The Fallout Continues

Six more Americans died in Iraq Tuesday despite the surge in troops that started many months ago.  Those deaths pushed the total of Americans killed in Iraq to a record level for 2007, surpassing the previous level in 2004.  Our troops are still being killed by road side bombs, and in the 56th month of this war, our men and women in uniform still do not have the proper equipment to keep them safe.  The fallout caused by this war still continues over WMD that did not exist.

 

At the same time it has been reported by Colita Baldor of the Associated Press that the Pentagon is quietly looking for ways to make it easier for people with criminal records to join the military because of higher recruiting goals.  The fallout from this unnecessary war has no bottom.  The reckless way Mr. Bush took this country to war in Iraq has had a negative effect on our young men and women who are of age to serve their country. 

 

Every journalist in America should be asking Mr. Bush every day when he is going to end this war and bring our troops home safely.  One would think that after 56 months Mr. Bush can give the country an answer.  Three months after Mr. Bush started this war he landed on an aircraft carrier and proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" and "Major Combat Operations" have ended.  Fifty three months later the Commander in Chief is still in denial.   

Ron Paul: 2008's Nader?

Although Republican Congressman Ron Paul has a slim to none chance of winning the GOP nomination, I could still see Paul shaking up the election come next November. I could truly see Ron Paul running as a third party candidate. Ron Paul could be the conservative version of 2000's Ralph Nader. In 2000, Nader ran as an alternative to those who were unhappy with Gore or Bush. Ron Paul has a chance to do the same next year.

While Paul would have a zero percent chance of winning the general election, he would take away votes from both the Democratic and Republican candidates. Which party he takes more votes from will depend on how he positions himself come next year. Nader, in 2000, positioned himself to the left of Al Gore and therefore attracted more Democrats than Republicans. If Paul runs solely on his anti-war position, then clearly that would hurt the Democrats. It would provide a second option for those who dislike Hillary, or for that matter, dislike whomever the nominee may be. The money, so to speak, however, lies with Paul running as the social conservative alternative if Giuliani is the Republican nominee.

Ron Paul is clearly not seen as a typical "christian-right-wing" politician, but he is, possibly more than any other candidate, socially conservative. He has a 100% pro-life voting record----And, by the way, I should also point out that the official pro-life position states that unnecessary war is a big no no, so in that sense, Paul might be the only pro-life Republican candidate. Paul would also prove to be a challenge to Rudy on Rudy's pro-gun control position in states where that issue is very important. If Ron Paul ran as this type of candidate, he would definitely detract voters from Guiliani and would likely prove to be like Nader in yet another way---he would cost the Republicans the election, much the way Nader cost the Democrats the election in 2000.

One big difference between Nader and Paul is that Paul has money. In just one day, Paul raised $4.3 million. That broke the record for the most money any Republican has raised in one day. Ron Paul has a huge following and slowly, but surely, he is getting his name out there. Paul's ability to raise a lot of money would be a huge asset if he does indeed decide to run as a third party candidate. What I'll look the most for, though, is seeing how Paul will define the central message of his campaign---would it be solely anti-war, which would hurt the Democrats, or would it be a socially conservative alternative to Giuliani? The latter, as I mentioned, would almost guarantee that a Republican wouldn't win the White House. The GOP will need every last vote it can get in '08, and a conservative third party option would undoubtably throw a wrench in the GOP's already damaged plan if Giuliani wins the nomination. So I say to all those Ron Paul fanatics----keep up the hard work and you might just see your candidate on the ballot in '08.

Is It Impeachment Time?

Today, as many of you probably know, Rep. Dennis Kucinich sponsored a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. In short, the measure failed.

But the question is: Is it impeachment time? In my opinion, no. Now I must be honest, when I first heard about this resolution, I had a big smile on my face. There is probably nothing I would love more than Bush and Cheney being removed from office. I have no doubt that the administration lied in the lead-up to war with Iraq and I also am convinced of criminality within this administration. But at the same time, I don't feel that impeachment is needed at this time.

The fact of the matter is that impeachment proceedings would probably last over a year. By that time, Cheney and Bush would already be out of office. Secondly, I think Congress needs to focus on important matters. I would have supported impeachment if we were having this debate a few years ago, but it's to close to the 2008 election. I don't want the American public to lose focus on the 2008 Election or the important issues that will be determined by it. But thanks for standing up anyway Dennis, and I say that sincerely.

