The Kennedy-Nixon debates, to this very day, still set the standards for Presidential debates. They were of substance and about the future of the country. It was at a time during the Cold War with Russia, and Russia was flexing its muscle at the time and there were many other pressing problems that the new President would face. The moderators' questions were about the future and what the candidates would do if elected President.
Divisive issues such as moral/family values, homosexuals, personal attacks, and patriotism were not part of the debates as it is today and for good reason. What mattered was how the new President would deal with the future. The debates were over 40 years ago but they were civil in nature. Compare that to the tough talk and bluster of today's debates.
Our moderators today talk more about the past voting record and statements of the candidates rather than their positions on the future that they will have to lead. Past statements or voting records of a candidate don't tell the whole story of what that candidates position would be if he is elected President. Why? Because as President he will have to represent all of the people and deal with foreign affairs and foreign leaders. As a member of Congress, a Mayor, or a Governor the candidate represented a city, state, or district and would not shoulder the responsibility that a President does.
Present moderators are in fact more interested in the show business part of television. They pick up self serving statements of some candidate and try to project that into the debates. Moderator Tim Russert in the Democratic debate of last week at Dartmouth was so interested in several candidates past votes, statements, and hypothetical questions that he failed the purpose of the debates, that is to inform the public of what the candidate would do if elected President.
Asking hypothetical questions does not bring reality to debates because it contains an escape avenue and the answer always bring more hype and questions from people in the news media who try to promote a story that is not really there.
When was the last time any one heard a moderator ask the candidates what they would do if elected President to balance the federal budget after the record federal deficits this administration has piled up on the nation and its people? Interest payments alone on the National Debt for fiscal year 2006 was over 400 billion dollars. Shouldn't that be a subject of interest in the debates?
I would recommend that debate moderators rerun the Kennedy-Nixon debate tapes for themselves so they can learn a thing or two. And if Jim Lehrer is one of the moderators in the final debates between the Republican and Democratic candidates in the general election, he should watch them over and over, again and again. Maybe he will get it right one day.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
The Leaders of North and South Korea Meet (a special editorial by John Lucia)
The Associated Press reported that the leaders of North and South Korea will meet in Pyongyang this week for only the second time ever. Roh Moo-hyun, South Korea's president pledged to foster peace on the divided peninsula. He said the DMZ was a line that has divided the nation for a half century and that the people have suffered too many hardships because of the "wall". He will meet with Kim Jong II, the leader of North Korea.
A divided country will always be a problem for their own people and their relationship with the world. One rich, one poor, both with a lack of trust in one another. Both adding military might to their side and each having allies looking out for their own good.
The best thing that could happen at their meeting is for both leaders to unite their torn country themselves, one country under one flag with one people, with no outside interference from any country. Once united, demand all foreign military troops, equipment and supplies leave their country. They could then join the world order as one united country for the benefit of all its people. A united Korea would stabilize the peninsula.
Remember North and South Vietnam were divided countries and that was a disaster for its people and they had a long history of foreign occupation and a never ending war with the United States. When Congress cut off funding for that war dire predictions were made for the country. However, the ending of that war united the country under one flag and the country was no longer divided. Today, Vietnam has a relationship with the United States, is a stabilizing force in the region, and is a threat to no one.
The leaders of North and South Korea have an opportunity to put the past behind them, unite their country and peoples and remove the threat of a possible future war of a divided country. If I were an American President I would encourage all world leaders to support the Korea's in their effort and I would pledge that the United States would support the Korean peoples' right to unite their own country themselves. I would also pledge to remove all american military forces, equipment, supplies and bases from Korean soil. The Korean war was ended over 54 years ago this July. Its is time the Korean leaders and their people officially end the war, close that chapter and celebrate the unification of their country.
A divided country will always be a problem for their own people and their relationship with the world. One rich, one poor, both with a lack of trust in one another. Both adding military might to their side and each having allies looking out for their own good.
The best thing that could happen at their meeting is for both leaders to unite their torn country themselves, one country under one flag with one people, with no outside interference from any country. Once united, demand all foreign military troops, equipment and supplies leave their country. They could then join the world order as one united country for the benefit of all its people. A united Korea would stabilize the peninsula.
