Elizabeth Edwards is someone who I do admire at times, and at other times wish she would shut-up and let her husband run his own campaign. But in the August issue of Progressive Magazine, Mrs. Edwards says something I truly do agree with; in fact it is something I've said for a long long time. Mrs. Edwards writes:
"Obama gives a speech that's likely to be extraordinarily popular in his home district, and then comes to the Senate and votes for funding... so you are going to get people behaving in a holier-than-thou way."
This was Mrs. Edwards of course addressing Sen. Obama's claim to fame which is that unlike the others running, he(Obama) was always against the Iraq War. Well its a good argument, except Obama wasn't even in the U.S. Senate at the time of the Iraq War vote. In fact the only time he's on record saying he was against this war was a statement which he made while in the Illinois State Legislature. As Mrs. Edwards points out, it doesn't take much gut to go out and pander to an anti-war crowd. Obama wasn't in the U.S. Senate, he didn't have the President up in his face, lying to him, telling him a list of reasons why we needed to go to war. I believe that if Iraq did in fact have WMDs and terrorists were in Iraq, planning future attacks on the U.S., then we absolutely had a duty to go into Iraq, and that was the exact proof presented to Congress by Bush. The Congress voted the right way given the information they were given, the only problem was that all the information were lies. And then if Obama was truly against the war when he got elected to Congress, and he had the chance to make a difference, he continually voted to fund the war. Why was it Hillary Clinton, not Obama who asked the Pentagon for withdrawal plans, if Obama truly wanted to get out of Iraq. There's a lack of consistency on Obama's part. Its easy to say something, but something totally different to act on it. And Obama has yet to act.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Guess what? We have another flip-flopper on our hands!
As if Mitt Romney's flip-flopping on every issue imaginable wasn't enough, we now have another flip-flopper on our hands. And believe it or not, its another Republican!!! Its everyone's favorite self-serving mayor, Rudy Guiliani. Basically he was for gay civil unions before he was against it. As mayor of New York City, Guiliani described himself as a backer of civil unions, and in fact he initiated domestic partnership laws while he was mayor in '98. Ask him the same question today...not so much. When his campaign was asked about this flip-flop, they responded by saying...well Guiliani is okay with what he enacted as mayor in 1998, but he does not go as far as to back civil unions. The only problem is when he was mayor, he did support civil unions.
Joe Traver, an advocate for gay rights in New York responded to Guiliani's change of heart, stating:
"It's really disappointing he's stepped back from his position on civil unions, it's quite obvious he's playing to the people whose votes he needs to get the Republican nomination."
Its typical of politicians, change your position in order to win the nomination. Guiliani knows that he has to make himself at least appear more conservative on social issues if he is going to have a shot at winning the early states in the nomination process: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It might be a smart change politically right now, but all this flip-flopping is sure to come back to bite him in the butt if he gets the nomination. No one likes a candidate who panders just to win over a crowd. It was a key flaw in John Kerry's armor and it will come into play if Guiliani or Romney get the nomination.
This flip-flopping issue has long annoyed me. Its nothing but pandering to appeal to a specific crowd at a specific time. That is why I truly admire what Hillary Clinton has done so far in this campaign. She has taken a stance on issues that is un-favorable to the crowd at which she is in front of. She boldly said that she would continue to take lobbyist money because lobbyists do represent real people, in front of an anti-lobbyist crowd. She stood up for her beliefs and said she was not for gay marriage while in front of a pro-gay marriage crowd. While the GOP courts the right, and some of the democratic candidates court the left, Hillary is the only one who stands firm for what she believes in and refuses to pander to a crowd. That is a very respectable quality in a candidate and indeed a sign for a true leader.
Joe Traver, an advocate for gay rights in New York responded to Guiliani's change of heart, stating:
"It's really disappointing he's stepped back from his position on civil unions, it's quite obvious he's playing to the people whose votes he needs to get the Republican nomination."
Its typical of politicians, change your position in order to win the nomination. Guiliani knows that he has to make himself at least appear more conservative on social issues if he is going to have a shot at winning the early states in the nomination process: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It might be a smart change politically right now, but all this flip-flopping is sure to come back to bite him in the butt if he gets the nomination. No one likes a candidate who panders just to win over a crowd. It was a key flaw in John Kerry's armor and it will come into play if Guiliani or Romney get the nomination.
