Today was the deadline to withdraw your name from Michigan's Jan. 15 Presidential Primary and thats exactly what some candidates did. Every Democrat except for Clinton and Dodd will not be competing in the Michigan Primary, something that could turn out to be a huge mistake.
Apparently, because Michigan moved it primary up when the DNC didn't want them to, some candidates want to "punish" Michigan. Well I got news for the candidates, they could be punishing themselves.
Michigan falls just one day behind Iowa and has more than double the amount of delegates Iowa has. It certainly isn't as important as winning Iowa, but it could be extremely important for some candidates. For example, if Obama wins Iowa, he will not doubt get a boost of momentum, but by ceding Michigan to Hillary, she would basically cut off his momentum just one day after he gained it. Obama needed to ride out of Iowa with an upset victory and go on to win New Hampshire. But Clinton will undoubtedly stop, at least some of, Obama's momentum if he was to win Iowa. It was a huge mistake for some to skip Michigan and it could now be the deciding factor in this election.
If Florida doesn't begin to comply with DNC requests to move their primary back, will Obama and the others skip Florida as well? If they do, I will be ready to call the primary for Hillary Clinton. Whoever wins Florida will win the primary, Obama and the others can certainly not afford to skip it. With skipping Michigan, the candidates could be setting a precedent that they don't want to have to live up to.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
10/9 GOP Debate Review
Today, CNBC and MSNBC hosted yet another GOP Presidential Debate. If there was any one story coming out of this debate, it was Fred Thompson's debate debut. Also interesting to note was a heated exchange between Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani. So how did the candidates stack up? Here's my review:
First I'll start with Sen. Thompson. I know many of you disagreed with me when I said Thompson has no chance of winning the nomination, much less the general election. Well for all those who disagreed with me, just go watch this debate and you'll see why I said that. He lacks style. At times he mumbles, at other times he takes long, awkward, pauses, and other times he just completely fails to articulate a clear, understandable sentence. Thompson isn't just a bad debater/speaker, he's horrible at it. If anything, debates are supposed to make a candidate look strong, but for Fred, mark my words, it will unravel some of the support he has.
As I stated earlier, Romney and Guiliani had an interesting little exchange over taxes. Now while I do hate to defend Romney, I'm going to have to do it. Some of the claims Guiliani made against Romney were, from my knowledge, completely false. I love watching two candidates go at it, but I hate when one candidate makes false claims against another, whether I agree with that person or not. Thats exactly what Guiliani did with the issue of Romney and taxes. Whether Guiliani would like to admit it or not, everything I know suggests that Romney was a much stricter fiscal conservative than Guiliani ever was.
If I had to rank the GOP candidates based on style, content, and overall ability to debate, here is how I would rank them:
1. Mitt Romney----had a strong showing
2. John McCain----although a little uneasy at times, he stayed calm and collective and made some good points
3. Ron Paul-------if it wasn't for him getting a little uneasy at times, he would be #1 as I agree with a lot of his ideas
4. Mike Huckabee--he is by far the most charismatic and most well-spoken GOP candidate and he demonstrated that again tonight.
5. Rudy Guiliani----he had his facts messed up and failed to answer most of the questions
6-8: Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo: I group these men together because they all failed to leave me with an impression.
9. Fred Thompson--for all the reasons mentioned above; an absolutely horrible showing
First I'll start with Sen. Thompson. I know many of you disagreed with me when I said Thompson has no chance of winning the nomination, much less the general election. Well for all those who disagreed with me, just go watch this debate and you'll see why I said that. He lacks style. At times he mumbles, at other times he takes long, awkward, pauses, and other times he just completely fails to articulate a clear, understandable sentence. Thompson isn't just a bad debater/speaker, he's horrible at it. If anything, debates are supposed to make a candidate look strong, but for Fred, mark my words, it will unravel some of the support he has.
