the U.S. use during the 1991 gulf war.

 

Now we have been occupying Iraq for almost 5 years over WMD that did not exist.  That is why al-Qaeda in Iraq was formed.  They did not exist before the invasion.  So called tough talk may make politicians feel macho but 6 thousand Americans have paid the price for the tragic events of 9-11 and the war in Iraq, not to mention over 20,000 wounded. An entire book could be written on all the lies this administration has put forward and how they have misled the American people.  It is pretty sad when the President can't bring himself to tell his own people the truth.  The War on Terror will be won when the War on Terror is fought.  

Face the Nation---A Sad Source for Information

This past Sunday, Bob Schieffer, moderator of "Face the Nation",  had Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul on as his guests.  Both are candidates for the Republican Party  Presidential nomination. 

 

Mr. Schieffer was cordial with Mr. Huckabee and asked soft questions concerning his stand on several issues.  He explored Mr. Huckabee's rise in the polls and good crowds that he was drawing at various events.  However, I did not learn anything new by the questions asked of Mr. Huckabee.  The program is only 30 minutes split between the two candidates.  You would think Mr. Schieffer could ask at least one question concerning the difficulties faced by the next President and what he would do.

 

Then came Ron Paul's turn for questions.  I thought he was treated unfairly with silly questions about 10 issues that Mr. Paul is against.  Mr. Schieffer framed the questions that gave the impression that Mr. Paul was anti everything and anything.  Mr. Paul had to point out that there is a pro side to those issues.  For instance, Paul's position on government spending is to live within our means instead of running up record federal deficits that are taking place in this administration.  That is a "pro" position.  Mr. Schieffer went out of his way to describe Mr. Paul as being against everything and tried to cast him in that vein instead of asking Mr. Paul for his "pro" comments on those issues.  Then Mr. Schieffer seemed to enjoy suggesting to Mr. Paul that he could not win his party's nomination.

 

After 40 plus years as a journalist, Mr. Schieffer's show is not about seeking answers from candidates that would inform the American people about a candidate's likely actions if they became president.  Clearly, this segment of the show with Mr. Paul was to put him down and treat his positions on the issues with disdain.  It is such a shame to see the media become like this.  

***NOTE: My (John Lucia) posts will no longer be written in a different font than those of Joseph***

Should Romney Address his Mormonism?

The fact the Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, is a Mormon is a fact that has dogged Romney throughout the campaign. According to a recent poll, 1/3 of all Americans say they would not vote for a Mormon for President. And no surprise, many of those intolerant bigots are people from the religious right of the Republican party. Now again, I do not support Romney or his views, but by no way do I think that any candidate should be judged by his religion--or for that matter his or her race, gender, etc.

There has been talk about Mitt Romney giving a speech to address doubts about his faith and supposedly the speech is already written, just waiting for Romney to give it. There is reportedly great debate withhin the Romney campaign on whether or not to give the speech. Here are my thoughts:

Right now, I don't see Romney needing to give the speech. He is far ahead in Iowa, his lead in New Hampshire has grown even more, and he is now ahead in South Carolina. If Romney is asked about his faith on the campaign trail, then surely he should answer it, as he has done. But to say that Romney needs to give this huge speech just doesn't make sense to me at this time. Why mess up something that is going so well? What exactly is Romney going to say anyway?

His religion doesn't seem to be hurting him yet; it is his values (genuine or not) that are actually helping him appeal to conservative Republicans. Now, of course, the general election is a different story. As more and more Americans pay attention to the Presidential race, Romney might need to address his Mormonism, much as J.F.K. did in 1960 about his Catholicism. But Romney should determine that when and if the time comes. Right now I would advise Romney to do keep up whatever he is doing, because it is working, and there is no need to jeopardize that.

Obama Blows the Crowd Away

This past Saturday night, at the Jefferson Jackson dinner in Iowa, Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama finally showed that fire that everyone has been waiting to see. I am far from an Obama fan, but even I must admit that his speech created an electric atmosphere. This was the best I've seen Obama since his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. It could very well be the turning point in this campaign.

In Iowa, Obama has been running neck and neck with Sen. Hillary Clinton in the polls. Iowa is in fact the only place where Obama is even remotely close to Hillary in the poll numbers. That is why Iowa is where Obama must stop Hillary. And I think his great speech last Saturday was his first step in trying to halt the Clinton machine. I look forward to seeing the next poll numbers from Iowa to see if Obama has picked up any momentum. I predict he will and I also predict that the Iowa Caucus results will be an extremely close call. I am now more convinced than ever that Obama might just be able to win Iowa.