This flip-flopping issue has long annoyed me. Its nothing but pandering to appeal to a specific crowd at a specific time. That is why I truly admire what Hillary Clinton has done so far in this campaign. She has taken a stance on issues that is un-favorable to the crowd at which she is in front of. She boldly said that she would continue to take lobbyist money because lobbyists do represent real people, in front of an anti-lobbyist crowd. She stood up for her beliefs and said she was not for gay marriage while in front of a pro-gay marriage crowd. While the GOP courts the right, and some of the democratic candidates court the left, Hillary is the only one who stands firm for what she believes in and refuses to pander to a crowd. That is a very respectable quality in a candidate and indeed a sign for a true leader.
Key voting blocks going for the Dems?
Stan Greenberg, a leading Democratic pollster, has looked at four months of polling data and in the process has found out where some key voting blocks stand as the 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections draw near. These results are profound and will no doubt have a major impact on the race.
-Voters with a college education who earn more than $75,000 a year, support the democrats by an 11 point margin. This voting block, often dubbed the "opinion elite" has traditionally gone Republican. Maybe those college degrees are paying off!
-Independent voters have defected from leaning Republican and now support the democrats by 19 points. This could be the most significant finding of the poll. Independent voters always have been major players in Presidential Elections. Independents have voted mostly republican for the last several election cycles, but with their support for the democrats, the GOP could be in trouble in key battle ground states.
-Young voters are breaking to the Democrats with landslide margins. This not only is good for the Democratic Party for this election, but for years to come. If voters who have just turned 18 register as Democrats and stay that way, this could be a great asset for the party for the next 50 years. The only problem is actually getting young voters out on election day.
-Married Women, who largely went to Republicans in the past, are now breaking evenly with the Democrats and continue to favor democrats more and more. If this trend continues and dems gain full control of this group, expect the Republicans to risk some traditionally republican states in "Middle America".
-Unmarried women, who traditionally vote democratic, are now in even more support of the democrats. The democrats' strong position on health care, raising the minimum wage, and education strongly appeal to this block of voters.
Very good news for the democrats to say the very least. If these findings hold true on election day, the democrats will win by a fairly wide margin.
-Voters with a college education who earn more than $75,000 a year, support the democrats by an 11 point margin. This voting block, often dubbed the "opinion elite" has traditionally gone Republican. Maybe those college degrees are paying off!
-Independent voters have defected from leaning Republican and now support the democrats by 19 points. This could be the most significant finding of the poll. Independent voters always have been major players in Presidential Elections. Independents have voted mostly republican for the last several election cycles, but with their support for the democrats, the GOP could be in trouble in key battle ground states.
-Young voters are breaking to the Democrats with landslide margins. This not only is good for the Democratic Party for this election, but for years to come. If voters who have just turned 18 register as Democrats and stay that way, this could be a great asset for the party for the next 50 years. The only problem is actually getting young voters out on election day.
-Married Women, who largely went to Republicans in the past, are now breaking evenly with the Democrats and continue to favor democrats more and more. If this trend continues and dems gain full control of this group, expect the Republicans to risk some traditionally republican states in "Middle America".
-Unmarried women, who traditionally vote democratic, are now in even more support of the democrats. The democrats' strong position on health care, raising the minimum wage, and education strongly appeal to this block of voters.
Very good news for the democrats to say the very least. If these findings hold true on election day, the democrats will win by a fairly wide margin.
Do Republicans really want it to be Rudy vs. Hillary?
As the Hillary bashing continues, it seems that the republicans believe there is only one candidate who can be successful in a general election against Sen. Clinton and thats why this man is leading among republican voters in national polls. The man of which I speak is of course former Mayor Rudy Guiliani. But I must caution you republicans out there, you really should re-think the idea of Rudy being the guy most able to topple Hillary.
