Ron Paul----My Take

Today, I continue the "My Take" series with a look at internet phenomenon, Ron Paul. Paul is a Texas Congressman and was the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988. Paul is currently running as a Republican, although a much different Republican from every other GOP contender in the field. Recently, Paul's campaign has been energized by raising $4.2 million in a single day (setting a new political record) as well as the fact that Paul is on the rise in New Hampshire polling (currently ahead of Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee at around 8% support).

The truth is that I have very mixed feelings about Ron Paul. I love the fact that he is strongly opposed to the Iraq War and wants to bring our troops home. Paul is also 100% correct on issues such as domestic surveillance and the Patriotic Act. However, on most other issues, Paul is dead wrong.

For example, I completely disagree with Paul's position that the U.N. and NATO are evil and that we need to immediately withdraw from them. Also, while the abolition of the income tax is a grand idea in theory, when it comes right down to it, where is the government going to get the money to do the things that the government needs to do? We would be forced to borrow even more money from foreign countries which leads to a host of all other kinds of problems.

A huge issue I would question Paul on is the issue of abortion. His position seems directly contrary to his Libertarian and Constitutionalist values. Doesn't the Constitution guarantee an individual his/her right to privacy? Doesn't the government have no place to get involved in a individual's personal life according to the Libertarian platform? If Paul believes in the Constitution, why is he staunchly opposed to a woman's right to choose, which is protected under the right to privacy? I don't think anybody is personally in love with the idea of a woman having an abortion, but it is a fact that abortion is a necessary choice for a woman to have.

Another issue that Ron Paul is dead wrong on is the issue of universal healthcare. Paul has said that if the government just stays out of the healthcare world, then somehow more people would be able to afford healthcare. It is simply insane to think that the healthcare crisis will simply fix itself; it won't. As far as I'm concerned, healthcare should be a constitutional right guaranteed to every American. It is literally a life or death matter. To think that there are people who die because they do not have access to quality healthcare is something that everyone should be outraged at. I admit, sometimes the government gets involved where it shouldn't, but healthcare is one area where it is essential for the government to act and act quickly. Universal healthcare is long overdue in this country and I can only hope that in 2008 America elects a President who will bring about it.

I'll close by saying something else positive about Ron Paul besides his opposition to the Iraq war and domestic surveillance. Paul, unlike most of the GOP candidates, is someone who I feel is being true to himself. Paul's positions have been consistent and he's not afraid to speak his mind and speak it forcefully. Although I may disagree with him on many issues, I truly have a lot of respect for his honesty and boldness. America needs a leader who is not afraid to stand up for what he/she believes in and, love him or hate him, Paul does just that. In fact, Paul may be the only Republican in years to do that. Thats why I feel it really is a shame that Paul doesn't have a chance to do better in the nomination process. For once I would like to see the Republicans nominate someone who at least tries to work for the good of the American people. The last thing I'll say though is that I don't think Paul is just going to go away. As I've said before, I could see him running as a third party candidate in the general election, which would be interesting to say the least.

Troops Surge, But Still No Political Progress

Every reason George Bush gave the American people for going to war in Iraq either never happened or was wrong.  Misleading America is the one thing Bush will be remembered for.

Almost one year ago Bush ordered a surge in troops in Iraq.  His stated purpose, he told America, was to reduce the violence so that the Iraqi government would make the needed reforms to unify their country.  Well, as of right now, the Iraqi's have achieved very little, if any, of that unity.  American's and Iraqi's are still being killed in a civil war and it is now reported the Bush administration has lowered its political expectations in Iraq to a few limited goals.  This is just one more blunder and policy failure added to the many other ones. 

 

As of this very moment, our military and civilian leaders say our military can't change Iraq's need for political settlement.  Senator Joe Biden has been saying that for over 3 years.  Al Sidar, one of the Shiite's militant leaders, ordered his army to stand down for 6 months and they have done so.  However, even with the stand down of the militants, the Iraqi government can not reconcile its political differences.

 

It is past time Mr. Bush realize what other countries have already figured out.  It is time to bring our brave men and women in uniform home.  This war over WMD that did not exist was won before it even started.  Mr. Bush just did not have the wisdom to understand that because he and his neocon friends wanted to play God in the Middle East and now America and its people are paying the price.  

