The Selling of Fear

President Franklin Roosevelt addressed the nation during WWII saying "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."  President John Kennedy, in his inaugural address, said "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."  Those two great leaders of America captured the nation's courage and power to face our adversaries.  Our nation was founded on principals and they would not allow our people to be intimidated or fearful.

Now we have a President, George W. Bush, who uses the fear factor to intimidate our own people concerning the terror threat to America.  If Congress does not do things his way, or responsible people disagree with his policies, he uses the fear factor.  America and its people will not be safe from terror attacks if we listen to the opposing view or elect a Democrat according to Mr. Bush.  And now several Republican Presidential candidates are using the same fear factor in their run for the Presidency to scare Americans into voting for them.

 

It is really a pathetic situation for a President to be so insecure and govern by fear.  Our nation and its people have faced more serious threats than terror attacks through out our history with courage and resolve.  Not only have we survived the past, but we took on the future with the spirit that is America.

 

To make matters even worse, Mr. Bush compared the war on Terror with WWII.  Not even close.  And just last week Mr. Bush tried to connect Iran with WWIII.  This is a President that wants our nation to live in fear and be in a never ending war.  Past Presidents led by uniting our country and its people.  Mr. Bush, and many Republicans, leads by division and fear. 

 

When America goes to the polls to vote for the next President, it is imperative that we cast our vote for the candidate that represents new leadership and hope for our nation instead of fear. 

Listen To the People Who Know Them Best

What's interesting when you look at potential general election match-up polls is that the several Republicans running for President are highly unlikely to even win their home state. I always have said, when looking to see how a candidate would govern as President, all you have to do is look at how he/she is favored by the people whom he/she served. Any candidate can craft a national image; thats why it is always important to look to the people who have the right to judge the leadership qualities of the candidates.

The perfect example is Rudy Giuliani. Nationally, he is, for the most part, well liked. In New York, however, it is a different story. In a head to head match-up, Sen. Hillary Clinton convincingly defeats Giuliani by 25 points: 58% to 33%. 64% of New Yorkers have a very favorable view of Clinton while only 46% feel the same about Rudy. Now while this may not be seen as a big deal because New York has a history of going Democrat, in a way, it is. Giuliani has based his campaign on the notion that he "can put states such as New York, New Jersey, and California into play". Well the polls show just about the same result in those states as they showed in New York---Clinton would easily win. What is even more interesting is that when you go into New York City itself, where Rudy was mayor, people have even a less favorable opinion of him. While nationally Rudy is seen as the 9/11 hero, in New York City, where the attack happened, people feel that Rudy has and is using 9/11 for his own gain. They also feel like he is exaggerating his heroism. So I don't know who you will believe: the Giuliani campaign or the actual citizens of New York City, but I choose to listen to the people who were actually there and witnessed Rudy in action.

Another prime example is Gov. Mitt Romney from Massachusetts. The latest poll shows Romney losing terribly to Sen. Hillary Clinton: 65%-31%. The Romney campaign has tried to spin this as "expected" because Massachusetts is "a very blue state". And while that is true, there is no way to downplay a candidate losing by over 30 points in his own state. Massachusetts wasn't too "blue" to elect Romney Governor. Why have people in Massachusetts suddenly turned on Romney?---because he hasn't stayed true to himself. While running for Governor, Romney had the complete opposite views he now has while running for the Republican nomination. If Romney would just have stayed true to himself, he would be better liked in Massachusetts. No body likes it when a candidate clearly changes all his positions just because it is politically convenient. The people of Massachusetts know that Romney has flip-flopped and it's about time the rest of America realizes that.