It appears to be that Hillary and Rudy are slowly, but surely, switching their positions in the minds of the public. Hillary's positives are rising while her negatives are falling. Rudy is the opposite. His negatives are rising and positives falling. I am guessing that Republicans feel that Rudy can best instill that fear in Americans, you know that same fear of terrorism that Rudy said we shouldn't have on 9/11, because then we would be letting the enemy win, yea, that fear. Its the same fear that won Bush re-election and the same fear that republicans continually try to use to undermine the democrats. Republicans are hoping that once that fear is planted, Rudy will come along and be the savior; be America's knight in shining armor against the terrorists. Well, I hate to break it to the Republicans, but I think the "fear" ship has sailed. Not to mention Rudy has so much past that has yet to be fully exposed. I mean, for God's sake, his kids have said they want nothing at all to do with their father. The man has been married three times. Not to mention all the controversy surrounding what Rudy actually did on 9/11 as opposed to what he says he did. While Rudy has yet to have his past exposed, Hillary's past is completely exposed. She has nothing left to be revealed. The public already knows her flaws and she still wins in the polls. I must warn the GOP, before you put all your money on Guiliani, I would look at some of the other candidates. It might be that someone like Huckabee is the best choice. He isn't a flip-flopper like Romney, he doesn't have the immigration issues McCain has, he isn't the lazy, Bush-like candidate a.k.a. Thompson, and he doesn't have a controversial past like Guiliani. If the GOP want to retain the White House in '08, I suggest they look at some of the lesser-known candidates, as they might be their best options yet!
It appears to be that Hillary and Rudy are slowly, but surely, switching their positions in the minds of the public. Hillary's positives are rising while her negatives are falling. Rudy is the opposite. His negatives are rising and positives falling. I am guessing that Republicans feel that Rudy can best instill that fear in Americans, you know that same fear of terrorism that Rudy said we shouldn't have on 9/11, because then we would be letting the enemy win, yea, that fear. Its the same fear that won Bush re-election and the same fear that republicans continually try to use to undermine the democrats. Republicans are hoping that once that fear is planted, Rudy will come along and be the savior; be America's knight in shining armor against the terrorists. Well, I hate to break it to the Republicans, but I think the "fear" ship has sailed. Not to mention Rudy has so much past that has yet to be fully exposed. I mean, for God's sake, his kids have said they want nothing at all to do with their father. The man has been married three times. Not to mention all the controversy surrounding what Rudy actually did on 9/11 as opposed to what he says he did. While Rudy has yet to have his past exposed, Hillary's past is completely exposed. She has nothing left to be revealed. The public already knows her flaws and she still wins in the polls. I must warn the GOP, before you put all your money on Guiliani, I would look at some of the other candidates. It might be that someone like Huckabee is the best choice. He isn't a flip-flopper like Romney, he doesn't have the immigration issues McCain has, he isn't the lazy, Bush-like candidate a.k.a. Thompson, and he doesn't have a controversial past like Guiliani. If the GOP want to retain the White House in '08, I suggest they look at some of the lesser-known candidates, as they might be their best options yet!
The Surge: "not likely to succeed"
Just today, the British Parliament's Foreign Affairs committee, published an oversight on how the government can improve its role in the Iraq War. And lets just say, that they don't exactly agree with what our Mr. Dubya has been saying:
"We conclude that it is too early to provide a definitive assessment of the US ’surge’ but that it does not look likely to succeed. We believe that the success of this strategy will ultimately ride on whether Iraq’s politicians are able to reach agreement on a number of key issues. We recommend that, in its response to this Report, the Government set out what actions it is taking to facilitate political reconciliation in Iraq. We are concerned that the damage done to the Government’s reputation in the Arab and Islamic world may affect its ability to influence the political situation in the Middle East."
So finally us crazy democrats aren't alone on this issue. This is what our democratic leaders have been saying for years. No amount of troops an end this war. Only diplomacy. Now the neo-cons can't just say that us dems are crazy for wanting an end to this war, but they'll also have to conclude that our close ally, Britain, is crazy to, and I'm not sure they really want to do that.
"We conclude that it is too early to provide a definitive assessment of the US ’surge’ but that it does not look likely to succeed. We believe that the success of this strategy will ultimately ride on whether Iraq’s politicians are able to reach agreement on a number of key issues. We recommend that, in its response to this Report, the Government set out what actions it is taking to facilitate political reconciliation in Iraq. We are concerned that the damage done to the Government’s reputation in the Arab and Islamic world may affect its ability to influence the political situation in the Middle East."