The one thing I must criticize Obama for is his refusal to mention Hillary by name in his speeches. When he goes on the attack, it is obvious that he is talking about Sen. Clinton, so why doesn't he just call her out by name? I guess it is no big deal to most voters, but it's just something that irks me. If Edwards goes after Clinton, he doesn't have a problem calling her out by name. Same thing when Clinton challenges Obama. In my opinion, it just appears that Obama doesn't have the "guts" to call Hillary out by her name, and thats just not something that appeals to me.

It should be interesting to see how Hillary and her campaign respond to her slumping poll numbers and the attacks by Obama and Edwards this week. I have a feeling that Hillary will just leave Edwards alone; he is no threat to her. Obama, on the other hand, might be in for a surprise. Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communication director, is known to play hardball. It was Wolfson who really led the charge in the Clinton campaign back in the summer when Clinton went after Obama for saying he would meet with foreign leaders "unconditionally." If you noticed, it was after Clinton branded Obama as "naive" and "weak on foreign policy" that Obama began to drop in the polls and Clinton picked up speed. I see Wolfson doing the same this week. The Hillary campaign is going to go after Obama's biggest weakness-----his complete lack of experience. The argument is going to be made-"Obama has spent just over 2 years in the Senate, is he really ready to be President?" And when you make it sound like that, I think we can all agree, it plays to Hillary's favor.

Whatever the backlash may be, I must commend Obama for finally showing the same spirit at the JJ Dinner that made the country fall in love with him back in '04. I feel that Obama's speech on Saturday might have just won him the Iowa caucus. I also am sure though that Hillary won't go down without a fight, and I expect it to get ugly in the next few weeks. And although I am a Hillary supporter and I enjoyed her comfortable front-runner status, the other side of me is glad to finally see a race. There is nothing like the hardball, nail-biting, no-holds-barred feel of Presidential politics.

McCain vs. Giuliani

Well it finally appears that at least one Republican is ready to get tough against GOP Presidential frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani. Too long have the other Republican Presidential candidates let Giuliani falsify his way to the top of the polls. This past week, and especially today on Fox News Sunday, John McCain began to lead the fight on pointing out how the former New York City mayor isn't as experienced as he would like you to think.

McCain first turned up the heat on Giuliani Thursday when it was announced that Giuliani's former police chief, Bernard Kerik, had been indicted on charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, and lying to the IRS. Giuliani had apparently been briefed on Kerik's past and still proceeded to hire him as police chief. In late 2003, Giuliani, with knowledge of Kerik's criminal past, recommended to the President that Kerik should succeed Tom Ridge as Secretary of Homeland Security. President Bush, because of Giuliani's recommendation, did nominate Kerik. (Kerik eventually withdrew his acceptance of the nomination.) McCain is now calling Giuliani out on his judgment, and rightfully so. We don't need another President like the one we have now---one that puts personal friendship and loyalty before the law. McCain pointed out that today on Fox that Giuliani essentially tells voters that he is the only candidate that they can trust with national security. Yet, as McCain said, how can Giuliani be trusted on homeland security if he was willing to recommended Kerik, whom Giuiani apparently knew had criminal ties, to the post of Secretary of Homeland Security.

The second issue on which McCain has come out swinging against Giuliani is on the topic of foreign policy experience. Giuliani, in just about every speech, touts how experienced he is on foreign policy. The fact is that Giuliani has zero foreign policy experience. McCain, on the other hand, has a plethora of experience when it comes to dealing with foreign nations.

The third issue that I think is critical is the fact that Giuliani quit the Iraq Study Group because he wanted to make more money by giving speeches. Anybody like Giuliani, who is worth millions of dollars yet thinks that making more money is more important than the Iraq War, shouldn't be President. McCain pointed that out this morning saying something to the effect that a President must show that he cares and is interested in the troops, but Giuliani failed to do so when given a prime opportunity. McCain, however, has shown a great interest in our troops by visiting Iraq many times and talking to soldiers when they arrive home.

The reason Giuliani is leading in the polls is clearly because voters see him as the most experienced on issues such as national security, foreign relations, and the war in Iraq. But, by looking at Giuliani's past compared with other candidates, you see that Giuliani is indeed the least experienced candidate. Joe Biden was definitely right when he called Giuliani "the most unqualified person to be commander-in-chief". With that being said, the other GOP candidates have done absolutely nothing to challenge Giuliani on his record. Finally though, John McCain has started to do just that. And while I am certainly not a John McCain fan, I am even less of a Rudy fan and I am very glad to see that at least one GOP candidate is trying to get the truth out to the American public. Rudy Giuliani is not what he says he is---not by far. Republicans would do themselves a lot of good to actually look into Rudy's past and make an informed decision, instead of believing every word that Giuliani says.