It is also interesting to look at the state of Arkansas. Hillary Clinton was First Lady there for 8 years and the people loved her then, and they apparently still do. Clinton leads all Republicans, including Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, by at least 25 points in all the polls. This is a good thing for Clinton and is a little surprising to me. Arkansas has been trending more and more Republican. It has safely voted for George Bush in the last two elections. In 2008, however, if Clinton is the nominee, it appears Arkansas will once again be going Democrat. Clinton is favored by 66% in Arkansas. What is even more intriguing is looking at where Clinton draws her support. Among conservative Republican women, Clinton has an edge of 23 points over her nearest rivals. She also is the favorite of conservative Republican men, who say they would vote for Clinton over any Republican by about 13 points. We see this same type of Republican support for Clinton in New York, where Clinton won all but 4 of New York's 62 counties, including many of which are strongly Republican. This demonstrates that once Republicans get to know Hillary, they like her, or at least, they don't hate her. This is why I urge Republicans not to think of Clinton as an easy target because of her unpopularity with Republicans. Much of her unpopularity is due to the Republican's false stories about her. Once Republicans get to hear what Clinton herself has to say, they might not think she's that bad after all.

10/30 Democratic Debate Review-----Hillary Thrown Under the Bus

Wow, what an interesting debate last night. If anyone watched the debate, you know exactly what single issue the entire 2 hour debate was about----Sen. Hillary Clinton. I know I talked about Barack Obama coming out and highlighting the differences between him and Clinton, and he did indeed do that...and more. I'll start with that issue first.

From the first question of the night, Obama "laid the smackdown" on Hillary Clinton. And for the most part, for his campaign, his policy attack's on Clinton were effective. I might not agree with Obama at all on policy issues, but I'm glad he at least laid the differences out on the table. The only problem I had with Obama's, and for that matter Edwards', performance was that they began to personally go after Clinton. At times, both men basically called Clinton a liar to her face and, in my opinion, there is no need for that. As Bill Richardson said, Hillary is no doubt a trustworthy, honest candidate. Richardson went on to say that although he disagrees with Clinton on many levels, he trusts her and he knows she is honest and would never question that. Quite frankly these personal attacks by Obama and Edwards are sickening to me. They started to act like Republicans by attacking Hillary on a personal level. And I'm not just saying that because I support Sen. Clinton. I feel all attacks on a candidate's integrity, honesty, and truthfulness are wrong except when an issue is explicitly obvious. There is no evidence what so ever to back up Obama and Edwards' claim that Clinton is a phony and a liar. She has stayed true to herself for years. But, none the less, Obama and Edwards still did themselves good by going after Clinton----I just wish they had done it in a more respectful way. We should leave nasty personal attacks to the GOP. I don't want our party to become corrupted with constant, unwarranted personal attacks.

Sen. Clinton too had a good night. I will say, because of her being taken on by Obama and Edwards, she was not the clear winner of the debate as she was of past ones. I must say that I, as many, was surprised and confused by Clinton's answer on immigration. I don't think she was double talking, as Edwards' claimed, but I'm not sure what her point was. Other than that moment, Clinton held her own. It can't be easy taking a constant barrage of attacks for 2 hours straight. Despite the attacks, Clinton stayed strong and presidential. I think Obama and Edwards were trying to "draw blood" and fluster Clinton. But they didn't succeed. Just as well as Obama and Edwards dished it out against Clinton, Clinton convincingly defended her positions. It was ironically Chris Dodd, who is one of the tiniest threats to Clinton, who appeared to have flustered Clinton. If Obama or Edwards were able to do that, I may have been able to declare one of them the winner. I also must note that Clinton still appears the most electable in these debates regarding the general election. I talked to some moderate Republicans today who watched the debate and came away saying, "She's actually not that bad." Her tough, yet diplomatic, stance on foreign policy is possibly her biggest asset in winning in 2008.

As far as the other candidates go, there is not much to say. Joe Biden certainly had the best line of the night when he talked about every sentence from Rudy Giuliani going, "noun, verb, 9/11." Biden has been consistently good in these debates and last night was no exception. Dodd and Richardson were kind of "just there". Kucinich definitely gave me a good laugh when he admitted to seeing a UFO. Other than that, there was nothing that special about the "2nd and 3rd tier" candidates.