So finally us crazy democrats aren't alone on this issue. This is what our democratic leaders have been saying for years. No amount of troops an end this war. Only diplomacy. Now the neo-cons can't just say that us dems are crazy for wanting an end to this war, but they'll also have to conclude that our close ally, Britain, is crazy to, and I'm not sure they really want to do that.
3rd Party Candidates: spoilers?
As we approach another election year, one of the issues both the GOP and Democrats must look at is who is running on a third-party ticket, as it can have a major effect on their chances to win the presidency. We've seen this in recent years. In 1992, Ross Perot allowed Bill Clinton to win the presidency without getting a majority of the popular vote. Many debate whether Bush would have retained the White House if it wasn't for Perot. The most infamous case of a third party candidate possibly costing a candidate the election is 2000. Many, myself included, say that if it wasn't for Ralph Nader, the Green Party's candidate, Al Gore would be the president today. That can obviously be disputed, but what cannot is the facts. 65% of the people who voted for Nader in Florida, said that if Nader wasn't on the ballot, they would have voted for Gore, only 25% said they would have voted republican and the remainder said they wouldn't have voted at all. This case shows how indeed a third party candidate can have a huge impact on a presidential election.
So now I'm going to ask myself a question that is sure to be asked for many elections to come: should third party candidates be allowed on the ballots? I have a difficult time answering that question. I guess the answer has to be yes, this is a democracy and any one, with the qualifications, is able to run. But at the same time they do spoil elections. I would just like to ask these candidates, like Nader, "why run when you and everyone else know that you have zero chance of winning?" The answer is always the same: "because we bring issues to the table." I just don't see how they bring issues to the table. Nader didn't talk on any important issue, that the other candidates hadn't addressed. It seems as if he, and other third party candidates, just like the attention, people, like myself, give them by hating on them for running. It just seems so much more practical that if you have an issue, that you do speak strongly on it, but support the candidate that actually stands for those issues and has a chance of winning. For example, in 2000, who do you think Nader would govern closer to: Gore or Bush. The answer is clearly Gore, in fact, he and Gore were on the same side of all the important issues. And those issues would have gotten addressed if Nader used what little influence he had and spoke out on behalf of Gore and helped him to get elected, but instead he cost Gore, who had similar ideas to his, the election by running. Nader came off seeming like he cared more about himself than he did about the issues he supposedly cared so deeply about. But part of the blame also has to be placed on the people who vote for these spoiler candidates. To me it seems like a wasted vote.
Indeed this will be a hot debate as we inch closer to the '08 election and the possibility of another Nader run, a Bloomberg run, and even a Ron Paul libertarian ticket. In the end though, its not in my power to make sure these candidates aren't spoilers, its up to the American people to use their vote wisely to get done what they need done!
So now I'm going to ask myself a question that is sure to be asked for many elections to come: should third party candidates be allowed on the ballots? I have a difficult time answering that question. I guess the answer has to be yes, this is a democracy and any one, with the qualifications, is able to run. But at the same time they do spoil elections. I would just like to ask these candidates, like Nader, "why run when you and everyone else know that you have zero chance of winning?" The answer is always the same: "because we bring issues to the table." I just don't see how they bring issues to the table. Nader didn't talk on any important issue, that the other candidates hadn't addressed. It seems as if he, and other third party candidates, just like the attention, people, like myself, give them by hating on them for running. It just seems so much more practical that if you have an issue, that you do speak strongly on it, but support the candidate that actually stands for those issues and has a chance of winning. For example, in 2000, who do you think Nader would govern closer to: Gore or Bush. The answer is clearly Gore, in fact, he and Gore were on the same side of all the important issues. And those issues would have gotten addressed if Nader used what little influence he had and spoke out on behalf of Gore and helped him to get elected, but instead he cost Gore, who had similar ideas to his, the election by running. Nader came off seeming like he cared more about himself than he did about the issues he supposedly cared so deeply about. But part of the blame also has to be placed on the people who vote for these spoiler candidates. To me it seems like a wasted vote.
