Rudy Guiliani is trying to appeal to republican primary voters by appearing to be more conservative. His latest attempt to that has him planning on releasing a detailed plan on how to stop illegal immigration. Guiliani has recently said, "I promise I will end illegal immigration!" This is quite the opposite opinion of illegal immigration than he had in 1994, when the mayor had this to say:
"Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens, if you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city. You’re somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair.”
All I can say is Rudy flip-flopped again. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but it always gets me: when a candidate knowingly goes against what they truly believe in, just to get votes. I don't care whether your democrat, republican, or anything else, its just wrong. If you have to be un-truthful to yourself, you shouldn't be running for president or any elected position for that matter.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Clinton strikes a nerve with Bush
Sen. Hillary Clinton just launched her first television ad this past week in Iowa. The ad's message is simple: President Bush doesn't care about working-class people, that they are "invisible" to him and when she(Hillary) is president, those people won't be invisible anymore. The ad promises that Hillary cares about the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and wants them home safely. She promises to provide everyone with healthcare, and promises to provide affordable education for children, so its no a financial burden on their parents and so everyone has the opportunity to earn a great education.
To most, Sen. Clinton addresses the key issues facing America today, but the White House clearly doesn't think so, responding with the following concise statement:
"I think it's(the ad) outrageous".
We could have done without that memo Mr. President. We know you think taking care of our troops is outrageous, we know you think that everyone having healthcare is outrageous, and we know that you think that every child getting a good education is outrageous.
In all seriousness, its ridiculous to see the Republicans jump on everything Hillary says, simply because her last name is Clinton. Any other presidential candidate could have released this ad and it would have gone by un-noticed. But the name Clinton has long been a fear of the GOP, and it seems that again they are trying to bury it. They weren't successful before and they won't be successful now.
To most, Sen. Clinton addresses the key issues facing America today, but the White House clearly doesn't think so, responding with the following concise statement:
"I think it's(the ad) outrageous".
We could have done without that memo Mr. President. We know you think taking care of our troops is outrageous, we know you think that everyone having healthcare is outrageous, and we know that you think that every child getting a good education is outrageous.
In all seriousness, its ridiculous to see the Republicans jump on everything Hillary says, simply because her last name is Clinton. Any other presidential candidate could have released this ad and it would have gone by un-noticed. But the name Clinton has long been a fear of the GOP, and it seems that again they are trying to bury it. They weren't successful before and they won't be successful now.
John Edwards risks losing the New Hampshire primary
John Edwards' campaign is putting all their money on the first-in-the-nation caucus, Iowa, even at the risk of losing New Hampshire. Edwards has spent more than twice as much effort in Iowa than in New Hampshire. And it could be with good reason, for Edwards' country personality has more appeal to Iowa voters than in New Hampshire. Also the populist message, which Edwards is currently running on, is much more appealing to Iowa residents than those in New Hampshire, as New Hampshire is one of the richer states in this country.
You must give John Edwards his credit though, he is polling very well in Iowa, in fact it is the only state in which he has been able to poll well against Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But Edwards may have to switch to a plan "B", as Clinton and Obama are rising in the polls in Iowa. In the most recent survey, Edwards leads the pack with 26%, down 8% from a few months ago. Clinton and Obama poll at 25% and 19% respectively. While we have seen candidates use a win in Iowa in the past to propel them through New Hampshire and beyond, Edwards needs to have at least some organization in New Hampshire. At the rate he is going right now, Edwards could win Iowa and still lose badly in New Hampshire. But at the same time, Edwards knows that Iowa is a must win situation for him. If he doesn't win in Iowa, he won't win anywhere else. The question for the Edwards campaign is how do they distribute their efforts. My personal suggestion would be 60% in Iowa, 40% in New Hampshire. But the bottom line is that Edwards must spend more time in New Hampshire and must get better organized there if he wants a possible Iowa win momentum to push him through. And let it be known that I called it back in August: If Edwards loses Iowa, he is out of the race; he has no chance of winning; and if Clinton wins Iowa, forget it, she's the nominee, hands down!