Remember North and South Vietnam were divided countries and that was a disaster for its people and they had a long history of foreign occupation and a never ending war with the United States. When Congress cut off funding for that war dire predictions were made for the country. However, the ending of that war united the country under one flag and the country was no longer divided. Today, Vietnam has a relationship with the United States, is a stabilizing force in the region, and is a threat to no one.
The leaders of North and South Korea have an opportunity to put the past behind them, unite their country and peoples and remove the threat of a possible future war of a divided country. If I were an American President I would encourage all world leaders to support the Korea's in their effort and I would pledge that the United States would support the Korean peoples' right to unite their own country themselves. I would also pledge to remove all american military forces, equipment, supplies and bases from Korean soil. The Korean war was ended over 54 years ago this July. Its is time the Korean leaders and their people officially end the war, close that chapter and celebrate the unification of their country.
Holy S**t!
Wow, I was shocked when I got home today to find an email from the Hillary campaign, announcing that they have raised $27 million for the third quarter. While Hillary trailed Obama in money last quarter, she received $8 million more than he did this quarter. I must say I wasn't expecting them to raise this much money. While Hillary is leading in polls, there hadn't seemed to be the same type of support for her as Obama had. But I guess I was wrong. This sum of money reassures the fact that Hillary is the front-runner, not just for the Democratic Primaries, but for the Presidency as well.
When Presidents Lose Their Credibility (a special editorial by John Lucia)
President Bush still has the power of the veto and the power to keep the war going in Iraq because republicans in congress will rubber stamp his actions, but his decisions have become irrelevant and has lost all creditability with the American people.
The Democratic controlled Congress will pass the children's health insurance bill that is due to expire and will expand the program to cover more children at an additional cost of $35 billion. The cost will be paid for by an increase in tax on cigarette's. Mr. Bush said he will veto the bill because of the extra cost. This is the President who has not balanced one federal budget and in fact has given the people and country record federal deficit spending since being elected. The deficit for fiscal year 2004 was a record 400 plus billion dollars. He has already told the people he will not balance any budgets before leaving office. He might have the veto power, but he has no creditability.
Mr. Bush is asking congress for an additional $195 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan for the coming fiscal year, this is in addition to the 500 plus billion dollars already allocated for the wars. The debt Mr. Bush has piled on our nation with a war and occupation over WMD that did not exist shows the irrelevance of his powers. And now he says he will veto the children health insurance program that congress will pass.
For over a year now the President's job approval rating stands at less than 30%. The American people understand that Mr. Bush still has power, but that his actions have become irrelevant. The people just don't believe him despite his powers. When Mr. Bush leaves office the nation will have gone through 8 years of the most irresponsible fiscal policies in our history. Alan Greenspan can attest to that but like the Republicans in this administration he just went with the flow.
The Democratic controlled Congress will pass the children's health insurance bill that is due to expire and will expand the program to cover more children at an additional cost of $35 billion. The cost will be paid for by an increase in tax on cigarette's. Mr. Bush said he will veto the bill because of the extra cost. This is the President who has not balanced one federal budget and in fact has given the people and country record federal deficit spending since being elected. The deficit for fiscal year 2004 was a record 400 plus billion dollars. He has already told the people he will not balance any budgets before leaving office. He might have the veto power, but he has no creditability.
Mr. Bush is asking congress for an additional $195 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan for the coming fiscal year, this is in addition to the 500 plus billion dollars already allocated for the wars. The debt Mr. Bush has piled on our nation with a war and occupation over WMD that did not exist shows the irrelevance of his powers. And now he says he will veto the children health insurance program that congress will pass.
For over a year now the President's job approval rating stands at less than 30%. The American people understand that Mr. Bush still has power, but that his actions have become irrelevant. The people just don't believe him despite his powers. When Mr. Bush leaves office the nation will have gone through 8 years of the most irresponsible fiscal policies in our history. Alan Greenspan can attest to that but like the Republicans in this administration he just went with the flow.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Yup, Guiliani's at it again
Well it had seemed as if Mayor Rudy Guiliani stopped using 9/11 to justify everything, but now he's back at it. When asked about why he took a call from his wife while in the middle of giving a speech to the NRA, Guiliani had this to say:
"Quite honestly, since Sept. 11, most of the time when we get on a plane, we talk to each other and just reaffirm the fact that we love each other. Sometimes if I'm in the middle of a very, very sensitive meeting, I don't take the call right then. I wait. But I thought it would be kind of nice if I took it at that point."
