Here is a quick look at how the candidates fared in the Iowa Straw Poll, I will be back tomorrow morning for a full analysis.
1. Mitt Romney 4516 votes
2. Mike Huckabee 2587
3. Sam Brownback 2192
4. Tom Tancredo 1961
5. Ron Paul 1305
6. Tommy Thompson 1009
7. Duncan Hunter 174
8. John Cox 41
*While the following we're not actively taking part in the Straw Poll their names were still on the ballot:
Fred Thompson 231 votes
Rudy Guiliani 183
John McCain 101
Saturday, August 11, 2007
The Military Draft: against the rights of every citizen
When asked about the draft, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said the following:
"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it."
The draft should never be re-instated. Every citizen in this country should have the right to do what they want with their life, when they want to do it. No matter what the benefits that might come with the draft, no body wants to be told what to do, nor should they be told. And the United Nations knew this. Here are just a few clauses in the Declaration of Human Rights that would be violated if there ever was another draft:
-Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.
-Article 4: no one shall be held in mandatory servitude
-Article 20: no one may be forced to belong to an association
-Article 23: Everyone has the right to choice of employment
Hopefully there never will be another draft, but if there is, expect chaos. There is a voluntary service and that is how it should stay. And to be honest, I do not expect a draft any time soon. Politicians who would have to vote for it know that they would never win re-election and more importantly wouldn't want to send their own sons into battle.
"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it."
The draft should never be re-instated. Every citizen in this country should have the right to do what they want with their life, when they want to do it. No matter what the benefits that might come with the draft, no body wants to be told what to do, nor should they be told. And the United Nations knew this. Here are just a few clauses in the Declaration of Human Rights that would be violated if there ever was another draft:
-Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.
-Article 4: no one shall be held in mandatory servitude
-Article 20: no one may be forced to belong to an association
-Article 23: Everyone has the right to choice of employment
Hopefully there never will be another draft, but if there is, expect chaos. There is a voluntary service and that is how it should stay. And to be honest, I do not expect a draft any time soon. Politicians who would have to vote for it know that they would never win re-election and more importantly wouldn't want to send their own sons into battle.
Cindy Sheehan: For Real?
In early July 2007, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan made a bold statement: either Nancy Pelosi will introduce articles of impeachment against Bush, or she would run against Speaker Pelosi in 2008 as an independent. After waiting a month to see if her ultimatum would be met, Cindy Sheehan announced that she is indeed running against Pelosi in 2008.
The question is, is Cindy Sheehan for real? Can she make a successful bid for the House of Representatives? All indications so far are no, that Pelosi's popularity in San Francisco will allow for another easy win. But don't be surprised if Sheehan does better than expected. San Francisco as a whole is utterly anti-war. If Sheehan can raise enough money, she could prove to be a bigger threat to Pelosi than some are saying. Not only will she get money from anti-war citizens in San Francisco, but also from anti-war activists around the country. In the end, Pelosi will prevail, but Sheehan is going to make her work harder then ever at keeping her job.
Now for my take on Cindy Sheehan. I feel so bad that she lost her son. She has a legitimate reason to be upset at the Bush administration, as we all do. But there is a point where you have to stop. At one point Sheehan said that she would rather live under Chavez than Bush. She has also made remarks hinting that 9/11 was an inside job. She should be continuing her anti-war activism, which helped bring attention to the war, instead of making foolish statements and saying anything to get in the press. There is no reason for her to blame Pelosi or the democrats when it comes to the war or impeachment. You can bet that this war would have been ended and both Bush and Cheney would have been impeached if it was possible. But with just the narrow led the democrats have in Congress, it is impossible for them to override a veto and it would be impossible for the Senate to impeach Bush. And Sheehan knows that. Cindy, blame the GOP, but support those who are fighting for what you too are fighting for. Thats the way to get things accomplished.
The question is, is Cindy Sheehan for real? Can she make a successful bid for the House of Representatives? All indications so far are no, that Pelosi's popularity in San Francisco will allow for another easy win. But don't be surprised if Sheehan does better than expected. San Francisco as a whole is utterly anti-war. If Sheehan can raise enough money, she could prove to be a bigger threat to Pelosi than some are saying. Not only will she get money from anti-war citizens in San Francisco, but also from anti-war activists around the country. In the end, Pelosi will prevail, but Sheehan is going to make her work harder then ever at keeping her job.