You must give John Edwards his credit though, he is polling very well in Iowa, in fact it is the only state in which he has been able to poll well against Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But Edwards may have to switch to a plan "B", as Clinton and Obama are rising in the polls in Iowa. In the most recent survey, Edwards leads the pack with 26%, down 8% from a few months ago. Clinton and Obama poll at 25% and 19% respectively. While we have seen candidates use a win in Iowa in the past to propel them through New Hampshire and beyond, Edwards needs to have at least some organization in New Hampshire. At the rate he is going right now, Edwards could win Iowa and still lose badly in New Hampshire. But at the same time, Edwards knows that Iowa is a must win situation for him. If he doesn't win in Iowa, he won't win anywhere else. The question for the Edwards campaign is how do they distribute their efforts. My personal suggestion would be 60% in Iowa, 40% in New Hampshire. But the bottom line is that Edwards must spend more time in New Hampshire and must get better organized there if he wants a possible Iowa win momentum to push him through. And let it be known that I called it back in August: If Edwards loses Iowa, he is out of the race; he has no chance of winning; and if Clinton wins Iowa, forget it, she's the nominee, hands down!
The most powerful people in Washington
GQ has a new list out, counting down the top 50 most powerful people in our Nation's capital. Here's who made the Top 10:
1. Condollezza Rice
2. Harry Reid
3. Robert Gates
4. Anthony Kennedy
5. Nancy Pelosi
6. Howard Kohr
7. David Addington
8. Hillary Clinton
9. Karl Rove
10. Mike Hayden
I certainly don't agree with this list if we're ranking these people based on power. Dick Cheney of all people probably has the most pull in washington. Nancy Pelosi, in my mind, is more respected and therefore is more powerful that Harry Reid. Hillary Clinton is not all that powerful within Washington D.C.. Karl Rove should be higher up on that list for sure, we know of the control he had over the president. But the oddest thing is that Condi is number one. I don't agree with that at all, she might be powerful, but certainly not the MOST powerful. Here is my list:
1. Dick Cheney
2. Karl Rove
3. Nancy Pelosi
5. George Bush
6. Harry Reid
7. Alberto Gonzalez
8. George Bush
9. Condi Rice
10. Patrick Leahy
Its sad when the Vice President and the President's political strategist are higher up on the list than the actual president. But I think we can all agree that Rove is Bush's brain and Dick is the presidents, well....I'll leave the body part up for you to decide.
To see all 50 on GQ's list, visit: http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5843&pageNum=1.
1. Condollezza Rice
2. Harry Reid
3. Robert Gates
4. Anthony Kennedy
5. Nancy Pelosi
6. Howard Kohr
7. David Addington
8. Hillary Clinton
9. Karl Rove
10. Mike Hayden
I certainly don't agree with this list if we're ranking these people based on power. Dick Cheney of all people probably has the most pull in washington. Nancy Pelosi, in my mind, is more respected and therefore is more powerful that Harry Reid. Hillary Clinton is not all that powerful within Washington D.C.. Karl Rove should be higher up on that list for sure, we know of the control he had over the president. But the oddest thing is that Condi is number one. I don't agree with that at all, she might be powerful, but certainly not the MOST powerful. Here is my list:
1. Dick Cheney
2. Karl Rove
3. Nancy Pelosi
5. George Bush
6. Harry Reid
7. Alberto Gonzalez
8. George Bush
9. Condi Rice
10. Patrick Leahy
Its sad when the Vice President and the President's political strategist are higher up on the list than the actual president. But I think we can all agree that Rove is Bush's brain and Dick is the presidents, well....I'll leave the body part up for you to decide.
To see all 50 on GQ's list, visit: http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5843&pageNum=1.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)