Wow, not only is it rude to take a phone call during a speech (this was the 3rd time he did it), but its even more rude use 9/11 to justify it. Everything this guy does some way or another comes back to 9/11. I ask Republicans, when are you going to tell this guy enough? Why are you still allowing him to get away with exploiting 9/11?
"Quite honestly, since Sept. 11, most of the time when we get on a plane, we talk to each other and just reaffirm the fact that we love each other. Sometimes if I'm in the middle of a very, very sensitive meeting, I don't take the call right then. I wait. But I thought it would be kind of nice if I took it at that point."
Wow, not only is it rude to take a phone call during a speech (this was the 3rd time he did it), but its even more rude use 9/11 to justify it. Everything this guy does some way or another comes back to 9/11. I ask Republicans, when are you going to tell this guy enough? Why are you still allowing him to get away with exploiting 9/11?
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Lighting the Match to War in the Middle East (a special editorial by John Lucia)
President Bust speaks often about the proliferation of weapons in the world and condemns other nations who engage in such acts. We now know his talk does not match his actions. On September 11, before the Senate Armed Service Committee, General Petraeus announced the United States could sell up to over $3 billion of arms to Iraq, the country once described as an ammo dump. This sale announcement comes only after a few weeks when the President said the U.S. will be selling billions of dollars in arms to Israel and Saudi Arabia. The Middle East is already a powder keg, now Mr. Bush wants to light the match. Is it any wonder the U.S. has lost its creditability under this President?
Bush ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist. Now he wants to make up for that and arm them. Lets not forget, it was the U.S. under previous republican administration who sold arms to Iraq and gave them intelligence during their war with Iran. A war that was started by Iraq. It was a time when Iraq used chemical weapons on Iran and our government knew about it. So is it really surprising Iran and other countries look to the Soviet Union and others to build up their own arsenals?
The reckless actions of Mr. Bush to arm the Middle East has to be reversed by congress. We have a president gone mad. Congress can't let him destroy what America stands for. Mr. Bush has already tried to play God in Iraq and failed. Unfortunately innocent Iraqis and our men and women in uniform have paid the ultimate price for his mistake. Now he is trying to play God again. Every member of congress has to step up and say no loud and clear.
Bush ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist. Now he wants to make up for that and arm them. Lets not forget, it was the U.S. under previous republican administration who sold arms to Iraq and gave them intelligence during their war with Iran. A war that was started by Iraq. It was a time when Iraq used chemical weapons on Iran and our government knew about it. So is it really surprising Iran and other countries look to the Soviet Union and others to build up their own arsenals?
The reckless actions of Mr. Bush to arm the Middle East has to be reversed by congress. We have a president gone mad. Congress can't let him destroy what America stands for. Mr. Bush has already tried to play God in Iraq and failed. Unfortunately innocent Iraqis and our men and women in uniform have paid the ultimate price for his mistake. Now he is trying to play God again. Every member of congress has to step up and say no loud and clear.
This is it....the final quarter---my early predictions for the nominees
I think it just hit me today, this is the last day of the 3rd quarter for 2007. That means that we are essentially a little over 3 months away from the Iowa Caucus...and then New Hampshire....and South Carolina....and so on. This is the time when people really start paying attention and when candidates really get serious. Now, unlike the summer, there is absolutely no room for mistakes or slip-ups. With only a few more months to go, let me give you my predictions for what will happen in the January caucuses and primaries and the rest of the nomination process.