The World Is Letting Itself Be Known: Get Out Of Iraq

A former diplomat and labor leader, Kevin Rudd, defeated Australian Prime Minister John Howard to lead the Australian people in a new direction.

 

Mr. Rudd campaigned and promised the Australian people that he would withdraw Australian troops from Iraq and sign the Kyoto Protocol on Global Warming.  Mr. Howard was a staunch supporter of President Bush and his Iraq policy and refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocal.

 

The defeat was so decisive it was reported Howard would probably loose his parliamentary seat altogether.  That would be only the second time in Australia's history.  The defeat of Howard is a continuation of the fallout from the Iraq War.  Donald Tusk, Poland's new Prime Minister, said in his inaugural address just recently that Poland would withdraw its troops from Iraq by the end of 2008. 

 

People around the world are making it known that the occupying forces in Iraq should be withdrawn.  The American people share that same feeling, despite the state of denial the Bush administration and many Republicans are still in.  Hopefully, next year, the American people will speak out as loudly against the war as people in Australia and Poland and around the world did, and elect a President who is committed to bringing the war to a safe end.

John Edwards----My Take

Sen. John Edwards used to be considered a frontrunner in the crowded race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Well now that frontrunner status of Edwards has faded to a point where, at best, Edwards is in the upper second-tier of candidates. There are several reasons to blame for his political demise, all of which were brought upon by John Edwards himself.

The John Edwards of 2004 was a cheerful, hopeful, friendly, semi-populist candidate. His message was one that resonated with many Americans. So when John Edwards entered the 2008 race, he was immediately one of my favorites. But as the campaign dragged on, Edwards underwent a noticeable transformation. He went from the cheerful candidate of '04, who always had a smile on his face and appeared to be the nicest person in the world, to a harsh, angry populist. Now, don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the populist message, and in fact I agree with much of it, but any candidate who appears angry is an immediate turn-off.

And while Edwards was getting angrier and angrier, he was simultaneously moving further and further to the left of his opponents. The mainstream appeal that Edwards had in '04 was quickly eroding. I would find myself watching clips of Edwards' speeches or reading transcripts and thinking to myself, "what exactly is this man thinking?" He began saying the most radical things and, at times, sounded certifiably insane. I suppose Edwards moved radically to the left to pick up the support of the far left wing of the Democratic Party, but if anything, his leftward journey backfired. As Edwards was pulled to the left, his poll numbers, both in Iowa and nationally, dropped. He may have picked up the votes of the more radical liberals, but he alienated mainstream Democrats and Independents, including myself. Edwards had always been my second choice after Sen. Clinton, but I was and still am baffled by his dramatic shift to the left. I consider myself a 100% liberal Democrat, but not a radical left wing Democrat. I'll also point out that the further a candidate moves away from mainstream America's ideals, the harder it is for him to win a general election. And to anyone who disagrees with that point, how exactly would you explain the fact that Sen. Clinton, and to a lesser extent Obama, run better against top GOP candidates than Edwards? The more centrist positions of Edwards in '04 led me to become a supporter of his, but this time around he has completely turned me off on the idea of voting for him.

The final straw for Edwards came in September when he was (despite what he would want you to believe) forced into taking public financing for his campaign due to his dismal fundraising. The fact is that by doing this, Edwards appeared desperate and needy. Voters want someone who is strong and has the ability to out raise the Republican opposition. For those that know and follow politics, they know that by taking matching funds, Edwards severally handicapped himself if he was to somehow win the nomination. From the start of the primary season to the DNC in August, Edwards would essentially be broke, and hence unable to respond to the sure firestorm of attacks by the Republicans. The last thing Democrats need is a candidate who is unable to put up a fight against the GOP for nearly 6 months. Its hard to make-up for 6 months of constant onslaught and attacks in just 2 and half months. Democrats would fare much better with a candidate who can respond to Republican attacks and put up their own ads to gain crucial momentum and support heading into November 2008.