My Choices for Vice-President if Hillary is the Nominee

I know that I might be thinking just a little to far ahead, but the question still plagues me: If Sen. Clinton is the nominee, who will she choose to run as her Vice President. Here are a few of my thoughts:

My number one choice would be Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell. Rendell first caught the nation's eye when he was elected mayor of Philadelphia in the early 90s. His record as mayor rivals that of any mayor I've ever seen: he cut a $250 million deficit; balanced Philadelphia's budget and oversaw five consecutive years of budget surpluses; he reduced business and wage taxes for four consecutive years; he implemented new revenue-generating initiatives, and dramatically improved services to Philadelphia neighborhoods. The New York Times called Rendell's record as mayor "the most stunning turnaround in recent urban history." Rendell was in fact nicknamed "America's mayor" until Rudy stole (and I emphasize stole) that title. Rendell's record as governor is just as impressive. I could see Rendell adding a lot to a Hillary ticket. For one thing, he is the kind of husky, all-American type guy that could balance out Hillary's huge appeal to women. In short, Rendell is "a man's man". He would also definitely make sure that Pennsylvania, a very important swing-state, would go to the Democrats. The only thing about Rendell is that he said that he is "not really" interested in being a VP. Still, "not really" is far from a rule-out in politics, so I'll keep up my hope that Hillary picks Rendell as VP and hope that he accepts.

My second choice for a potential running mate for Hillary would be Virginia Senator Jim Webb. Just like Rendell, Webb is one of those "man's man". Again, I think he could bring in white male voters that Hillary, by herself, could not. Webb is also a highly decorated Vietnam War veteran and I can't help but think having some military experience on the Democrat ticket would be a huge plus. Webb also brings with him a tough stance on foreign policy that would help Hillary appear strong, especially knowing that the Republican nominee will be using their (false) fear tactics as much as possible. And finally, possibly most importantly, Webb would almost guarantee that Virginia would go to the Democrats. It is also to be noted that Webb and Clinton seem to have some type of friendship within the Senate; most recently Sen. Clinton co-sponsored Webb's bill that states that Bush has no authority to go to war with Iran.

My third choice would be Indiana Senator and former Governor, Evan Bayh. He would be a huge asset to Clinton in the midwest, where Republicans mostly dominate. He could potentially put Indiana, and its 11 electoral votes, into play for the Democrats as well as a few other moderate mid-Western states. A very important thing he would also bring to the ticket is executive experience. It appears that the two leading Republicans, Giuliani and Romney, will be looking to make an issue out of Clinton's supposed lack of executive experience. Although I think that Rudy and Romney are completely off in their argument, as Hillary was actually in the White House for 8 years (how much more experience than that do you need?), it would not hurt to be able to point to Bayh's executive experience.

So those are my top three choices for potential VPs if Hillary is nominated. What are your thoughts?---is there anyone I didn't mention that you think would add a lot to the ticket?

The Truth about Sen. Clinton and Her Iran Vote

Barack Obama and John Edwards have jumped on Hillary Clinton for voting for the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution. That resolution declares the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. What is important to understand is the fact that no where in this resolution was there talk of military action. This was a purely diplomatic bill that put economic sanctions on Iran in an attempt to slow their development of nuclear weapons and the development of weapons that are used against our troops in Iraq. As Sen. Durbin, a prominent Democrat, said:

"Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the president the authority to use military force against Iran...(The resolution was) To say we need to pressure the Iranians to change their course in the Middle East and I want to do it by nonmilitary means, that's what my vote was all about.''

And now all of sudden we have Barack Obama attacking Hillary for "giving the President the authority for war". I have no problem with Sen. Obama pointing out differences between him and Clinton, but there is no need to present the public with misleading information. If Obama felt so passionately that the resolution was wrong, he should have voted against it. Insead of being in the Senate to vote, however, Obama was "too busy" campaigning. Senators were informed well before that day when the vote on the resolution would take place. Obama has no excuse for not being there. It is a fact that Obama, although he has been in the Senate just a little over 3 years (far less than any other candidate), has missed far more time from the Senate than any other Presidential candidate. The candidate who has missed the least is indeed Sen. Clinton. While I completely understand the importance of campaigning, it is not a valid argument to say that campaigning is more important than voting on issues that are deeply important for the American people. If anyone has shown leadership by standing up for the American people, it has been Sen. Clinton; certainly not Obama.