As I stated earlier, Romney and Guiliani had an interesting little exchange over taxes. Now while I do hate to defend Romney, I'm going to have to do it. Some of the claims Guiliani made against Romney were, from my knowledge, completely false. I love watching two candidates go at it, but I hate when one candidate makes false claims against another, whether I agree with that person or not. Thats exactly what Guiliani did with the issue of Romney and taxes. Whether Guiliani would like to admit it or not, everything I know suggests that Romney was a much stricter fiscal conservative than Guiliani ever was.
If I had to rank the GOP candidates based on style, content, and overall ability to debate, here is how I would rank them:
1. Mitt Romney----had a strong showing
2. John McCain----although a little uneasy at times, he stayed calm and collective and made some good points
3. Ron Paul-------if it wasn't for him getting a little uneasy at times, he would be #1 as I agree with a lot of his ideas
4. Mike Huckabee--he is by far the most charismatic and most well-spoken GOP candidate and he demonstrated that again tonight.
5. Rudy Guiliani----he had his facts messed up and failed to answer most of the questions
6-8: Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo: I group these men together because they all failed to leave me with an impression.
9. Fred Thompson--for all the reasons mentioned above; an absolutely horrible showing
Monday, October 8, 2007
Does Obama think of himself as a Messiah?
Democratic Presidential candidate, Barack Obama, spoke in South Carolina and had some rather odd comments to make. He, at one point, told the crowd that he will be an "instrument of God" and that people should pray for him. He finished his speech by saying:
"We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."
Why the hell would any candidate use that type of language? I mean "instrument of God" and "Kingdom" are not exactly phrases that should be used in politics. It strikes me as completely out of the blue and completely out of place.
Now I'm certainly not saying that candidates shouldn't be able to express their faith, but I think most people can agree calling yourself an "instrument of God" is a little extreme, not to mention a little self serving. I, for one, would like to ask Obama how exactly is he going to create a "Kingdom" right here on Earth. No offense to Obama, but he's not exactly a Messiah. I do not want us Democrats to fall into the Republican mold of using our faith to gain votes. Faith should be something personal, that is unique to every person, and that is, for the most part, not overused in politics. Talking about your faith with voters is absolutely fine and necessary, but calling yourself an "instrument of God" is, without a shadow of a doubt, overusing and exploiting religion.
"We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."
Why the hell would any candidate use that type of language? I mean "instrument of God" and "Kingdom" are not exactly phrases that should be used in politics. It strikes me as completely out of the blue and completely out of place.
Now I'm certainly not saying that candidates shouldn't be able to express their faith, but I think most people can agree calling yourself an "instrument of God" is a little extreme, not to mention a little self serving. I, for one, would like to ask Obama how exactly is he going to create a "Kingdom" right here on Earth. No offense to Obama, but he's not exactly a Messiah. I do not want us Democrats to fall into the Republican mold of using our faith to gain votes. Faith should be something personal, that is unique to every person, and that is, for the most part, not overused in politics. Talking about your faith with voters is absolutely fine and necessary, but calling yourself an "instrument of God" is, without a shadow of a doubt, overusing and exploiting religion.
The Republican Politics of Fear (a special editorial by John Lucia)
President Bush and VP Cheney love to govern by fear. The Republicans in Congress like to use fear in their legislative agenda. And now, with the exception of Ron Paul, the Republican candidates for President are trying to use fear in their campaigns. The fear of terror has become their number one weapon of choice.
Our past President's answered the call to war five times in the 20th century with character instead of fear. They cultivated the spirit of America to face our adversaries and governed with wisdom and strength. Now the Republican presidential candidates say that they and only they can protect America and that electing a Democrat would put our nation at risk. Their motive is to try to take the people's mind off the fact that the worst foreign terror attack on U.S. soil happened on George Bush and the Republican's watch. They failed to protect our country and people from the tragic events of 9-11 and then invaded Iraq over WMD that did not exist, creating more terrorists to threaten the United States than ever before.