And now, just under 6 weeks from the Iowa caucus, John Edwards is trying to fight his way back up to the top. The problem for him is that many Democrats, such as myself, have completely tuned Edwards out. His constant negativity and growing unelectablity have put him out of the running for the Democratic nomination. It is no longer Clinton vs. Edwards vs. Obama, but rather its just Clinton vs. Obama with Edwards being the pesky little fly that just won't go away but has no shot at stopping the big dogs.

Why I Support Hillary Clinton For President

I had planned to write a long post on why exactly I believe Sen. Hillary Clinton is the best choice for President, but then I came across this video and it says everything I wanted to say and says it way more articulately than I ever could.

Barack Obama----My Take

What I am about to write is partially in response to the post I had written earlier this week comparing the foreign policy credentials of Democratic Presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I had cross posted that post as a diary on DailyKos and (to put it gently) the general response I got from readers was that they wanted to know exactly why I thought Obama shouldn't be President.

I'll start by asking: What exactly has Obama done to qualify for the job of leading the entire free world? In my opinion, absolutely nothing. He was elected to the Illinois State Senate in '96. He was then elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. So if you want to go in terms of actual public service, then Obama has a little more than 10 years, but in terms of readiness to be President, you really have to look at Obama's record and experience in the U.S. Senate. No offense to state senators, but that job doesn't exactly prepare you for Presidential politics, much less for the actual job of being President (not that there is anything that can truly prepare you, but you get my point). The truth is that basically whichever candidate has the most signs in a local community will win State Senate. There are no real debates and no real tests for the job of a State Senator, but rather the person whose name is most recognizable on the ballot when a voter votes will win . It's that simple. It doesn't take much work or ability.

That brings me to Obama's big U.S. Senate win in '04. Or was it so big? I mean, seriously, Obama's opponent was Alan Keyes. Sure, Obama had good ideas and ideals, but it wasn't exactly a tough campaign for Obama. He has yet to face a true, tough opponent in a big election scenario and I'm not sure Democrats should want the 2008 Presidential Election to be Obama's practice.

It's not that I hate Obama, but I just do not think he is ready to compete in what is sure to be one of the closest, toughest elections in U.S. history. I do not think he is ready to inherit the office of President with his lack of experience. As several candidates have said, the next President will not have time for, "on the job training". That phrase might seem like nothing more than old political rhetoric, and it could very well be, but the phrase is nonetheless true. There is such a myriad of problems facing the country that the next President will have to deal with: the Iraq War, healthcare, the environment, the economy, immigration, etc. It is my feeling that the next President will have to have experience to deal with those issues.

Obama and his supporters like to throw out the fact that he has "judgment" and "judgment trumps experience". Make no mistake about it, judgment is important, but judgment and experience can coexist. The fact is that Obama might have been against the Iraq War in 2003, but he didn't have to vote on it. He has said several times in interviews that he does not know how he would have voted if indeed he was in the U.S. Senate at that time. Other candidates were in the Senate at that time and did vote for authorizing the war, but that does not mean they do not have good judgment. Those who voted for the war were lied to and told that Iraq had WMDs and was a threat to the U.S. If those facts had been true, then the correct judgment would have been to defend our country. The problem was that President Bush and his administration lied to Congress. There was no reason for Sen. Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, and Biden to believe that Iraq didn't have WMDs; there was no reason at that time to believe they were being lied to. They voted to protect the country based on what they were told and protecting the country is always the right vote. Every single one of the Democrats who voted for the war have long since said that if they had known that Iraq didn't have WMDs and that they were lied to, they wouldn't have voted for the war. So while "judgment" is very important, Obama has no justification for claiming that he somehow has better judgment than everyone else.

