When Rudy was asked in Ohio yesterday about the air quality at ground zero and him not properly preparing or warning of such a thing, "America's Mayor" had this to say,
"I was at Ground Zero...I was exposed to the same stuff... so I'm one of them"
What a self-serving statement to make. When I read this I immediately thought of Romney comparing his sons who are campaigning for him to those brave men and women serving their country in Iraq. Is this the best the GOP can do? They have to make themselves look like heros and reduce the true heroes to being equal to political campaigners and a Mayor that used 9/11 to propel his own political future and fortune. Its really sad and again I say that if you want to get the true story listen to the people who were there. Listen to the firefighters who were at Ground Zero. Listen to the hundreds who today have serious health problems that doctors say are directly related to the air quality at Ground Zero.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Tom Tancredo: the craziest conservative yet?
We all know that there have been many far-right crazy conservatives in the past decades, but as Rep. Tom Tancredo continues to come to fame in the 2008 Election, and his views get revealed, he could prove to be the wackiest yet.
First of all, if we didn't know that Tancredo was anti-hispanic immigration, then maybe his statement a few years back should be brought up. Tancredo referred to the city of Miami as "a third world country". He has compared Miami to Havana, Cuba on numerous occasions as well, saying, "I knew speaking your mind could be dangerous in Havana — I guess it's equally dangerous to do so in Miami. Apparently, there isn't much of a difference between the two anymore." So I can respect someone if there opposed to illegal immigration, there are actual reasons to be opposed, butto be opposed to Miami, Florida? For what? The only clear explanation is that Tancredo sees Miami a hispanic-immigrant city, which it partially is, but isn't that a good thing. Cultural diversity is what makes the United States, a country of immigrants I might add, so great.
Then there is what Tancredo would call his foreign policy. He introduced it at a Town Hall Meeting in Iowa last month. Tom Tancredo said that to deter the threat of terrorist attacks on the United States, that we should threaten to bomb the two holiest cities in Islam, Mecca and Medina. And that if there was ever another attack on the U.S., we should go ahead and destroy the two cities. What an absurd, ignorant statement to make. Even the State Department called him out on this issue. I'm all for deterring terrorists, but to bomb Islam's holiest cities? Mecca and Medina are important to the Islam religion, destroying them would anger millions of good-willed Muslims who currently want no to harm to the U.S. If anything it would spark an outrage in the Middle East and then every Muslim would be out to destroy the U.S.
Rep. Tancredo. here's an idea: lets go after al-Qaeda where they are planning attacks, instead of playing world police in Iraq. Maybe if we target the terrorists in Afghanistan and work with Musharraf, we could capture and kill bin-Laden. Thats the way to protect the United States.
First of all, if we didn't know that Tancredo was anti-hispanic immigration, then maybe his statement a few years back should be brought up. Tancredo referred to the city of Miami as "a third world country". He has compared Miami to Havana, Cuba on numerous occasions as well, saying, "I knew speaking your mind could be dangerous in Havana — I guess it's equally dangerous to do so in Miami. Apparently, there isn't much of a difference between the two anymore." So I can respect someone if there opposed to illegal immigration, there are actual reasons to be opposed, butto be opposed to Miami, Florida? For what? The only clear explanation is that Tancredo sees Miami a hispanic-immigrant city, which it partially is, but isn't that a good thing. Cultural diversity is what makes the United States, a country of immigrants I might add, so great.
Then there is what Tancredo would call his foreign policy. He introduced it at a Town Hall Meeting in Iowa last month. Tom Tancredo said that to deter the threat of terrorist attacks on the United States, that we should threaten to bomb the two holiest cities in Islam, Mecca and Medina. And that if there was ever another attack on the U.S., we should go ahead and destroy the two cities. What an absurd, ignorant statement to make. Even the State Department called him out on this issue. I'm all for deterring terrorists, but to bomb Islam's holiest cities? Mecca and Medina are important to the Islam religion, destroying them would anger millions of good-willed Muslims who currently want no to harm to the U.S. If anything it would spark an outrage in the Middle East and then every Muslim would be out to destroy the U.S.
Rep. Tancredo. here's an idea: lets go after al-Qaeda where they are planning attacks, instead of playing world police in Iraq. Maybe if we target the terrorists in Afghanistan and work with Musharraf, we could capture and kill bin-Laden. Thats the way to protect the United States.
Mitt Romney's idea of serving your country:
At a press gathering Mitt Romney was asked if his five sons were serving in the military. In response Romney said, "The good news is that we have a volunteer Army and that's the way we're going to keep it. My sons are all adults and they've made decisions about their careers and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard."
Okay, well in a way I think Mitt is absolutely correct. We do have a volunteer Army and if people, much like myself, would rather have a civilian career, I find no problem with that. But this is where Mitt completely lost his mind:
"One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."
So Mitt Romney believes that driving around Iowa raising money for him is serving your country? Its certainly not equal to the sacrifice our brave men and women make in Iraq. Maybe thats why the Republicans don't mind sending thousands of troops to fight an endless, needless war, because they believe that serving your country in the military is just as easy as driving around in a nice, air-conditioned SUV in Iowa and stopping at fund-raisers. It brings up the question: if you support this War continuing and you support the surge, maybe you should join the war. Or maybe those that want to continue sending men and women to Iraq, should just go spend one, just one, day on the streets of Baghdad. Maybe then they would stop thinking of their un-yielding loyalty to the republican base, and start thinking of those who are actually fighting this war.
Okay, well in a way I think Mitt is absolutely correct. We do have a volunteer Army and if people, much like myself, would rather have a civilian career, I find no problem with that. But this is where Mitt completely lost his mind:
"One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."
So Mitt Romney believes that driving around Iowa raising money for him is serving your country? Its certainly not equal to the sacrifice our brave men and women make in Iraq. Maybe thats why the Republicans don't mind sending thousands of troops to fight an endless, needless war, because they believe that serving your country in the military is just as easy as driving around in a nice, air-conditioned SUV in Iowa and stopping at fund-raisers. It brings up the question: if you support this War continuing and you support the surge, maybe you should join the war. Or maybe those that want to continue sending men and women to Iraq, should just go spend one, just one, day on the streets of Baghdad. Maybe then they would stop thinking of their un-yielding loyalty to the republican base, and start thinking of those who are actually fighting this war.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New....Hampshire?
Well with the 2008 Presidential Campaign starting earlier than ever, it appears the nomination process will too start earlier than in previous years. On August 9, it was announced that South Carolina had moved its republican primary up to January 19. This was in response to South Carolina wanting to be the first Southern state to hold a primary after Florida moved its primary up to January 29, ahead of South Carolina. Now seeing as South Carolina is currently scheduled to be the first primary(ahead of New Hampshire), New Hampshire is expected to move their primary up. New Hampshire law says that the state's primary must precede any similar contest by at least 7 days. That would put New Hampshire's date at January 12 or sooner. Well the only problem with that is that the Iowa caucus is scheduled to take place on January 14. Iowa by law is required to be the first state to participate in the nomination process, traditionally occurring 8 days before New Hampshire. That could push Iowa back to January 4 or sooner. With January 4 being so close to the New Year's Holiday, some are proposing to push it back to before Christmas or in between Christmas and New Year.
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand the sooner the primaries happen and the closer together they occur, the less chance someone has to bounce back after a defeat. On the other hand, I feel that with this campaign starting so early and with so many people paying attention, why not just get it done and over with.
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand the sooner the primaries happen and the closer together they occur, the less chance someone has to bounce back after a defeat. On the other hand, I feel that with this campaign starting so early and with so many people paying attention, why not just get it done and over with.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)