Now for my take on Cindy Sheehan. I feel so bad that she lost her son. She has a legitimate reason to be upset at the Bush administration, as we all do. But there is a point where you have to stop. At one point Sheehan said that she would rather live under Chavez than Bush. She has also made remarks hinting that 9/11 was an inside job. She should be continuing her anti-war activism, which helped bring attention to the war, instead of making foolish statements and saying anything to get in the press. There is no reason for her to blame Pelosi or the democrats when it comes to the war or impeachment. You can bet that this war would have been ended and both Bush and Cheney would have been impeached if it was possible. But with just the narrow led the democrats have in Congress, it is impossible for them to override a veto and it would be impossible for the Senate to impeach Bush. And Sheehan knows that. Cindy, blame the GOP, but support those who are fighting for what you too are fighting for. Thats the way to get things accomplished.
Ron Paul...putting Mitt Romney to good use!
Ron Paul is a genius. He is the only person in the world that could find a good reason to keep Mitt "flip-flopper" Romney around.
"Ron Paul’s supporters are actively encouraging Iowa voters to take advantage of Mitt Romney’s offers of free transportation to the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames on Saturday and then, once they are there, to vote for Mr. Paul."
(from the NY Times)
Not only is this a great way to get Ron Paul supporters to the polls, but it also limits the power of money in the Iowa straw poll. If people, who aren't Romney supporters, take the buses, Romney's financial advantage will be reduced. And thats a good thing, because in a democracy, money shouldn't decide elections.
"Ron Paul’s supporters are actively encouraging Iowa voters to take advantage of Mitt Romney’s offers of free transportation to the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames on Saturday and then, once they are there, to vote for Mr. Paul."
(from the NY Times)
Not only is this a great way to get Ron Paul supporters to the polls, but it also limits the power of money in the Iowa straw poll. If people, who aren't Romney supporters, take the buses, Romney's financial advantage will be reduced. And thats a good thing, because in a democracy, money shouldn't decide elections.
Why so hard on Pelosi?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been under a firestorm of criticism from her own party for her handing of the Democratic controlled Congress. Most democrats complain that she hasn't ended the war and far-left democrats want her to impeach the President and Vice President. I'm not here to defend her every move, but Nancy Pelosi has done a lot to help bring this war to an end.
Congress tried to pass measures that would force the president to begin withdrawing troops in the future, however the were all vetoed. The Congress would have to break the 2/3 majority to override Bush's veto, and at this time that is not possible. But that is not Pelosi's fault, or for that matter any democrat's fault. It is the Republicans who refuse to think of the troops but instead think of their right-wing base and their loyalty to the President. If it wasn't for the Democratic Congress and Nancy Pelosi, there would be no talk of bringing our troops home. There would be no pressure on the President. Nancy Pelosi has forced the President to think about this war, something I'm not sure he had ever done before. She has opened up talks for withdrawal and whether the Pentagon likes to admit it or not, I'd be willing to be she has forced the Pentagon to at least bring up how troops would be re-deployed. If it wasn't for the democrats, there would be zero talk of ending this war. There would be no September Petraeus report. And on the matter of impeachment: It would be pointless for the House to begin impeachment when it has no chance of getting through the Senate. There is no point of wasting time on impeachment when it is bound to fail and there are more important issues to address. So I say to those critics of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress, blame the Republicans for they are the ones preventing what you want, not Nancy Pelosi and not the Democrats. Its a sad truth, but many are beginning to realize it: we are not leaving Iraq until we get a democrat in the White House, who is committed to the safe withdrawal of American forces.
Congress tried to pass measures that would force the president to begin withdrawing troops in the future, however the were all vetoed. The Congress would have to break the 2/3 majority to override Bush's veto, and at this time that is not possible. But that is not Pelosi's fault, or for that matter any democrat's fault. It is the Republicans who refuse to think of the troops but instead think of their right-wing base and their loyalty to the President. If it wasn't for the Democratic Congress and Nancy Pelosi, there would be no talk of bringing our troops home. There would be no pressure on the President. Nancy Pelosi has forced the President to think about this war, something I'm not sure he had ever done before. She has opened up talks for withdrawal and whether the Pentagon likes to admit it or not, I'd be willing to be she has forced the Pentagon to at least bring up how troops would be re-deployed. If it wasn't for the democrats, there would be zero talk of ending this war. There would be no September Petraeus report. And on the matter of impeachment: It would be pointless for the House to begin impeachment when it has no chance of getting through the Senate. There is no point of wasting time on impeachment when it is bound to fail and there are more important issues to address. So I say to those critics of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress, blame the Republicans for they are the ones preventing what you want, not Nancy Pelosi and not the Democrats. Its a sad truth, but many are beginning to realize it: we are not leaving Iraq until we get a democrat in the White House, who is committed to the safe withdrawal of American forces.
