Should Romney Address his Mormonism?

The fact the Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, is a Mormon is a fact that has dogged Romney throughout the campaign. According to a recent poll, 1/3 of all Americans say they would not vote for a Mormon for President. And no surprise, many of those intolerant bigots are people from the religious right of the Republican party. Now again, I do not support Romney or his views, but by no way do I think that any candidate should be judged by his religion--or for that matter his or her race, gender, etc.

There has been talk about Mitt Romney giving a speech to address doubts about his faith and supposedly the speech is already written, just waiting for Romney to give it. There is reportedly great debate withhin the Romney campaign on whether or not to give the speech. Here are my thoughts:

Right now, I don't see Romney needing to give the speech. He is far ahead in Iowa, his lead in New Hampshire has grown even more, and he is now ahead in South Carolina. If Romney is asked about his faith on the campaign trail, then surely he should answer it, as he has done. But to say that Romney needs to give this huge speech just doesn't make sense to me at this time. Why mess up something that is going so well? What exactly is Romney going to say anyway?

His religion doesn't seem to be hurting him yet; it is his values (genuine or not) that are actually helping him appeal to conservative Republicans. Now, of course, the general election is a different story. As more and more Americans pay attention to the Presidential race, Romney might need to address his Mormonism, much as J.F.K. did in 1960 about his Catholicism. But Romney should determine that when and if the time comes. Right now I would advise Romney to do keep up whatever he is doing, because it is working, and there is no need to jeopardize that.

Obama Blows the Crowd Away

This past Saturday night, at the Jefferson Jackson dinner in Iowa, Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama finally showed that fire that everyone has been waiting to see. I am far from an Obama fan, but even I must admit that his speech created an electric atmosphere. This was the best I've seen Obama since his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. It could very well be the turning point in this campaign.

In Iowa, Obama has been running neck and neck with Sen. Hillary Clinton in the polls. Iowa is in fact the only place where Obama is even remotely close to Hillary in the poll numbers. That is why Iowa is where Obama must stop Hillary. And I think his great speech last Saturday was his first step in trying to halt the Clinton machine. I look forward to seeing the next poll numbers from Iowa to see if Obama has picked up any momentum. I predict he will and I also predict that the Iowa Caucus results will be an extremely close call. I am now more convinced than ever that Obama might just be able to win Iowa.

The one thing I must criticize Obama for is his refusal to mention Hillary by name in his speeches. When he goes on the attack, it is obvious that he is talking about Sen. Clinton, so why doesn't he just call her out by name? I guess it is no big deal to most voters, but it's just something that irks me. If Edwards goes after Clinton, he doesn't have a problem calling her out by name. Same thing when Clinton challenges Obama. In my opinion, it just appears that Obama doesn't have the "guts" to call Hillary out by her name, and thats just not something that appeals to me.

It should be interesting to see how Hillary and her campaign respond to her slumping poll numbers and the attacks by Obama and Edwards this week. I have a feeling that Hillary will just leave Edwards alone; he is no threat to her. Obama, on the other hand, might be in for a surprise. Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communication director, is known to play hardball. It was Wolfson who really led the charge in the Clinton campaign back in the summer when Clinton went after Obama for saying he would meet with foreign leaders "unconditionally." If you noticed, it was after Clinton branded Obama as "naive" and "weak on foreign policy" that Obama began to drop in the polls and Clinton picked up speed. I see Wolfson doing the same this week. The Hillary campaign is going to go after Obama's biggest weakness-----his complete lack of experience. The argument is going to be made-"Obama has spent just over 2 years in the Senate, is he really ready to be President?" And when you make it sound like that, I think we can all agree, it plays to Hillary's favor.

Whatever the backlash may be, I must commend Obama for finally showing the same spirit at the JJ Dinner that made the country fall in love with him back in '04. I feel that Obama's speech on Saturday might have just won him the Iowa caucus. I also am sure though that Hillary won't go down without a fight, and I expect it to get ugly in the next few weeks. And although I am a Hillary supporter and I enjoyed her comfortable front-runner status, the other side of me is glad to finally see a race. There is nothing like the hardball, nail-biting, no-holds-barred feel of Presidential politics.

McCain vs. Giuliani

Well it finally appears that at least one Republican is ready to get tough against GOP Presidential frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani. Too long have the other Republican Presidential candidates let Giuliani falsify his way to the top of the polls. This past week, and especially today on Fox News Sunday, John McCain began to lead the fight on pointing out how the former New York City mayor isn't as experienced as he would like you to think.

McCain first turned up the heat on Giuliani Thursday when it was announced that Giuliani's former police chief, Bernard Kerik, had been indicted on charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, and lying to the IRS. Giuliani had apparently been briefed on Kerik's past and still proceeded to hire him as police chief. In late 2003, Giuliani, with knowledge of Kerik's criminal past, recommended to the President that Kerik should succeed Tom Ridge as Secretary of Homeland Security. President Bush, because of Giuliani's recommendation, did nominate Kerik. (Kerik eventually withdrew his acceptance of the nomination.) McCain is now calling Giuliani out on his judgment, and rightfully so. We don't need another President like the one we have now---one that puts personal friendship and loyalty before the law. McCain pointed out that today on Fox that Giuliani essentially tells voters that he is the only candidate that they can trust with national security. Yet, as McCain said, how can Giuliani be trusted on homeland security if he was willing to recommended Kerik, whom Giuiani apparently knew had criminal ties, to the post of Secretary of Homeland Security.

