Democratic Presidential contender, Barack Obama, is at it again. And by "it", I mean he is attacking Hillary for something he didn't even take a stand on. First he attacked her for voting for the Iraq War, yet he wasn't even in the Senate then, so who knows how he would have voted. And to add to Obama's inconsistency on attacking Hillary on that issue, he continued to fund the war and go along with Bush when he was elected to the Senate. And to top it all off, it was Hillary, not Obama, who exhibited leadership when she asked the Pentagon for withdrawal plans.
But Obama has done it again. He is now criticizing Hillary for voting for a bi-partisan bill that puts tougher sanctions on Iran and urges diplomacy(by the way, isn't that something Obama advocated before Sen. Clinton voted for it?). But the thing that makes me upset was that instead of actually taking a stand on that issue, he didn't even vote yay or nay on it. He completely missed that entire week in the Senate because he was too busy campaigning. Is that real leadership??? If Clinton, Dodd, Biden, etc., can still campaign and stand up as leaders in the Senate, why can't Obama? And why did Obama seemingly advocate diplomacy with Iran and now is saying that Hillary's vote is somehow authorizing Bush to go to war with Iran. But here is another problem with Obama's idea that Hillary is "aiding" Bush in going to war with Iran: Hillary co-sponsors a bill that says that Bush can not, under any circumstances, attack Iran without full approval from Congress. So if Obama doesn't want Bush to take us to war with Iran, why didn't he stand up as a leader, as Hillary did, and co-sponsor that bill?
So my message to Obama is this: either show some leadership or stop criticizing others when they do show it. And, Mr. Obama, if you can't do that, then shut the hell up, because this country needs a strong leader, and you're demonstrating you're certainly not that.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
10/9 Republican Debate (a special editorial by John Lucia)
Tuesday's Republican debate in Michigan was billed as the debate about economics. Some one should have told moderators Chris Matthews and Maria Bartiroma that because, to the delight of the candidates (except Ron Paul), it was never mentioned that this Republican administration and the Republican controlled congress (first 6 years) were the biggest deficit spenders of all time.
They have broken all deficit and spending records and added more to the national debt than any administration and congress in History. Candidates Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson supported and voted for this record spending, and of course Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney supported George Bush's policies. Ron Paul tried to talk about this record spending and debt and mentioned several things that has been affected by it but the moderators would not pursue the subject.
Likewise, when the moderators talked about the war in Iraq and going to war with Iran Mr. Paul pointed out we have a constitution to go by and suggested his rivals should read it every now and then. The moderators would not pursue that either but instead pursued the feud between Romney and Giuliani.
The deficit spending candidates who served in congress during this administration all said spending should be cut, but did not say what should be cut or how they were going to do it. The moderators never followed up and asked what they would cut and how. So much for an economic debate. The people have a right to know when a Presidential candidate says we are over spending and how they are going to put a stop to it, especially since they themselves are the over spenders. I doubt if any Republican candidate, with the exception of Ron Paul, can remember the last time a Republican balanced a federal budget.
They have broken all deficit and spending records and added more to the national debt than any administration and congress in History. Candidates Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson supported and voted for this record spending, and of course Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney supported George Bush's policies. Ron Paul tried to talk about this record spending and debt and mentioned several things that has been affected by it but the moderators would not pursue the subject.
Likewise, when the moderators talked about the war in Iraq and going to war with Iran Mr. Paul pointed out we have a constitution to go by and suggested his rivals should read it every now and then. The moderators would not pursue that either but instead pursued the feud between Romney and Giuliani.