A chance to break out: The Iowa Straw Poll
Well today in Ames, Iowa is the Ames Straw Poll. In the past, the Straw Poll has been able to give us a good indication of whom will win the Iowa Caucus. It also is the chance for one of the lower-tier candidates to break through the glass ceiling to become a front-runner. One can argue the validity of winning the straw poll. In all senses of the word, it is nothing but a money race. The candidate with the most money can essentially "buy" votes. This is one reason why Mitt Romney is expected to cleanly and decisively win the Straw Poll.
Now one of the reasons why someone could break out is due to the fact that three of the front-runners have decided not to compete. Those three would be Mayor Guiliani, Sen. McCain, and Sen. Fred Thompson, who has yet to declare his candidacy. One has to question their wisdom not to compete. Romney has been winning in Iowa Caucus polls with on average 10-15 percentage points ahead of Guiliani and McCain. Both may want to preserve the candidacy, for if they lost to Romney, they might have lost some national support. It would not do well for either Guiliani or McCain to be seen finishing in a distant second of third place. I still believe, however, that they should have competed. It has to feel like the two are shunning the Iowa voters. And who knows this could have been a chance for Guiliani to poll ahead of Romney. If your in it to win it, you should be in all the formalities that go along with running for president, and for the Republicans, the Ames Straw Poll is certainly one of those formalities.
With Romney expected to win first place, who will come in second, and how far behind first place will he be? Both Gov. Huckabee and Sen. Brownback are looking to capture second place. Brownback has been running ads in Iowa, criticizing Romney on his lack of leadership when it comes to abortion. Huckabee has been polling well in Iowa, most recently tied with John McCain. If either one of these men can score close to Romney's numbers, they could break out into the front-tier.
Ron Paul is my pick for the surprise candidate. He will either do extremely well, or extremely poorly, I just don't know which yet, although I hope he finishes strong. He has to be the favorite among anti-war republicans and has received massive online support. If that online support shows up at the Straw poll, expect Paul to do well, if they don't he will likely finish at the bottom of the pack.
As for Tommy Thompson and Tom Tancredo, both have gained support in Iowa. Expect them to finish somewhere in the middle. Duncan Hunter has not been doing well in Iowa, so expect him to finish second to last place. Now I'm not psychic, but I can and will tell you who will come in dead last. John Cox. And he'll finish last because most people have never heard of him. He hasn't even taken part in any of the debates.
With the Straw Poll today, it should be interesting to see who will break through, if anybody. I would not surprise me in the least if we see one or two of the "losers" drop out of the race after today. Some, in fact, have probably been planning to drop out, but will use the Straw Poll as an excuse. I plan on doing a follow-up blog after the results are announced.
Now one of the reasons why someone could break out is due to the fact that three of the front-runners have decided not to compete. Those three would be Mayor Guiliani, Sen. McCain, and Sen. Fred Thompson, who has yet to declare his candidacy. One has to question their wisdom not to compete. Romney has been winning in Iowa Caucus polls with on average 10-15 percentage points ahead of Guiliani and McCain. Both may want to preserve the candidacy, for if they lost to Romney, they might have lost some national support. It would not do well for either Guiliani or McCain to be seen finishing in a distant second of third place. I still believe, however, that they should have competed. It has to feel like the two are shunning the Iowa voters. And who knows this could have been a chance for Guiliani to poll ahead of Romney. If your in it to win it, you should be in all the formalities that go along with running for president, and for the Republicans, the Ames Straw Poll is certainly one of those formalities.
With Romney expected to win first place, who will come in second, and how far behind first place will he be? Both Gov. Huckabee and Sen. Brownback are looking to capture second place. Brownback has been running ads in Iowa, criticizing Romney on his lack of leadership when it comes to abortion. Huckabee has been polling well in Iowa, most recently tied with John McCain. If either one of these men can score close to Romney's numbers, they could break out into the front-tier.
Ron Paul is my pick for the surprise candidate. He will either do extremely well, or extremely poorly, I just don't know which yet, although I hope he finishes strong. He has to be the favorite among anti-war republicans and has received massive online support. If that online support shows up at the Straw poll, expect Paul to do well, if they don't he will likely finish at the bottom of the pack.
As for Tommy Thompson and Tom Tancredo, both have gained support in Iowa. Expect them to finish somewhere in the middle. Duncan Hunter has not been doing well in Iowa, so expect him to finish second to last place. Now I'm not psychic, but I can and will tell you who will come in dead last. John Cox. And he'll finish last because most people have never heard of him. He hasn't even taken part in any of the debates.
With the Straw Poll today, it should be interesting to see who will break through, if anybody. I would not surprise me in the least if we see one or two of the "losers" drop out of the race after today. Some, in fact, have probably been planning to drop out, but will use the Straw Poll as an excuse. I plan on doing a follow-up blog after the results are announced.
