CNN and YouTube were all ready to host their second interactive format debate, this time to the Republican candidates, when the debate was indefinitely postponed due to the fact that only John McCain and Ron Paul committed to it. The reason given by the other 7 candidates(at that time) was that there were scheduling conflicts. What a pitiful excuse. If you ask me, it was just the Republicans trying to dodge answering questions asked by real people. Maybe they were scared they would be put on the spot, and indeed they probably would have been. But these user-generated questions via YouTube was what made the Democratic debate so interesting. It was good to see real people ask real questions that affect their individual lives, rather than a moderator asking the same old pre-determined questions. Putting the candidates on the spot, with the candidates having no way to prepare, allowed you to truly see what the candidates were thinking.
So what did CNN do to get the GOP candidates to join in? They moved the debate to November 28, outsmarting the candidates. Surely there couldn't be scheduling conflicts two months later from their original "scheduling conflict". So with no excuse to give, all the Republicans have agreed to the debate, except one. Governor Mitt Romney has yet to commit and criticizes the debate format. In an interview, Romney said, "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman."(referring to a question on global warming posed by a man talking through a snowman). Wake up Mitt, it wasn't an actual snowman asking the question, it was a real person with a good, intelligent question. The snowman was there for entertainment, you know Mitt, to actually have a little fun. But fuddy-duddy, party-pooper, Mitt Romney must not like having fun, or answering questions. The questions may be presented in an entertaining way, in an attempt to appeal to younger voters, but they are serious questions that anyone, who wants to be president, should be willing and able to answer.
I encourage everyone to submit a video question via YouTube for the debate on Nov. 28.
To submit your question to the candidates, go to: http://www.youtube.com/debates.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Hastert to retire
Well it appears another republican is about to bite the dust. Former Speaker of the House and Illinois congressman, Dennis Hastert, is expected to announce his retirement from Congress this weekend at a press conference. While this may not seem like anything significant, its another congressional seat that the democrats are going to be looking to grab in '08 and another district where the republicans will have to be on the defense instead of on the offensive.
I'll be back with a blog post this weekend on his press conference and what it means for the GOP.
I'll be back with a blog post this weekend on his press conference and what it means for the GOP.
New study shows Clinton appealing to Democrats more and more
In research conducted by CNN, Democrats say that Hillary Clinton is the most experienced with 59%, followed by John Edwards at 11%, and Barack Obama with 9%. When asked who the strongest leader was, Democrats again chose Clinton with 47%, with her rivals Obama and Edwards, scoring 22% and 13% respectively. Clinton also polled ahead, with 46%, when Democrats were asked who is most qualified to be commander-in-chief. Obama followed with 15% and Edwards with 13%. When Democrats were asked who is the candidate for change, 40% said Clinton, 27% said Obama, and Edwards came in third with 13%. When asked who is the most honest candidate, Clinton came out again the winner with 28%, followed closely by Obama at 24%, and Edwards with 19%. When asked who is the best choice to defeat a Republican and lead the Democrats to a victory in '08, Clinton won by a landslide 55%, way ahead of the 19% for Obama and the 12% Edwards received. She also scored the highest when democrats were asked whether Clinton could beat the GOP, 72% say she definitely can, while only 57% feel the same about Obama.
Clinton is indeed in a very good place right now. With her support on a consistent rise, it may only be a short time before some of the other contenders must drop out of the race. The most interesting finding of the poll is that democrats feel Hillary is the candidate of change over Obama, who has been running as the change candidate. Obama has spent so much time casting himself as the candidate of change, one would have to have expected Obama would win that category. The fact that he didn't demonstrates something I've touched on before: you have to be change itself, not just talk about change. Actions speak louder than words, and at this point, it seems Obama's rhetoric can only take him so far.