Indeed this will be a hot debate as we inch closer to the '08 election and the possibility of another Nader run, a Bloomberg run, and even a Ron Paul libertarian ticket. In the end though, its not in my power to make sure these candidates aren't spoilers, its up to the American people to use their vote wisely to get done what they need done!
A second place finish--just what Huckabee needed
Wow, I must say I'm a little surprised. When I originally wrote my analysis of the Iowa Straw Poll, I said that Huckabee, even though he came in second, was still far from Romney, who nearly received double the votes, and may not get the momentum a closer finish to Romney would have given him. But boy was I dead wrong. Huckabee has capitalized on his win and is quickly gaining momentum.
The attention the media has given to Huckabee has really amazed me. He is on the front-page of just about every political website. He has given interviews with all the cable news channels, including a very good interview on Morning Joe this morning, where he disclosed a very interesting piece of information. That piece of info led me to see why Huckabee was so excited and why his second place victory energized his campaign. While Romney spent anywhere from $4-5 million on the Straw Poll, Huckabee only spend $90,000. Do the math: Huckaebee got half the votes Romney did, but didn't spend close to half the money Romney did. Its actually pretty damn impressive that Huckabee has the amount of support he does with so little money. If this buzz about Huckabee continues and he does well in the next debate, I could actually see Huckabee break into the front-tier and get some big donations. While I might not like his ideas or principals, I must say there is something refreshing about Huckabee, he does appear to be the most approachable guy on the Republican side. I might have wrote the governor off to soon, as I'm starting to see big things for Huckabee.
The attention the media has given to Huckabee has really amazed me. He is on the front-page of just about every political website. He has given interviews with all the cable news channels, including a very good interview on Morning Joe this morning, where he disclosed a very interesting piece of information. That piece of info led me to see why Huckabee was so excited and why his second place victory energized his campaign. While Romney spent anywhere from $4-5 million on the Straw Poll, Huckabee only spend $90,000. Do the math: Huckaebee got half the votes Romney did, but didn't spend close to half the money Romney did. Its actually pretty damn impressive that Huckabee has the amount of support he does with so little money. If this buzz about Huckabee continues and he does well in the next debate, I could actually see Huckabee break into the front-tier and get some big donations. While I might not like his ideas or principals, I must say there is something refreshing about Huckabee, he does appear to be the most approachable guy on the Republican side. I might have wrote the governor off to soon, as I'm starting to see big things for Huckabee.
To Be or Not to Be?----like Bush?!?!
The 2008 Republican nominee will be forced to ask himself the question: "Do I run as another Bush or not?". Some may be quick to say "NO!", George Bush is regarded as the worst president in history and has 30% approval ratings, but don't be too quick to say no, its not as easy of a question as one may think.
President Bush still is favored and liked by 75-80% of all Republican voters. If the nominee distances himself from Bush, he risks alienating himself from his own party, and you cannot win an election without the support of your base. At the same time running a Bush-like campaign would almost certainly ruin the chances of the nominee gaining any significant independent support and virtually zero support from democrats. And as I've stated before, a presidential candidate has to have broad appeal to win an election. When it comes down to it, it will be a difficult choice for the nominee to make. We already see Fred Thompson, who has yet to officially enter the race, run a similar campaign that Bush ran in 2004. We see Mitt Romney trying to distance himself from Bush, yet at the same time complementing him. Mike Huckabee has tried to separate himself from Bush, saying that he is not a part of the "old republican party", an obvious reference to Bush. Then we have Guiliani who while rarely mentioning Bush's name, his foreign policy has been described as "Bush on steroids". Its a situation where the nominee is going to have to find a middle-ground, a way to appeal to the Bush lovers and the Bush haters, for the Republicans won't be able to win in '08 without the support from both those factions. It is the old case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't!"