Republican's can't seem to call on the spirit of America that is unity. They try to divide the country and its people with their talk of fear. They are obsessed by the word and want us to be in a perpetual war of fear. Our past leaders brought out the best in our people during trying times and moved our nation forward to face the challenges ahead, with out fear.
Fear is what dictators and people without character thrive on. Using fear as a tactic is not only against the basic principals of democracy, it is against the basic principals of life itself. The Republicans fear an informed people that can think for themselves, to them that is what is most frightening.
Our past President's answered the call to war five times in the 20th century with character instead of fear. They cultivated the spirit of America to face our adversaries and governed with wisdom and strength. Now the Republican presidential candidates say that they and only they can protect America and that electing a Democrat would put our nation at risk. Their motive is to try to take the people's mind off the fact that the worst foreign terror attack on U.S. soil happened on George Bush and the Republican's watch. They failed to protect our country and people from the tragic events of 9-11 and then invaded Iraq over WMD that did not exist, creating more terrorists to threaten the United States than ever before.
Republican's can't seem to call on the spirit of America that is unity. They try to divide the country and its people with their talk of fear. They are obsessed by the word and want us to be in a perpetual war of fear. Our past leaders brought out the best in our people during trying times and moved our nation forward to face the challenges ahead, with out fear.
Fear is what dictators and people without character thrive on. Using fear as a tactic is not only against the basic principals of democracy, it is against the basic principals of life itself. The Republicans fear an informed people that can think for themselves, to them that is what is most frightening.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
The Politics of Meet the Press (a special editorial by John Lucia)
Tim Russert, who moderated the Democratic Debate at Dartmouth, New Hampshire a week or so ago, had John Edwards as his guest on Meet the Press today. He asked Mr. Edwards once again the same question he asked him at the debates about all troops being out of Iraq by 2013.
Mr. Edwards gave his reply again. Evidently Mr. Russert has a problem understanding an answer. It has become a habit of Russert to ask questions of non events. He then asked Mr. Edward a question concerning a remark his wife made and put the remark up on the screen. Mr. Edwards then had to tell Russert his question was different than what he put up on the screen.
It has become evident that Russert has let his Republican leanings show when interviewing his guests. He often promotes the self serving statements of the Republican party. Now, it is the Republican hype that Senator Clinton can't win in the general election and he interjected some of those comments to John Edwards. Instead of focusing on what John Edwards would do if elected president, he talks about Senator Clinton. Tim Russert has a way of bringing discredit upon his profession. The previous moderators of Meet the Press must be holding their breath. Journalists need to start talking about the future when interviewing candidates, that is what the election is all about.
Mr. Edwards gave his reply again. Evidently Mr. Russert has a problem understanding an answer. It has become a habit of Russert to ask questions of non events. He then asked Mr. Edward a question concerning a remark his wife made and put the remark up on the screen. Mr. Edwards then had to tell Russert his question was different than what he put up on the screen.
It has become evident that Russert has let his Republican leanings show when interviewing his guests. He often promotes the self serving statements of the Republican party. Now, it is the Republican hype that Senator Clinton can't win in the general election and he interjected some of those comments to John Edwards. Instead of focusing on what John Edwards would do if elected president, he talks about Senator Clinton. Tim Russert has a way of bringing discredit upon his profession. The previous moderators of Meet the Press must be holding their breath. Journalists need to start talking about the future when interviewing candidates, that is what the election is all about.
30% of Americans "definitely would" vote for Clinton
The latest ABC/ Washington Post poll shows that 30% of Americans have made up their mind that they will definitely vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008 if she is the nominee. 28% say they would strongly consider voting for Hillary. 41% say they would not vote for her.
If the 30% number is accurate, then Clinton is well ahead of fellow competitors when it comes to having firm supporters. The next candidate out of both Republicans and Democrats to come close to Clinton's 30% is Republican Rudy Guiliani with 17% of people saying they "definitely would" vote for him. Rudy is also higher than Clinton on the question of would someone "definitely not" vote for him. He has 44% while Clinton, as mentioned earlier, has 41%.