Clinton is indeed in a very good place right now. With her support on a consistent rise, it may only be a short time before some of the other contenders must drop out of the race. The most interesting finding of the poll is that democrats feel Hillary is the candidate of change over Obama, who has been running as the change candidate. Obama has spent so much time casting himself as the candidate of change, one would have to have expected Obama would win that category. The fact that he didn't demonstrates something I've touched on before: you have to be change itself, not just talk about change. Actions speak louder than words, and at this point, it seems Obama's rhetoric can only take him so far.
Karl Rove: The GOP's past or future?
As we all know by now, President Bush's long time friend, Karl Rove, resigned yesterday as Mr. Bush's chief political strategist. This has fueled much speculation as to what is next for "Bush's brain". We know two things for sure, that Rove intends to spend more time with his family in Texas and plans on writing a book on the Bush years(can hardly wait for that one). But I would be willing to bet on one thing, Karl Rove won't stay out of politics for long, this is how I see it:
Rove will wait until March or April until the GOP's eventual nominee is clear. And just like he did with Mr. Bush, Rove will advise this candidate, because Rove truly does see himself as the brain of the Republican party. And to be quite honest, the Republican party sees Rove as their brain too. Any of the GOP candidates would love to have Rove as their strategist. The question is, is Karl Rove the Republican's future, is he their Messiah who can guide them to an upset victory in 2008? Some might argue yes, but I argue no. Karl Rove is the past of the Republican Party. He brought Texas to a strong Republican state, in the process of Bush becoming governor. He led the Congress to be controlled by Republicans until recently. Rove represents everything the public dislikes about the Republican Party. The American people made their voices heard in the 2006 Congressional elections, they were tired of the "old" Republican Party. They wanted fresh faces: free of corruption, scandal, controversy, and lies. You would have thought that the message would have gotten to some Republicans, but it has yet to. All the 2008 GOP President hopefuls, with the exception of Ron Paul, are running on principles that the American people already have turned down. Karl Rove used fear to help the GOP retain Congress for some many years and for Bush to win in '04. His advise to the Republican Party was simple: scare the America people into thinking that the Republicans are the only ones who can be trusted on national security and fighting terrorism. It did work for a number of years, then the American people realized that the President, with the advise of Rove no doubt, lied to Congress and them(the American people) to go to war with Iraq. Lied about al-Qaeda there, lied about Saddam's involvement with 9/11, and lied about the WMDs. Its a great liability for a Republican candidate to seek the advise of Rove. Rove's advise worked in the past, but times change, and so the ideas have to change too. Rove's advise would make a carbon-copy of Bush in the Republican nominee. And that could be the most dangerous thing Karl Rove has done yet to the Republican Party. Rove's strategies worked in the past; once the GOP realizes that they have to look to the future, not the past, they may start regaining popularity. Looking to the future, that is, being progressive, is what is making the democrats appeal more and more to main-stream America.
Rove will wait until March or April until the GOP's eventual nominee is clear. And just like he did with Mr. Bush, Rove will advise this candidate, because Rove truly does see himself as the brain of the Republican party. And to be quite honest, the Republican party sees Rove as their brain too. Any of the GOP candidates would love to have Rove as their strategist. The question is, is Karl Rove the Republican's future, is he their Messiah who can guide them to an upset victory in 2008? Some might argue yes, but I argue no. Karl Rove is the past of the Republican Party. He brought Texas to a strong Republican state, in the process of Bush becoming governor. He led the Congress to be controlled by Republicans until recently. Rove represents everything the public dislikes about the Republican Party. The American people made their voices heard in the 2006 Congressional elections, they were tired of the "old" Republican Party. They wanted fresh faces: free of corruption, scandal, controversy, and lies. You would have thought that the message would have gotten to some Republicans, but it has yet to. All the 2008 GOP President hopefuls, with the exception of Ron Paul, are running on principles that the American people already have turned down. Karl Rove used fear to help the GOP retain Congress for some many years and for Bush to win in '04. His advise to the Republican Party was simple: scare the America people into thinking that the Republicans are the only ones who can be trusted on national security and fighting terrorism. It did work for a number of years, then the American people realized that the President, with the advise of Rove no doubt, lied to Congress and them(the American people) to go to war with Iraq. Lied about al-Qaeda there, lied about Saddam's involvement with 9/11, and lied about the WMDs. Its a great liability for a Republican candidate to seek the advise of Rove. Rove's advise worked in the past, but times change, and so the ideas have to change too. Rove's advise would make a carbon-copy of Bush in the Republican nominee. And that could be the most dangerous thing Karl Rove has done yet to the Republican Party. Rove's strategies worked in the past; once the GOP realizes that they have to look to the future, not the past, they may start regaining popularity. Looking to the future, that is, being progressive, is what is making the democrats appeal more and more to main-stream America.