Another thing that is important to note is that although Obama has been outspoken on not giving Bush the authority to go to war, he did not bother to sign a letter to the President that 30 other Democrats signed. This letter clearly states that the President does not have authority to go to war. So, if Obama is against going to war, why didn't he sign the letter? Also, why didn't he co-sponsor Jim Webb's bill that would require Congressional approval for war with another country? In case you're wondering who did co-sponsor it----it was Hillary Clinton.

It also might help if Obama and Edwards went and looked at Clinton's past speeches on the Senate floor. Back in February, Sen. Clinton was the 1st Senator to say that the Bush administration had no authority to go to war with Iran. You read right guys, she was the first Senator. So all this talk is baseless about it being Sen. Clinton who is "saber-rattling" war. Sen. Clinton, perhaps more than anyone, has been an outspoken advocate for not going to war with Iran. Sen. Clinton does, however, realize that it is important to put sanctions on Iran as part of diplomacy. It was sanctions that gave diplomacy the backbone to work with North Korea; Sen. Clinton is right in wanting to try to get sanctions to work with Iran as well.

My point is this: enough is enough. Obama and Edwards are trying to distort that facts and, may I suggest, trying to make up for their own lack of leadership on this very important issue. Hillary Clinton is ahead in the polls; she will likely be the nominee. And because of that, Obama and Edwards feel a need to go on the attack. I know and respect the fact that Obama and Edwards want to be President and need to take Clinton down to do so, but what I do not respect is lying to the American public on such a critical matter as Iran.

McCain's Immigration Flip-Flop

In past commentaries I have talked about the wheels coming off of Senator John McCain's so called "straight talking express."  The Senator always tries to project himself as a straight shooter and he is indeed that on selective issues.  However, in a Presidential campaign, anything goes.

 

The latest flop the Senator is involved in is the immigration issue.  His position when the Senate introduced immigration legislation was border security, a temporary worker program, and eventual citizenship for illegal immigrants.  He has said in some of the past Republican debates that that has always been his position.

 

Now Senator McCain is catching heat because he now says he is for border security first because that is the peoples priority.  His Republican opponents say that he is flip flopping on the issue.  McCain says he has not changed.  The Senator is good at talking about other candidates flip flops but evidently when he flip flops it is not a flip flop.

 

Senator McCain had always talked about immigration needing a comprehensive approach but not anymore with his latest change of heart.  There is no question candidates need to listen to the people and this is what McCain says he is doing.  But he is selective depending upon which way the wind blows.  A good example is Iraq.  The people want this war to end, but McCain not only backs Bush's Iraq policy, he is one who thinks we should occupy Iraq forever.  So much for listening to the people.

Pakistan: Friend or Foe?

President Pervez Musharraf came to power in 1999 in a military coup.  As of this writing he is not only President but Chief of Staff of the Army.

On Sunday, Musharraf seized emergency power in Pakistan and abandoned the constitution.  This is the kind of unstable government the U.S. is dealing with in the fight against terror.  Senator Joe Biden said Sunday on Face the Nation that the problem is that Bush has a policy for Musharraf but not for Pakistan, a country who has WMD but is not signatory to the non-proliferation treaty.  In other words they don't have to yield to inspection of their nuclear facilities.

 

Why does the most powerful military and economic country in the world get mixed up with these kinds of people in the name of fighting terror?  Bush took our country to war in Iraq over WMD that did not exist and then made a pack with the likes of Musharraf who does has WMD.  Radicals could overthrow the government and take over their weapons at any time.  The Army itself could even turn on Musharraf and do the same thing.

 

Senator Biden also pointed out that we need a foreign policy for that whole region because the problems are all related.  Sadly, this administration has not dealt with the Middle East situation properly.  The tragic events of 9-11 happened over 6 years ago, the war in Iraq is deep into its fourth year, the Israeli and Palestinian conflict has not been addressed, and this administration still has no foreign policy for the region.  So called "tough talk" is not a policy and has yet to solve the problems.  The envelope is being pushed to the next President.  What a sad situation for our country to be in.

Romney on the Rise

Many have already ceded the Republican nomination to Rudy Giuliani and are planning for Clinton v. Giuliani in '08. However, if the latest caucus and primary polls are any indication, Rudy may well not be the nominee. That honor might go to former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney.

The two most important states in determining a nominee have historically been Iowa and New Hampshire, and there's really no indication that it would be any different this year. And, as far as polling is concerned, Romney is well ahead in those two key states. The latest poll for Iowa shows Romney at 27%, followed by Mike Huckabee at 19%. Rudy comes in third with 16%. New Hampshire polling has Romney at 30%, followed by Rudy at 23%. If this trend continues and Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he will replace Rudy as the frontrunner. As we saw with John Kerry in '04, the media buzz could be enough to propel Romney into South Carolina, Florida, and beyond.