I'll close by saying that there truly was no clear winner. Obama and Edwards can be seen as winners for finally making clear distinctions between them and Clinton. Clinton can be seen as the winner for so effectively rebutting those attacks. At the same time, Obama and Edwards can be seen as losers for stooping to the Republican's low of cheap, baseless, personal attacks. Clinton could be seen as a loser for not clearly articulating her position on the immigration issue. I will also say that I was disappointed in the moderating. I knew from the last debate that Russert wasn't going to be any good, but I expected better from Brian Williams. Well, thats my rap-up. I am excited to see how Obama and Edwards will capitalize after a good showing last night and if Clinton sees a dip in the poll numbers after the attacks against her.

I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on the debate, please comment below.

Debate Moderators Wanted

Last night's Democratic debate should be the last debate for Brian Williams and Tim Russert to moderators.  They are hopeless at asking questions of candidates that reflect what a candidate would do if elected and what their Presidency would look like.  We all know what the candidates positions are concerning Iraq and Iran yet their questions are a rerun of previous debates.

 

How do the candidates plan to reverse the eight years of record deficit spending when Bush leaves office?  How do they plan to restore the moral mantle of world leadership that our past presidents enjoyed? How do they plan to once again bring accountability to our leaders?  How do they plan to restore the basic rights of Americans that have been violated in the name of fighting terror?

 

The news was out before the debate that John Edwards and Barrack Obama were going to go after Senator Clinton and her positions.  Williams and Russert made sure that happened by asking the questions those candidates said they would raise.  Williams and Russert actually enjoyed asking those questions, but unfortunately, it did nothing to further educate the people who would like to hear how the candidates will deal with the many serious problems that will be left to the next president. 

 

Brian Williams and Tim Russert.  Both are poor excuses for moderators and demonstrated journalism at its worst last night. 

Republicans Talk Tough----But Is Anyone Listening?

But lets examine the facts anyway.  Ronald Reagan said soon after he was elected President and even during his campaign "Terrorist can run but they can't hide."  He continued his tough talk and then sent our marines to Beruit as peace keepers after Israel invaded Lebanon and the killing that followed.

 

Terrorists then truck bombed our marines compound while many were sleeping and killed 241 marines in the attack.  It was the same Reagan administration who sold arms to Iran for hostages after he told the American people he would never negotiate with terrorists.

 

George W. Bush also talked tough before and after his election concerning terrorism. Yet, the worst foreign terror attack on U.S. soil happened in the midst of his tough talk.  Despite Mr. Bush's tough talk he had no plan in effect prior to or on 9-11 to address the threat from Al Qaeda.  His failure to protect the country and its people was an embarrassment to Mr. Bush, so he laid the ground work for a war and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist. 

 

Those are not the only terrorist attacks against Americans that occurred on Reagan and Bush's watch while they were trying to act tough.  But it was the worst because of the number of people killed.  Now the present Republican Presidential candidates who are seeking the nomination are trying to out talk each other on being tough on terrorist.

 

They are trying to talk tough on Iraq and are now going out of their way to act and talk tough about Iran.  Maybe the GOP thinks that tough talk scares the terrorists.  But it clearly does not. The fact is that more terror attacks have occurred.  The voters seem to like tough talk.  It worked for Reagan and Bush in their reelections.  But the tough talk did not make America safer and in fact increased American hatred around the world.  Al Qaeda in Iraq was no where to be found prior to our war and occupation in Iraq.

 

Other past Presidents faced more severe threats to our country and its people and handled those threats successfully with out the so called brag of talking tough.  They realized it would take more than tough talk to solve the problems.  Those who like to sound tough would have our country and men and women in uniform in an ongoing war far into the future.  The American people need to reject tough talk as a policy to deal with terrorists, or for that matter, anything, when they vote for the next president.

 

People would do well to remember that the leaders of Israel have been talking tough for over 40 years, yet they are still fighting terrorism or so they tell us.  That policy has also been a failure.  Our country needs a foreign policy based on understanding how to best deal with the problem with wisdom and character that best represents what America stands for.  The voters can keep electing the tough talkers, but what will that accomplish?