I'll start with the Democrats. Iowa will be the true battle-ground state, as Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are virtually tied in polls and have been for quite some time. If Clinton can win here, it's all over. She has a 20 point lead in New Hampshire and its growing. She is also polling ahead in South Carolina and Florida. Even if Edwards was to win Iowa, I don't believe he could get the nomination. He wouldn't have enough money to compete with Hillary in New Hampshire and the other states. On the other hand, if Obama wins Iowa, Hillary would face some serious problems. He is the only candidate who could match her money-wise and he could essentially use the momentum from Iowa to catapult himself through New Hampshire and so on. So my recommendation for Hillary is to do everything humanly possible to win Iowa, or at least make sure Obama doesn't win. An Obama win wouldn't necessarily end her chances, but he would make her fight for the nomination, and I'm sure thats something the Hillary campaign wouldn't like. So my prediction for the democratic nomination right now is Hillary, but as Obama continues to gain in Iowa, he might be able to make me change my prediction.
Now onto the Republican candidates. First of all I will start by saying that the Fred Thompson excitement is gone. I will guarantee that Fred will not be the nominee. I'll also confidently say that I don't think John McCain will be the nominee either. It boils down to Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani. Romney looks like a sure thing when it comes to winning the Iowa caucus. He is polling ahead in New Hampshire, but his lead there has shrunk dramatically and Rudy is gaining. If Romney can win both Iowa and New Hampshire then I see him being the nominee. However, if Rudy can win New Hampshire, or at least keep Romney from winning, then the race is wide open. Guiliani is stronger than Romney in South Carolina and Florida. They only way Romney could win those states would be to use the momentum from two huge wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, much like John Kerry in '04. So for my pick for the GOP, I'm going to go with Guiliani, but don't, by any means, count Romney out of this race. He could still very much win the GOP nomination.
And for my prediction for the general----I see a Democrat winning and I think Hillary has the best chance of any Democrat to do so. If Romney is the GOP nominee I see him being easily defeated in a general election. Guiliani would be a much stronger candidate and could potentially lead to a GOP upset in '08, although I am very skeptical it will happen.
I'll start with the Democrats. Iowa will be the true battle-ground state, as Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are virtually tied in polls and have been for quite some time. If Clinton can win here, it's all over. She has a 20 point lead in New Hampshire and its growing. She is also polling ahead in South Carolina and Florida. Even if Edwards was to win Iowa, I don't believe he could get the nomination. He wouldn't have enough money to compete with Hillary in New Hampshire and the other states. On the other hand, if Obama wins Iowa, Hillary would face some serious problems. He is the only candidate who could match her money-wise and he could essentially use the momentum from Iowa to catapult himself through New Hampshire and so on. So my recommendation for Hillary is to do everything humanly possible to win Iowa, or at least make sure Obama doesn't win. An Obama win wouldn't necessarily end her chances, but he would make her fight for the nomination, and I'm sure thats something the Hillary campaign wouldn't like. So my prediction for the democratic nomination right now is Hillary, but as Obama continues to gain in Iowa, he might be able to make me change my prediction.
Now onto the Republican candidates. First of all I will start by saying that the Fred Thompson excitement is gone. I will guarantee that Fred will not be the nominee. I'll also confidently say that I don't think John McCain will be the nominee either. It boils down to Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani. Romney looks like a sure thing when it comes to winning the Iowa caucus. He is polling ahead in New Hampshire, but his lead there has shrunk dramatically and Rudy is gaining. If Romney can win both Iowa and New Hampshire then I see him being the nominee. However, if Rudy can win New Hampshire, or at least keep Romney from winning, then the race is wide open. Guiliani is stronger than Romney in South Carolina and Florida. They only way Romney could win those states would be to use the momentum from two huge wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, much like John Kerry in '04. So for my pick for the GOP, I'm going to go with Guiliani, but don't, by any means, count Romney out of this race. He could still very much win the GOP nomination.
And for my prediction for the general----I see a Democrat winning and I think Hillary has the best chance of any Democrat to do so. If Romney is the GOP nominee I see him being easily defeated in a general election. Guiliani would be a much stronger candidate and could potentially lead to a GOP upset in '08, although I am very skeptical it will happen.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Ron Paul---He chooses to be an American Above All ( a special editorial by John Lucia)
Representative Ron Paul, a Republican Candidate for President has been described as a Conservative, a Constitutionalist, and a Libertarian but most importantly he is an American first, which is the way it should be. His republican opponents are just the opposite. Mr. Paul continues to be the voice of reason on Iraq for the republican party and his position and comments on Iraq receive more applause from the audience than the other candidates.