This may not seem significant, but it does show something very important. Clinton is often painted by Republicans as being unelectable. Well, according to this poll, she would probably win over Guiliani rather convincingly. The poll also shows that Guiliani arguably has more negatives than Clinton. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is this: Republicans are vastly underestimating Clinton; they really have no idea what they might be getting themselves into.
If the 30% number is accurate, then Clinton is well ahead of fellow competitors when it comes to having firm supporters. The next candidate out of both Republicans and Democrats to come close to Clinton's 30% is Republican Rudy Guiliani with 17% of people saying they "definitely would" vote for him. Rudy is also higher than Clinton on the question of would someone "definitely not" vote for him. He has 44% while Clinton, as mentioned earlier, has 41%.
This may not seem significant, but it does show something very important. Clinton is often painted by Republicans as being unelectable. Well, according to this poll, she would probably win over Guiliani rather convincingly. The poll also shows that Guiliani arguably has more negatives than Clinton. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is this: Republicans are vastly underestimating Clinton; they really have no idea what they might be getting themselves into.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Rush Limbaugh: Crying Out For Help (a special editorial by John Lucia)
Rush Limbaugh says his show is the most listened to in talk radio in America. If that is true, he is a more tragic person than one can imagine. How can a person be so negative against people and what our country is all about. He is especially negative against Democrats who don't share his ideology. Free speech comes with responsibility, and instead of talking positive, his whole time is spent trying to divide the country and its people.
Some thing must have happened in his life, something that he can not control that makes him feel guilty and takes his feelings out on others and our country. He has a character problem that will not allow himself to tell the facts and always blames others. Because he is incapable of articulating what he stands for, he devotes his whole show to being negative.
He can not handle or stay in a married relationship. In fact, he makes fun of women, a sure sign that he feels inadequate. He can't shake his dilemma of cutting and running during his generations war while millions of men and women his age volunteered their service in the military. He feels he has to bash veterans and accuse people of being unpatriotic because he can not deal with his feeling of inadequacy.
He fits the mold of a right wing neocon republican who will not accept responsibility for his own failed actions. He has failed the test of being objective with his audience. He has passed up an opportunity to do much good for his country and that is shameful. Whatever happened in his life made him a tragic person who can not compete in an open society with truth and facts.
There will always be an audience for ditto heads and negative people like Rush, and radio and TV have their counterparts, but what have they contributed to their country and their profession? They can't be considered journalists because they are not well informed concerning facts and their ideology allows them no room for any original thought.
The demons in Rush's life must be permanent as he has been in radio for a long time and still can't control his shameless actions. He is a tragic person who is crying out for help.
Some thing must have happened in his life, something that he can not control that makes him feel guilty and takes his feelings out on others and our country. He has a character problem that will not allow himself to tell the facts and always blames others. Because he is incapable of articulating what he stands for, he devotes his whole show to being negative.
He can not handle or stay in a married relationship. In fact, he makes fun of women, a sure sign that he feels inadequate. He can't shake his dilemma of cutting and running during his generations war while millions of men and women his age volunteered their service in the military. He feels he has to bash veterans and accuse people of being unpatriotic because he can not deal with his feeling of inadequacy.
He fits the mold of a right wing neocon republican who will not accept responsibility for his own failed actions. He has failed the test of being objective with his audience. He has passed up an opportunity to do much good for his country and that is shameful. Whatever happened in his life made him a tragic person who can not compete in an open society with truth and facts.
There will always be an audience for ditto heads and negative people like Rush, and radio and TV have their counterparts, but what have they contributed to their country and their profession? They can't be considered journalists because they are not well informed concerning facts and their ideology allows them no room for any original thought.
The demons in Rush's life must be permanent as he has been in radio for a long time and still can't control his shameless actions. He is a tragic person who is crying out for help.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Remembering The Kennedy-Nixon Debates (a special editorial by John Lucia)
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)