President Bush still is favored and liked by 75-80% of all Republican voters. If the nominee distances himself from Bush, he risks alienating himself from his own party, and you cannot win an election without the support of your base. At the same time running a Bush-like campaign would almost certainly ruin the chances of the nominee gaining any significant independent support and virtually zero support from democrats. And as I've stated before, a presidential candidate has to have broad appeal to win an election. When it comes down to it, it will be a difficult choice for the nominee to make. We already see Fred Thompson, who has yet to officially enter the race, run a similar campaign that Bush ran in 2004. We see Mitt Romney trying to distance himself from Bush, yet at the same time complementing him. Mike Huckabee has tried to separate himself from Bush, saying that he is not a part of the "old republican party", an obvious reference to Bush. Then we have Guiliani who while rarely mentioning Bush's name, his foreign policy has been described as "Bush on steroids". Its a situation where the nominee is going to have to find a middle-ground, a way to appeal to the Bush lovers and the Bush haters, for the Republicans won't be able to win in '08 without the support from both those factions. It is the old case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't!"
Hillary Clinton--the downfall of the Democrats?
There appears to be talk going around the political world that Hillary Clinton, as the democrat's nominee in 2008, would lead the party to a sure defeat. Am I the only one who thinks not? Hillary Clinton's negatives are quickly and steadily dropping and her favorable ratings have soared since last year at this time. She is the only democrat who consistently defeats all of the Republicans in general election polls. Hillary Clinton is not as far-left as Edwards and Obama and appeals to more independents than the other Democratic candidates. She has proved to be the voice of reason and experience in the debates and her centrist views are most in line with main-stream America. As the Chairman of the DLC, Harold Ford, explained on this past Sunday's Meet the Press, the democrats will have to appeal to main-stream america, take the centrist path, in order to capture the White House. Crazy liberals just do not appeal to independent voters, and its those independents who make the difference in these type of elections. If anything I see Hillary Clinton as the democrat most likely to be able to win a general election. Just this past week new polls were released showing Clinton beating the Republican front-runner, Rudy Guiliani, in key states such as Florida and Pennsylvania. She currently is tied with Guiliani in Ohio, which is up from a few months ago when she was losing to him. And in a Texas state poll, Clinton ties with all the Republican front-runners, showing she even has appeal in red states. So while you have Obama, Edwards, and the others courting the far-left liberals, you have Hillary Clinton winning over main-stream America. In my mind, thats how the democrats will win in 2008, by broad appeal, in fact, that is the only way we will win.
More on Rove's Resignation
As announced this morning through the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove has resigned as President Bush's chief political strategist. His final day in the White House will be August 31. His reason for leaving? Spending time with his family. While the "spending more time with my family" has become some-what of a default resignation excuse for many officials, it can't really apply to Rove.
His kid is going off to college this year, shouldn't he have wanted to spend time with his family, before his kid went off? But then again, Karl Rove would rather make a mockery of this government than spend time with his family. He waited to leave until there was nothing left to screw up. Ok, in all seriousness, Rove probably knew that when Congress got back from vacation he was going to pounded harder than ever and just wanted to escape the scrutiny. Maybe he should have thought of that before he took part in Bush and Cheney's illegal doings: the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, the CIA leak case, the e-mail scandal, and who knows what else. With the new warning from Chief of Staff Bolten that whom ever does not resign by Labor Day will have to stay with the White House for the remainder of Bush's term, we may see some more members of the administration say good-bye to Mr. Bush.
His kid is going off to college this year, shouldn't he have wanted to spend time with his family, before his kid went off? But then again, Karl Rove would rather make a mockery of this government than spend time with his family. He waited to leave until there was nothing left to screw up. Ok, in all seriousness, Rove probably knew that when Congress got back from vacation he was going to pounded harder than ever and just wanted to escape the scrutiny. Maybe he should have thought of that before he took part in Bush and Cheney's illegal doings: the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, the CIA leak case, the e-mail scandal, and who knows what else. With the new warning from Chief of Staff Bolten that whom ever does not resign by Labor Day will have to stay with the White House for the remainder of Bush's term, we may see some more members of the administration say good-bye to Mr. Bush.
Another White House Official Resigns!!!
Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist, resigns and will be leaving the White House at the end of August. What else can I say except Alleluia. This guy is a crook and has done more harm to this country's integrity than we will ever know of. Not only has he been involved with the CIA leak, but also the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. All I can say is good rid-ins and hopefully Gonzo is next to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)