The second issue on which McCain has come out swinging against Giuliani is on the topic of foreign policy experience. Giuliani, in just about every speech, touts how experienced he is on foreign policy. The fact is that Giuliani has zero foreign policy experience. McCain, on the other hand, has a plethora of experience when it comes to dealing with foreign nations.

The third issue that I think is critical is the fact that Giuliani quit the Iraq Study Group because he wanted to make more money by giving speeches. Anybody like Giuliani, who is worth millions of dollars yet thinks that making more money is more important than the Iraq War, shouldn't be President. McCain pointed that out this morning saying something to the effect that a President must show that he cares and is interested in the troops, but Giuliani failed to do so when given a prime opportunity. McCain, however, has shown a great interest in our troops by visiting Iraq many times and talking to soldiers when they arrive home.

The reason Giuliani is leading in the polls is clearly because voters see him as the most experienced on issues such as national security, foreign relations, and the war in Iraq. But, by looking at Giuliani's past compared with other candidates, you see that Giuliani is indeed the least experienced candidate. Joe Biden was definitely right when he called Giuliani "the most unqualified person to be commander-in-chief". With that being said, the other GOP candidates have done absolutely nothing to challenge Giuliani on his record. Finally though, John McCain has started to do just that. And while I am certainly not a John McCain fan, I am even less of a Rudy fan and I am very glad to see that at least one GOP candidate is trying to get the truth out to the American public. Rudy Giuliani is not what he says he is---not by far. Republicans would do themselves a lot of good to actually look into Rudy's past and make an informed decision, instead of believing every word that Giuliani says.

Happy Birthday U.S. Marine Corps

Today the U.S. Marine Corps its celebrating its 232nd birthday.  Established in 1775 by the Continental Congress, the Marines made their first amphibious landing at New Providence Island in the Bahamas on March 3, 1776.  After almost two and a half centuries the Marine Corps continues to up hold its proud tradition.

 

The Marine Corps' motto "Semper Fidelis" means more than "Always Faithful."  It represents commitment, love of country, honor, and the ability to go the extra mile for your buddy.  Marines in all walks of life, those on active duty, reserves, retired, and those who have worn the eagle, globe, and anchor all share the same common bond, "Once a Marine, Always a Marine."

 

So today to all my brother Marines where ever they may be, especially those in combat, I would like to pass along the following tribute published in the Marine Corps League newsletter.

 

                                                                  THE TITLE

 

                                                           It can not be inherited

                                                           Nor can it ever be purchased

                                                           You and no one alive

                                                           Can buy it for any price

                                                           It is impossible to rent

                                                          And it cannot be lent

                                                           You Alone and our own

                                                           Have earned it with your

                                                           Sweat,  blood and lives

                                                           You own it forever

 

                                                                  THE TITLE

 

                                                       "UNITED STATES MARINE"

 

Happy Birthday Marines.  May all of you enjoy good health and a safe return home.

You Heard It Here First

With all the talk of how Rudy Giuliani will undoubtably be the Republican nominee, I find a need to interject myself. Rudy is indeed the national frontrunner, but so was Howard Dean on the Democratic side back in '04, and we all know how that turned out. I see a very similar thing happening this year with the GOP race.

It looks highly improbable that Rudy will win the Iowa caucuses on January 3. That honor will go to Mitt Romney. Romney is already ahead in New Hampshire and an Iowa win would just propel his campaign even more there. I predict that Romney will move on from a win in Iowa to win the New Hampshire primaries. At that point, the national media won't be able to get enough of Romney and Rudy will be all but forgotten.

Up next on the tumultuous primary calender is South Carolina. Now, if you asked me a month ago, I would have said South Carolina would be where Rudy could stop Romney. But now, I just don't think so. Romney has gained several key evangelical endorsements and his popularity in the south is on the rise. It seems as if southern evangelicals might be getting over their fear of Romney's Mormonism. Romney has been ahead by a decent margin in the last several South Carolina polls. This leads me to believe that Romney's momentum from Iowa and New Hampshire would propel him to a huge win in South Carolina.

Florida comes up about a week after South Carolina and most people who have studied politics, including myself, believe that as goes Florida, so goes the GOP nomination. In other words, whomever wins Florida will be the Republican nominee. But this is where I differ from just about everyone else in my views. I keep hearing that because Giuliani is ahead of Romney by about 15% in Florida, Romney will be stopped dead in his tracks. To those who think that, I would just like to ask them why they're so willing to throw out everything history has taught us about Presidential primaries. Momentum is key. If Romney wins Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, there is no way he could lose in Florida. The polls that matter the most right now are those in the early caucus and primary states, and those show that momentum is with Romney. Giuliani will not be able to go almost an entire month without winning a single key primary and still stay in the fight. Nobody wants to or is going to vote for a loser.

That is why, right here, right now, I am predicting that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee. Trust me, I can't wait to rub it in the media's faces when their crowned prince, Giuliani, loses.

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.