Fox and Bill O at it Again

Just when you think Fox News can't get any lower, they do. It all started last week on The O'Reilly Factor. Bill O claimed that the "liberal media" was somehow avoiding the truth about how the war in Iraq is going. He claims that the "liberal media" is making the war seem worse than it actually is. He cited so called factual reports that claimed zero Americans were killed in Iraq last week.

That, as you can guess, was a lie. The truth is that, sadly, 6 of our brave men and women lost their lives in Iraq last week. There is a reason the "liberal media" was not talking about it-----because maybe the "liberal media" likes to present facts.

The next night, Bill O apologized, citing that there was a mistake in the information he received. Not that I believe O'Reilly; I'm sure what he said was said for his partisan purposes, but whatever. Lying to make his Republican friends look good and right on all the issues is nothing new for Bill O. But then this story hit a new low.

After Bill O has publicly apologized and acknowledged that he was wrong, Fox used this same information again. This time it was on Fox and Friends. Maybe one time can pass as "just a mistake", but when it happens twice, especially after the mistake had been acknowledged, it is no mere coincidence.

The truth is, that while people on Fox claim that "us liberals" don't care about our troops, I think the exact opposite might be true. The "liberal media" tells the American people the truth. There is nothing rosy about the Iraq War. People are being killed needlessly over there. By Fox making up their own facts and pretending that all is going well is unfair to the American people who are looking for the facts. It is especially unfair to those 6 who lost their lives that week. They were basically thrown to the side by Fox in order for them to make themselves and the GOP look good.

***I would also like to say, on a side note, that I'm sick of Republicans calling the media "liberal". I mean, seriously, liberal??? There is only one show where I can see a clear liberal bias as far as the news stations are concerned, and thats Keith Olberman. I mean, for crying out loud, we have a whole channel of nothing but GOP conservatives. Talk Radio is dominated by Conservative voices. So I wish before Republicans would criticize the media for being too liberal, they should look at the facts. But then again, it seems like saying the truth and giving the facts is considered being "liberal" to Republicans. Apparently their new synonym for truth is "liberal". So if I, and others, are "liberals" because we give the American people the cold hard facts, then I'm glad to be called "liberal".***

All Eyes on Philly

With the January presidential caucuses and primaries growing closer and closer, all eyes will be tuned in for tomorrow's Democratic debate on NBC. The debate will emanate from Philadelphia and Brian Williams (w/ Tim Russert) will moderate. All the Democratic contenders, with the exception of Mike Gravel, will be there and we all know who the bull's eye will be on-----Hillary Clinton.

The big story of the night will be, as I mentioned, the way in which Hillary is targeted. There is a sense of franticness among the other Democrats' campaigns. Everyone else in the race realizes that Clinton, despite their attacks against her, is not only staying a strong candidate, but is becoming even more popular. There was one mistake, in my opinion, that one candidate made leading up to this crucial debate.

Right there, on the front page of the New York Times is Sen. Obama talking about how he is going to go after Clinton at the debate tomorrow. He doesn't just stop there either. He proceeds to tell the world, obviously including the Clinton campaign, what issues he is going to attack her on. I can assure you that Hillary will have all those issues, and more, ready to answer for now. If Obama would have kept his mouth shut, he could have potentially surprised her on a number of issues. This is just another example of the inexperience of Obama. Obama needs to realize he is fighting a war against Clinton for the nomination, and in a war, you don't tell your enemy how you're going to attack them days before the actual battle.

There is another thing that the candidates have to be careful about when they inevitably go after Clinton. Obama, Edwards, and other have all brought it up. They continue to say (or imply) that voting for Hillary would be like a vote for the 90s again with Bill. Do they not realize that talk like that works against them? Is it just me, or isn't Bill Clinton, and his time as president, one of the best in history? The point is----that in the current state of the world, people, especially Democrats, look back on the time of Bill Clinton as, "heaven". In fact, about 70% of all Americans (Democrats and Republicans) liked Bill Clinton as President. Thats compared to about 25% for our current President.