A second argument Obama supporters like to make is that Obama is the only candidate who can bring about change. Just the thought of that should outrage all Democrats. What is the one name you think of when someone says the complete opposite of Bush? The name Clinton comes to mind. The truth is that any Democrat would bring radical change from the current administration. And again I'll point out that change and experience can effectively coexist. This too might be a talking point of several candidates, but it is true that someone must have experience to make change happen. Clinton, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, and to some extent, Edwards, have decades of experience fighting for change. Obama has only a few years (I'll also point out that he voted exactly the same way as Clinton, Dodd, Biden, etc. did when he was elected in the U.S. Senate on all the important issues, including the Iraq War). Hillary first starting working for change in 1977 when she worked (without pay) for the protection and rights of women and their children. She also worked hard to expand medical privileges to the poorest areas of Arkansas. Some say that Hillary's position as First Lady of Arkansas and the U.S. does not count as experience, but when you looked at what she fought for and accomplished in those years, it is clear that Hillary worked just as hard as any State or a U.S. Senator. Who can forget her daring attempts to get universal healthcare in '93 and '94. Dodd, Biden, and Richardson have equally impressive resumes when it comes to fighting for change. So while it is great that Obama wants to bring change, other candidates have actually brought change. "Change" is not just a word that can be thrown around. A candidate has to have the strength to bring about the change and quite frankly Clinton, Dodd, Biden, etc. have shown that they know how to bring about real change. Obama has not.

So, as you can hopefully see, it's not that I hate Barack Obama, it's just that I do not feel he is ready to be President. There are far more qualified candidates who have an actual record of achieving meaningful goals. Obama "talks the talk", but the others "walk the walk". And let's face it, the only reason Obama is so well known is because of an awesome, inspiring speech he gave at the 2004 DNC. But let's remember that there have been many great speakers, but not many great Presidents. We need a great President, not a great speaker in 2008 (although hopefully a better speaker than Dubya). Maybe Obama will be ready to be President in the future, but he is just not ready at this time.

Cuba: A Missed Opportunity for America

Approximately 90 miles from the U.S. shore is the island of Cuba, an ally of the United States when it was governed by dictatorship.  Fidel Castro came to power when he overthrew Cuba's dictatorship and our relationship has never been the same.

 

The next President should hold meetings with Castro or whomever the Cuban leader is at the time with the intent to open and have diplomatic relations with Cuba.  Cuba and America could become full trading partners and in time Cuba could become a free country for its people.  Fifty plus years of sanctions and boycotts never achieved its goal---the overthrow of Castro by its people; it is time to try something different.

The idea of Cuba being more inline with our enemies than with America is unacceptable after all these years.  President Kennedy before his death had plans to start a dialog with Cuba to bring them back in our hemisphere.  He had the wisdom to realize the communist hold on Cuba had to be broken.  Unfortunately, his untimely death put an end to this endeavor.

 

An independent, free Cuba would make our hemisphere safer.  Our relationship with Cuba should be a strong, mutual one; not one where the U.S. dominates.  The United States should not be worried because Cuba is communist.  That will fall soon enough from natural forces just like communism in Russia fell.

 

The next President will have to stand up to the Cuban people in Florida who will not take kindly to this new policy.  President Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 called Cuba, "that imprisoned island."  Almost 50 years later, our foreign policy toward Cuba has not changed that.  The time for action is way over due.

Picture: © Rafael Perez/Corbis 

Corporate America: Leaving the Average American in the Dust

Corporate America has the power to transform the quality of life for its employees and the people of this country.  They have failed to do so because of their greed.  They give exorbitant bonuses, stock options, and the like to their CEOs and executives, even when their companies are losing money.  This is done at the expense of their faithful employees who make everything possible for the company.

 

At a time when health insurance and retirement benefits are being reduced for the average worker, (some benefits are being eliminated) CEOs and executives are still receiving their exorbitant bonuses and stock options.  All the while corporate America enjoys the advantage of loop holes in federal tax laws that allows them to pay less tax than the average American.

 

They also enjoy corporate welfare from the federal government under the disguise of need.  If CEOs and Executives were given bonuses and stock options at a ratio that can be related to their average worker's salary, the excess they are now being paid could be diverted to a health insurance fund for their employees.  That would alleviate the reduction in health coverage employees are experiencing.  But, of course, greed gets in the way. 

 

It is also corporate America that spends millions of dollars to hire lobbyists, some have their own lobbyists within their company.  Their purpose is to influence Congress and State Legislatures so they can receive special treatment while the average American, when contacting their representatives, receive either a standard reply or none at all.  

It is time for Congress and State Legislatures to show lobbyists the door and treat them like the average American.  Corporate America and their lobbyists have destroyed the checks and balances that were created to take care of the average person's business.  Their greed has corrupted our system and something must be done to change it. 