Mr. Paul understands this war was a war of choice over WMD that did not exist and was not a necessary war that affected our national security. His opponents have no answers to his position on the war except the same worn out status quo and are unable to articulate how a war over WMD that did not exist turn into a civil war with our troops in the middle. They have also hinted the war may last 10 years.
Now Mr. Paul's opponents are openly talking about attacking Iran and starting a war there. He rightly points out that Iran has not attacked or occupied any other country and a U.S. attack would be at odds with our stated principals as a nation and would also constitute illegal action by our country. Can anyone remember a time in our recent History where so many republicans try to talk tough and are so willing to commit our nation and men and women in uniform to war so casually?
I hope Mr. Paul keeps speaking his mind and that he stays an American first. Our constitution backs his position on war. The republican party needs a sound person like Mr. Paul who puts his country and its people first. Its no accident that Mr. Paul has won most of the republican debates as shown by the online and text-in votes of ordinary people.
Mr. Paul understands this war was a war of choice over WMD that did not exist and was not a necessary war that affected our national security. His opponents have no answers to his position on the war except the same worn out status quo and are unable to articulate how a war over WMD that did not exist turn into a civil war with our troops in the middle. They have also hinted the war may last 10 years.
Now Mr. Paul's opponents are openly talking about attacking Iran and starting a war there. He rightly points out that Iran has not attacked or occupied any other country and a U.S. attack would be at odds with our stated principals as a nation and would also constitute illegal action by our country. Can anyone remember a time in our recent History where so many republicans try to talk tough and are so willing to commit our nation and men and women in uniform to war so casually?
I hope Mr. Paul keeps speaking his mind and that he stays an American first. Our constitution backs his position on war. The republican party needs a sound person like Mr. Paul who puts his country and its people first. Its no accident that Mr. Paul has won most of the republican debates as shown by the online and text-in votes of ordinary people.
Friday, September 28, 2007
The Latest 2008 General Election Poll
Fox News and Dynamics have just come out with a new poll concerning the 2008 general election for president. And conservatives might want to take note that their attacks on Hillary are not working. They are making her stronger. Take a look:
3 Way Race:
-Rudy Guiliani(R): 32%-----down 5% from 3 months ago
-Hillary Clinton(D): 42%----up 3% from 3 months ago
-Mike Bloomberg(I): 7%----same as 3 months ago
2 Way Races:
-Rudy Guiliani(R): 39%----down 6% from 3 months ago
-Hillary Clinton(D): 46%---up 4% from 3 months ago
-Fred Thompson(R): 35%--down 3% from 2 months ago
-Hillary Clinton(D): 48%---up 1% from 2 months ago
-John McCain(R): 39%----down 4% from 3 months ago
-Hillary Clinton(D): 46%---up 3% from 3 months ago
-Rudy Guiliani(R): 40%----down 1% from 2 months ago
-Barack Obama(D): 41%---down 4% from 2 months ago
-John McCain(R): 38%-----up 1% from 2 months ago
-Barack Obama(D): 40%---down 7% from 2 months ago
These polls show a clear distinction---in a general election, despite what some in the media say, Hillary is a much, much stronger candidate than Barack Obama. This has to be attributed to her experience and her foreign policy credentials. A lot of people will say poll numbers this early mean nothing, but I must say, they are dead wrong. More Americans are following this election closer than any previous election in history. Polls show as much as 40% of the country have already made a decision on who they're voting for. These polls show a clear trend---Hillary gains, Republicans fall while Obama falls and Republicans rise.