One last thing I must caution the candidates about when going after Hillary: Don't be a hypocrite. She will undoubtably be attacked for her Iran vote. The problem is that Obama, and others, supported and voted for a bill, just like the recent one, back in April. And to make matters even worse for Obama, he didn't even bother to show up to vote against this bill thats he is all of a sudden dead set against. It's hard to claim that you're a leader on an issue when you simply don't show up to vote on it.

I must say that I am definitely looking forward to tomorrow's debate. I think we will finally see some fireworks between the candidates. This is Obama's chance to "chop" away at the support of Hillary. But, Hillary also has a chance to do something big. She can, with a good, convincing argument, effectively shut down the Obama machine. What I mean by that is this----if Obama comes at her full force, and Hillary can counter-argue his points in her favor, then she makes it just about impossible for Obama to do anything more to hurt her chances at the nomination. In simple terms---it's do or die for Obama. He has to put all his cards on the table and hope that they work. If they don't, its over; he's out of the game; he doesn't have any more cards to play, and Hillary wins. As for the other 5 candidates, quite frankly, they don't have a chance. This is a two person race, and, after tomorrow's debate, it could become a one person race.

Tim Russert: The Voice Of The Republican's

On "Meet the Press" on October 28, Tim Russert once again proved he is the voice for the Republican Party and George Bush concerning the war in Iraq.  Senator Chris Dodd was asked his position on the Iraq War several times and Russert then put statements on the screen that Dodd made in the past that represented only part of what he said.  Dodd had to point out on two occasions that Russert should go back to the statement he made in 2004 to get the full story.

 

It is typical of Russert to quote only part of people's statement and then try to use that to show a lack of consistency.  A few weeks ago on Meet the Press, presidential candidate John Edwards also had to correct Russert when he showed a partial statement concerning Mrs. Edwards.

 

Then Russert asked Senator Dodd, "Are we safer today...and if our men and women in uniform in Iraq have died in vain?"  The fact is we are not safer today.  We have lost almost 4000 troops in Iraq and over 2000 people in the tragic attack of 9-11.  Both events happened on Bush's watch.  Mr. Russert needs to understand our men and women in uniform are Americans so therefore America is less safe.  The Clinton administration went 7 years and 9 months without a foreign terror attack on U.S. soil.  George Bush's administration will never match that safety record for this great country.

 

Our men and women in uniform go where the President and Commander in Chief tells them to go. They do their duty, serve their country, and therefore never die in vain.  George Bush started a war and occupation in Iraq and committed our troops to an unnecessary war over WMD that did not exist.  The casualties that America has suffered are the result of his reckless behavior and incompetent decisions and not providing our troops with the proper equipment to protect themselves from the type of attacks the war has exposed them too.

 

Mr. Russert, like Bush, is careless when talking about this war and asking if our troops have died in vain. Russert should ask Mr. Bush why he did not possess the wisdom, character, or maturity to make sure his information was rock solid before starting a war and occupation over WMD that did not exist.  The best intelligence on the ground in Iraq before Bush started this war was the U.N. inspectors.  They said over and over again that Iraq was disarmed of those weapons but Bush tried to play god and disregarded their findings.

 

This is the same Russert who let Dick Cheney tell the american people on Meet the Press, prior to the war, that Iraq reconstituted its nuclear program and then never asked Cheney for proof.  And this is the same Russert who months after the war started had Cheney back on his show and Cheney said he was wrong about Iraq reconstituting its nuclear program.  This statement came after no WMD were found and many lives were lost and Russert let that statement slip by without pressing Cheney for some answers about his and Bush's incompetence.  I those those who watch Meet the Press will realize the lack of creditability on the real issues that really matter and I hope they themselves will look for the facts, because Tim Russert can not be trusted to give them. 