The deficit spending candidates who served in congress during this administration all said spending should be cut, but did not say what should be cut or how they were going to do it. The moderators never followed up and asked what they would cut and how. So much for an economic debate. The people have a right to know when a Presidential candidate says we are over spending and how they are going to put a stop to it, especially since they themselves are the over spenders. I doubt if any Republican candidate, with the exception of Ron Paul, can remember the last time a Republican balanced a federal budget.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
New Polls Show Clinton as the Strongest General Election Candidate
Just as previous years' elections, it appears that Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida will be the deciding states in 2008. It was Florida that ultimately decided the 2000 election; Ohio did the same in '04. It is also interesting to note that a Republican has never won the presidency without winning Ohio, and it appears unlikely that one could do so this time around. Here's the latest polling data from Quinnipiac University's Swing State Poll:
-----Hillary leads by significant margin in all 3 swing states-------
Florida: Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 43
Ohio: Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 40
Pennsylvania: Clinton beats Giuliani 48 - 42
Other findings from Florida:
-Clinton tops McCain 46 - 42, Sen. Fred Thompson 48 - 39, and Gov. Mitt Romney 48 - 37
-Giuliani bests Obama 42 - 39 and edges Edwards 43 - 41
-Obama beats Thompson 45 - 36 and Romney 43 - 36, but trails McCain 41 - 39
Other findings from Ohio:
-Clinton beats McCain 48 - 38, Thompson 50 -36, and Romney 51 - 34
-Obama tops Giuliani 44 - 38 percent, McCain 43 - 39, Thompson 44 - 33, and Romney 47 - 31
Other findings from Pennsylvania:
-Clinton tops McCain 48 - 41, Thompson 50 - 39, and Romney 49 - 37
-Giuliani edges Obama 45 - 43 and gets 44 percent to Edwards' 43 percent
-Obama beats McCain 45 - 41, Thompson 45 - 37, and Romney 49 - 33
Obama and especially Edwards are going to have to change their tune about saying that they are more electable than Clinton; the numbers show differently. The GOP should also take a warning: they are not going to easily beat Clinton. She is a far more formidable opponent than Gore and Kerry. Couple that with the fact that Americans agree with her policies, she has an excellent chance to win in '08, and polling shows more and more to prove that every month. Clinton's lead is ever widening. She lost to all Republicans in those swing states in polling earlier this year. Now she convincingly defeats them and there is no sign of her lead shrinking. Expect it to grow.
-----Hillary leads by significant margin in all 3 swing states-------
Florida: Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 43
Ohio: Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 40
Pennsylvania: Clinton beats Giuliani 48 - 42
Other findings from Florida:
-Clinton tops McCain 46 - 42, Sen. Fred Thompson 48 - 39, and Gov. Mitt Romney 48 - 37
-Giuliani bests Obama 42 - 39 and edges Edwards 43 - 41
-Obama beats Thompson 45 - 36 and Romney 43 - 36, but trails McCain 41 - 39
Other findings from Ohio:
-Clinton beats McCain 48 - 38, Thompson 50 -36, and Romney 51 - 34
-Obama tops Giuliani 44 - 38 percent, McCain 43 - 39, Thompson 44 - 33, and Romney 47 - 31
Other findings from Pennsylvania:
-Clinton tops McCain 48 - 41, Thompson 50 - 39, and Romney 49 - 37
-Giuliani edges Obama 45 - 43 and gets 44 percent to Edwards' 43 percent
-Obama beats McCain 45 - 41, Thompson 45 - 37, and Romney 49 - 33
Obama and especially Edwards are going to have to change their tune about saying that they are more electable than Clinton; the numbers show differently. The GOP should also take a warning: they are not going to easily beat Clinton. She is a far more formidable opponent than Gore and Kerry. Couple that with the fact that Americans agree with her policies, she has an excellent chance to win in '08, and polling shows more and more to prove that every month. Clinton's lead is ever widening. She lost to all Republicans in those swing states in polling earlier this year. Now she convincingly defeats them and there is no sign of her lead shrinking. Expect it to grow.
Fox News: The Tragic Network (a special editorial by John Lucia)
It seems that every day the Fox News Network is promoting going to war with Iran. Their ticker that moves cross the television screen carries statements from neocons and others who propose striking Iran. They interview the neocons who clamored for war in Iraq and now want their adventure to extend over to Iran and other middle east countries.
They try to inflame the issue by injecting Israel as being threatened by Iran. However, Israel is a country that has WMD and can surely take care of themselves.
People who promote war, especially news networks, care nothing about our men and women in uniform who bear the hardships of war. They promote war from their ivory towers far from the battlefield. I wonder how many journalists with the Fox News Network wore the uniform of their country generations war?
Those who promote war would sell their soul to the highest bidder. They are a tragic people who put their ideology first and their country last. That says it all. Fox News programs are tilted toward divisive issues. They do that to mislead the American people. President Clinton once said Republican's use divisive issues to try to win elections. The Fox News Network is the spin capital of cable television. Fox purposely tries to mislead the country and its people have no shame. They represent the worst in television journalism.
They try to inflame the issue by injecting Israel as being threatened by Iran. However, Israel is a country that has WMD and can surely take care of themselves.
People who promote war, especially news networks, care nothing about our men and women in uniform who bear the hardships of war. They promote war from their ivory towers far from the battlefield. I wonder how many journalists with the Fox News Network wore the uniform of their country generations war?
Those who promote war would sell their soul to the highest bidder. They are a tragic people who put their ideology first and their country last. That says it all. Fox News programs are tilted toward divisive issues. They do that to mislead the American people. President Clinton once said Republican's use divisive issues to try to win elections. The Fox News Network is the spin capital of cable television. Fox purposely tries to mislead the country and its people have no shame. They represent the worst in television journalism.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
A Big Mistake for Some Democrats
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)