3 Way Race:
-Rudy Guiliani(R): 32%-----down 5% from 3 months ago
-Hillary Clinton(D): 42%----up 3% from 3 months ago
-Mike Bloomberg(I): 7%----same as 3 months ago
2 Way Races:
-Rudy Guiliani(R): 39%----down 6% from 3 months ago
-Hillary Clinton(D): 46%---up 4% from 3 months ago
-Fred Thompson(R): 35%--down 3% from 2 months ago
-Hillary Clinton(D): 48%---up 1% from 2 months ago
-John McCain(R): 39%----down 4% from 3 months ago
-Hillary Clinton(D): 46%---up 3% from 3 months ago
-Rudy Guiliani(R): 40%----down 1% from 2 months ago
-Barack Obama(D): 41%---down 4% from 2 months ago
-John McCain(R): 38%-----up 1% from 2 months ago
-Barack Obama(D): 40%---down 7% from 2 months ago
These polls show a clear distinction---in a general election, despite what some in the media say, Hillary is a much, much stronger candidate than Barack Obama. This has to be attributed to her experience and her foreign policy credentials. A lot of people will say poll numbers this early mean nothing, but I must say, they are dead wrong. More Americans are following this election closer than any previous election in history. Polls show as much as 40% of the country have already made a decision on who they're voting for. These polls show a clear trend---Hillary gains, Republicans fall while Obama falls and Republicans rise.
What Part of Our Past Will the Future Reflect? (a special editorial by John Lucia)
Recorded History tells us our future is shaped by our past. In 14 months the people will elect a new President to lead us into that future. Do we want to maintain the arrogant status quo of the Bush administration and his reckless decisions and policies or will we the people cast our votes for a candidate who understands the challenges ahead and the mistakes of the past 8 years.
President Bush paid no attention to the success of our past leaders who guided our country with wisdom, character and moral authority. Instead, he misled the people over and over concerning the war in Iraq, the war on terror and our national security.
Do we want our next President to try to talk tough and keep our country in a perpetual war with the world or will we elect a President who will change course, change policies, work with our allies, and offer hope to our country and the world. The next President will have to balance our military commitments with our many domestic commitments. He will have to balance the federal budget and reverse the 8 years of record federal budget deficits that Bush will have accumulated when he leaves office.
Our new leader will have to be about our future and making progress that really advances our country and its people. He will have to restore value in our foreign policies and return confidence in our governments business and restore the checks and balances that our founders fought for.
The voting public has a responsibility to cast their votes for the candidate whose policy will advance the lives of our children and grandchildren and adhere to those principals that made our country great. The voter will have to look beyond the show business of journalism, especially television journalists who do their best to influence the vote. Some of them flat-out lie.
Every voter can make up his or her own mind by giving each candidate a good honest look. Let the candidates positions determine our vote. Voters are mature enough to sift through all the charges and counter charges that will be presented; they don't need the media telling them who to vote for.
The 2008 election is about our future. Let the past define what the U.S. is about and guide our vote and future. Our generations who vote in 2008 will take charge of our future. Will it be a vote to learn from our past mistakes and return our country to the progressive ideals that our founding fathers revealed in our constitution? Like the past the future is in our hands, lets take advantage of it in November 2008.
President Bush paid no attention to the success of our past leaders who guided our country with wisdom, character and moral authority. Instead, he misled the people over and over concerning the war in Iraq, the war on terror and our national security.
Do we want our next President to try to talk tough and keep our country in a perpetual war with the world or will we elect a President who will change course, change policies, work with our allies, and offer hope to our country and the world. The next President will have to balance our military commitments with our many domestic commitments. He will have to balance the federal budget and reverse the 8 years of record federal budget deficits that Bush will have accumulated when he leaves office.
Our new leader will have to be about our future and making progress that really advances our country and its people. He will have to restore value in our foreign policies and return confidence in our governments business and restore the checks and balances that our founders fought for.
The voting public has a responsibility to cast their votes for the candidate whose policy will advance the lives of our children and grandchildren and adhere to those principals that made our country great. The voter will have to look beyond the show business of journalism, especially television journalists who do their best to influence the vote. Some of them flat-out lie.
Every voter can make up his or her own mind by giving each candidate a good honest look. Let the candidates positions determine our vote. Voters are mature enough to sift through all the charges and counter charges that will be presented; they don't need the media telling them who to vote for.
The 2008 election is about our future. Let the past define what the U.S. is about and guide our vote and future. Our generations who vote in 2008 will take charge of our future. Will it be a vote to learn from our past mistakes and return our country to the progressive ideals that our founding fathers revealed in our constitution? Like the past the future is in our hands, lets take advantage of it in November 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)