Iraq: Bush's Bottomless Money Pit

The President announced that he would seek $196.4 Billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year beginning October 1, which is an increase from his previous announced $141.7 Billion.  This is the same President who recently vetoed a program to increase the children's health insurance program that was paid for by an increase in the tobacco taxes.  The Republicans in congress up held his veto.

 

Now it is time for congress to end the war with a date certain for a safe withdrawal of our troops and no longer fund the war beyond that date.  Congress should also pass legislation for the Defense Department to draw up plans for the safe withdrawal of our troops by that date certain.  The nation can not trust Mr. Bush to act properly or Presidential concerning this issue.

 

The war in Iraq is costing the U.S. over $10 Billion a month and total of over $500 billion since it began.  And more important than the cost of money, there is of course the cost of lives, all over WMD that did not exist.  It should also be noted the President has never intended to have a plan to pay for this war except to mortgage our children and grandchildren's future.

 

It is past time for congress to step in and put a stop to Mr. Bush's madness.  Our country, our people, and especially our men and women in uniform are paying a harsh price for Bush's reckless behavior and incompetence.

 

What we will begin to see now is the all to familiar spin of Mr. Bush.  He will direct people in his administration and our military leaders to go on the offense and tell the American people how wonderful everything is going in Iraq.  He and other Republicans already are using the "support our troops" or be branded as "unpatriotic" ultimatum. Republicans can not be allowed to tell the American people that those who are against the war are "unpatriotic".  It is a lie and it's wrong.  

 

The only thing for certain about this unnecessary war is that in the final analysis, when all is said and done, Iraq will be aligned with Iran and the billions of dollars spent by the U.S. because of Bush's policy will have gone for naught.

 

In the last few days we have seen the President plead with Turkey's prime minister Erdogan not to invade Iraq in pursuit of the PKK rebels who have been attacking Turkey.  Bush said that action would destabilize Iraq-----Bush should know since his own order to invade and occupy Iraq destabilized both it and the Middle East.

 

Make no mistake about the fact that the war itself proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was an unnecessary war over WMD that did not exist.  Saddam was a threat to no one except his own people.  George Bush knew those WMD did not exist.  I will cover that story in a future commentary.  In the meantime brace yourself for the coming spin for the fifth straight year about this war.

Brownback To Endorse Giuliani?

As we all know, Sen. Sam Brownback dropped out of the race for president a couple of weeks ago. We also know that Rudy Giuliani is the frontrunner of the GOP Presidential candidates. What we do not know is whether or not Sam Brownback will throw his support behind his Mayor Giuliani.

Now the general consensus with anyone reading this question would be "of course not". Brownback is the picture-perfect conservative. His presidential campaign had one focus----what Brownback called his "moral" credentials. He wanted to "rebuild the family". Brownback is strongly pro-life, strongly anti-gay, and strongly against gun control. Giuliani, on the other hand, is pro-choice, pro-gay, and strongly for gun control(well, he used to be before he "refined" his positions). So the question is: why has Brownback been seen talking highly favorable of Rudy Giuliani? Was it not just a few debates ago when Brownback said the GOP would "never nominate a pro-abortion candidate"? Well now it seems that a Brownback endorsement of Giuliani is not too far away.

If Brownback does indeed endorse Giuliani, he will claim it will be because of Giuliani's tough stance on foreign issues. I can assure you Brownback will conveniently forget Rudy's liberal social views. My thought----Brownback is a sell-out. Now, to give him the benefit of the doubt, Brownback hasn't endorsed Rudy yet, but he has been clearly warming up to the idea of a Giuliani presidency. If anything, if Browback truly feels the way he does on social issues, he should be using everything in his power to keep Giuliani from becoming the nominee. But he won't. Brownback, like many politicians, wants to "get in good" with the candidate who is most likely to win. I hope, if Brownback continues to show support for Giuliani, or if an endorsement does take place, that the Christian Right raises hell with Brownback. There is nothing I hate more than people suddenly changing their opinions when it suits them.