The latest polling from South Carolina, however, shows that Romney may not need the media to pick up a win here. Conservatives from all over South Carolina have been endorsing Romney and Romney is on a fast rise there. The latest polling has Romney leading the pack with 29% followed by Rudy at 23%. Just one month ago, Rudy had 26% in South Carolina and Romney had a very weak 9%. But what a difference a month can make. It appears that Christian conservatives are flocking to Romney and his name recognition is growing and he is becoming more and more popular in South Carolina.

If Romney was to win Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, I see no way in which he could lose the nomination. Now, say Romney just wins just two of the three and Rudy wins the other one----then I say Rudy could still get the nomination. But with all the media buzz that would surround the Romney campaign with three huge wins, Rudy would essentially become forgotten overnight.

This demonstrates how interesting the GOP race is because of its fluidity. Rudy might be the national frontrunner but Romney has the potential to steal the spotlight in a matter of a couple of weeks. Many have already written off Romney, but I am convinced, now more than ever by his growing South Carolina support, that Romney could win the nomination.

The Iraq War ----The Fallout Continues

The last few days we have seen the television media cover the story of State Department Diplomats facing the possibility of being ordered to serve in Iraq if enough volunteers do not step forward to serve there.

 

It was reported in a town hall meeting this past Wednesday that diplomats raised concerns about the "potential death sentence" of being ordered to serve in Iraq.  (from Associated Press writer Matthew Lee).  Condi Rice, the Secretary of State, reminded the diplomats they took an oath to serve where ever necessary regardless of the risks.

 

This is just one of the so many tragic fallouts of this war and occupation over WMD that did not exist.  So many things have gone wrong with this war that one could write a book solely about the fallout and problems.  There will be many more problems triggered by this war in the future because the Commander in Chief still has no plan to end the war deep into the fourth year.  Can anyone really remember a President, other than Mr. Bush, who has harmed our country so often with their reckless behavior?

Playing the Gender Card?

Ever since Tuesday's Democrat Debate, the media has been all over Sen. Hillary Clinton. They call it her "worst week ever", or they say "she has ruined her chances at the nomination". The media has gone after Clinton nonstop; it's as if someone is paying them to do so.

Listen, I realize that Tuesday was not Hillary's best night, I said that in my review of the debate, but it is by no means something that is going to completely derail her campaign as the media is suggesting. Even the usual far left "Hillary-haters" are standing up and saying "whoa, it really wasn't that bad." Daily Kos, a common source for Hillary bashing, is among those speaking up:

"The reaction to Hillary's debate performance has been way out of whack with, well, her debate performance...But bottom line is, that at worst, she held steady. At best, she may have gained a little support. It wouldn't be the first time the media completely missed actual public sentiment."

What makes me the most irritated is that the media is, all of a sudden, jumping on Hillary for "playing the gender card". They keep quoting a statement Hillary made when visiting her alma mater, Wellesley College:

“In so many ways this all-women’s college prepared me to compete in the all-boys’ club of presidential politics.”

So, as far as I'm aware, that was the only comment Hillary made about gender since the debate. Yet, the media is hyping it as if she blamed her debate performance on her gender. The point is, that statement is not about "playing the gender card". Rather, it's called "playing the crowd". Hillary was in front of an all girl's school and she was obviously trying to excite them. Obama did the same thing yesterday in South Carolina when he was in front of an all African American crowd. He talked about how he has a chance to make history because of his skin color. And while he was speaking, he clearly took on an accent of a southern black. Do I blame Obama for that? No, it's called getting the crowd excited and into your what you're saying. It's what all great speakers do. Even more importantly, did the media blame Obama? No. So why attack Hillary for essentially the same thing?

But I can assure you that the media will continue to attack Hillary for "playing the gender card", even though she didn't. Hillary made a statement yesterday in which she said that the reason why the other candidates are going after her is because "I am the frontrunner". She also said she didn't mind being challenged on the issues and said "I can take the heat". But will the media cover that statement, in which Hillary clearly states the reason she is being attacked is because she is the frontrunner, not because she is a woman? No, sadly they won't. They'll instead keep replaying the quote from Wellesley and will keep falsely asserting that somehow, in that one statement, Hillary is acting as if she is being attacked because she is a woman.