Scott McClellan Speaks Out

Just when everybody thought the White House couldn't possibly come under any more scrutiny, it does. In a book to be released next April, former Press Secretary Scott McClellan is supposedly going to tell "what happened" concerning his and others' involvement in the Valerie Plame-CIA leak case. In an excerpt released yesterday, McClellan wrote,

"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. There was one problem. It was not true. I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the Vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself."

So there you have it. McClellan clearly states that indeed Cheney and Bush were involved. Today McClellan came out and said that he did not intend to imply that the President lied.....yet he DID imply that in the excerpt. In fact, not only did he imply it, he wrote it. You can go through and parse the excerpt however you like, but McClellan undoubtably did state that Bush and Cheney were involved in the cover-up.

My only question for McClellan is why did he not come out with this sooner? Why when the Libby trial was going on did he not come forth with this important piece of information? As far as I'm concerned, it was his duty as an American citizen to let the truth be known. If we have a criminal as a President, and I'm convinced we do, then the American people deserve to know. Justice deserves to be served.

One theory that many have come up with is that President Bush was lied to by Vice-President Cheney and hence that is why Bush "passed on misleading information" to McClellan. There is one flaw with that theory however. If Cheney did lie to the President, and its Cheney who is the criminal, not Bush, then when the truth came out, why didn't Bush get rid of Cheney. I know Bush is loyal, but I couldn't even imagine Bush keeping Cheney around if Cheney lied to him. That leads me to one conclusion: Cheney AND Bush were knowingly involved in the cover-up. Any sensible person can look at this situation and see that the pieces of this puzzle just don't match up unless Bush himself was knowingly and willingly involved.

So today when the editor of McClellan's book says that McClellan didn't "intend to suggest Bush lied to him," but also says that the reader can make up his or her own mind concerning Cheney's involvement, I would argue that there is no way one could be involved without the other. And by saying (to Chris Mathews) that the reader can make up his own mind concerning Cheney, the editor and McClellan are by default saying that Cheney was involved. And as I said earlier, if Cheney was involved, so was Bush. Its also interesting to note that although given the opportunity, McClellan did not come out and say that Bush wasn't involved, he just said that he didn't intend to suggest that he was involved.

I'll close by saying that I am very disappointed in the mainstream media for not covering this story the way it should be covered. Many are claiming that this is just "old news". Well I have news for them, this is not "old news". This is extremely important news that points toward our President, the leader of the free world, being a criminal. I urge the media to get this story out there to the American people. By standing by and decreeing this as "old news", the media is letting the Bush administration get away with a potential crime. I would, however, like to commend both Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman of MSNBC for giving this story proper coverage. I hope to see the rest of the media follow suit in the coming days.

The Debate About The Debate

David Broder of the Washington Post recently wrote an editorial "Sound and Fury, Signifying a Debate," concerning the last Democratic debate in Las Vegas.  The thrust of Mr. Broder's article was that the debate moderators are so eager for headlines, they rarely pause to ask the candidates for evidence to support their opinions or assertions.  As I've stated in the past, I agree with Mr. Broder on this issue.

 

However, Mr. Broder has the same problem as the moderators because when he appears on many cable shows, he speaks about candidates' positions but fails to tell the full story himself.  A prime example is promoting Republican talking points on national security as if they were fact, but not following up with any evidence to support his claims. Mr. Broder has done that several times just within the past few months.

 

Mr. Broder was also one of many journalists who never sought evidence to back up the claim that Iraq had WMD stockpiled and ready to use against America or transferred to terrorists as the President and other Republicans asserted.  Yet he says moderators don't seek evidence from candidates to support their opinions.  Mr. Broder is guilty of the same thing.

 

Mr. Broder ends his editorial in these words, "can't these debates be rescued."  The answer is of course they can, but they won't because journalists and the media put hype, spin, and show business first.  What Mr. Broder should be asking is when will the candidates face questions about the 20 years of record deficit spending by the Reagan-Bush and George W. Bush administrations.  Mr. Broder does not have to wait for the moderators to address that  and other issues.  He writes an editorial column; he can write about anything any time he wants to.