Biden on Obama
Joseph Biden, of whom I have a great deal of respect, opened up in the most recent edition of Newsweek. He answered some tough questions about his past personal struggles; no doubt this guy is a fighter. But the most interesting part of the Newsweek interview came when the Delaware Senator was asked about Illinois Senator and fellow presidential candidate, Barack Obama. Biden was asked if he saw a similarity between his 1988 bid for the White House, and Obama's campaign today:
"There are definitely similarities. One thing is, I’m waging the same campaign today, but it’s a lot harder to wage it when you are over 60 than when you are in your mid-40s. You are granted, when you’re young, an enthusiasm. You’re granted a sense of idealism, but you are also perceived as not being quite ready. And he suffers from that perception, as I did. I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. It’s awful hard, with only a little bit of experience to have a clear sense of what you would do on the most critical issues facing us today: what to do about promoting America’s place in the world. It is not something that lends itself to—the trite phrase is—it’s not something that lends itself to on-the-job training. You have to have a clear notion of what you want to do. When power is handed off from George Bush to the next president, the next president will be left with virtually no margin for error."
I do wish Biden would get more media coverage as this guy is one of the best candidates in the race. I hate to pick on Obama twice in one day, trust me it wasn't purposeful, but Biden is absolutely correct. People are for some reason willing to make an even exchange: experience for change. People see Obama as the change candidate and throw his lack of experience out the window. But why can't change and experience co-exist? I think we can all agree any democratic president would be a drastic change from the Bush-Cheney dynasty. With only two years in the Congress, is Obama ready? This guy has a lot left to learn, but I do believe that Obama, one day, will be the first African-American President. I just hope it happens when he is ready to take on the responsibility of being president. And it takes a lot more than just two years in the Senate to be ready for a job as big as being the President of the United States.
"There are definitely similarities. One thing is, I’m waging the same campaign today, but it’s a lot harder to wage it when you are over 60 than when you are in your mid-40s. You are granted, when you’re young, an enthusiasm. You’re granted a sense of idealism, but you are also perceived as not being quite ready. And he suffers from that perception, as I did. I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. It’s awful hard, with only a little bit of experience to have a clear sense of what you would do on the most critical issues facing us today: what to do about promoting America’s place in the world. It is not something that lends itself to—the trite phrase is—it’s not something that lends itself to on-the-job training. You have to have a clear notion of what you want to do. When power is handed off from George Bush to the next president, the next president will be left with virtually no margin for error."
I do wish Biden would get more media coverage as this guy is one of the best candidates in the race. I hate to pick on Obama twice in one day, trust me it wasn't purposeful, but Biden is absolutely correct. People are for some reason willing to make an even exchange: experience for change. People see Obama as the change candidate and throw his lack of experience out the window. But why can't change and experience co-exist? I think we can all agree any democratic president would be a drastic change from the Bush-Cheney dynasty. With only two years in the Congress, is Obama ready? This guy has a lot left to learn, but I do believe that Obama, one day, will be the first African-American President. I just hope it happens when he is ready to take on the responsibility of being president. And it takes a lot more than just two years in the Senate to be ready for a job as big as being the President of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)