Friday, August 10, 2007
America's Mayor with yet another self-serving statement:
When Rudy was asked in Ohio yesterday about the air quality at ground zero and him not properly preparing or warning of such a thing, "America's Mayor" had this to say,
"I was at Ground Zero...I was exposed to the same stuff... so I'm one of them"
What a self-serving statement to make. When I read this I immediately thought of Romney comparing his sons who are campaigning for him to those brave men and women serving their country in Iraq. Is this the best the GOP can do? They have to make themselves look like heros and reduce the true heroes to being equal to political campaigners and a Mayor that used 9/11 to propel his own political future and fortune. Its really sad and again I say that if you want to get the true story listen to the people who were there. Listen to the firefighters who were at Ground Zero. Listen to the hundreds who today have serious health problems that doctors say are directly related to the air quality at Ground Zero.
"I was at Ground Zero...I was exposed to the same stuff... so I'm one of them"
What a self-serving statement to make. When I read this I immediately thought of Romney comparing his sons who are campaigning for him to those brave men and women serving their country in Iraq. Is this the best the GOP can do? They have to make themselves look like heros and reduce the true heroes to being equal to political campaigners and a Mayor that used 9/11 to propel his own political future and fortune. Its really sad and again I say that if you want to get the true story listen to the people who were there. Listen to the firefighters who were at Ground Zero. Listen to the hundreds who today have serious health problems that doctors say are directly related to the air quality at Ground Zero.
Tom Tancredo: the craziest conservative yet?
We all know that there have been many far-right crazy conservatives in the past decades, but as Rep. Tom Tancredo continues to come to fame in the 2008 Election, and his views get revealed, he could prove to be the wackiest yet.
First of all, if we didn't know that Tancredo was anti-hispanic immigration, then maybe his statement a few years back should be brought up. Tancredo referred to the city of Miami as "a third world country". He has compared Miami to Havana, Cuba on numerous occasions as well, saying, "I knew speaking your mind could be dangerous in Havana — I guess it's equally dangerous to do so in Miami. Apparently, there isn't much of a difference between the two anymore." So I can respect someone if there opposed to illegal immigration, there are actual reasons to be opposed, butto be opposed to Miami, Florida? For what? The only clear explanation is that Tancredo sees Miami a hispanic-immigrant city, which it partially is, but isn't that a good thing. Cultural diversity is what makes the United States, a country of immigrants I might add, so great.
Then there is what Tancredo would call his foreign policy. He introduced it at a Town Hall Meeting in Iowa last month. Tom Tancredo said that to deter the threat of terrorist attacks on the United States, that we should threaten to bomb the two holiest cities in Islam, Mecca and Medina. And that if there was ever another attack on the U.S., we should go ahead and destroy the two cities. What an absurd, ignorant statement to make. Even the State Department called him out on this issue. I'm all for deterring terrorists, but to bomb Islam's holiest cities? Mecca and Medina are important to the Islam religion, destroying them would anger millions of good-willed Muslims who currently want no to harm to the U.S. If anything it would spark an outrage in the Middle East and then every Muslim would be out to destroy the U.S.
Rep. Tancredo. here's an idea: lets go after al-Qaeda where they are planning attacks, instead of playing world police in Iraq. Maybe if we target the terrorists in Afghanistan and work with Musharraf, we could capture and kill bin-Laden. Thats the way to protect the United States.
First of all, if we didn't know that Tancredo was anti-hispanic immigration, then maybe his statement a few years back should be brought up. Tancredo referred to the city of Miami as "a third world country". He has compared Miami to Havana, Cuba on numerous occasions as well, saying, "I knew speaking your mind could be dangerous in Havana — I guess it's equally dangerous to do so in Miami. Apparently, there isn't much of a difference between the two anymore." So I can respect someone if there opposed to illegal immigration, there are actual reasons to be opposed, butto be opposed to Miami, Florida? For what? The only clear explanation is that Tancredo sees Miami a hispanic-immigrant city, which it partially is, but isn't that a good thing. Cultural diversity is what makes the United States, a country of immigrants I might add, so great.
Then there is what Tancredo would call his foreign policy. He introduced it at a Town Hall Meeting in Iowa last month. Tom Tancredo said that to deter the threat of terrorist attacks on the United States, that we should threaten to bomb the two holiest cities in Islam, Mecca and Medina. And that if there was ever another attack on the U.S., we should go ahead and destroy the two cities. What an absurd, ignorant statement to make. Even the State Department called him out on this issue. I'm all for deterring terrorists, but to bomb Islam's holiest cities? Mecca and Medina are important to the Islam religion, destroying them would anger millions of good-willed Muslims who currently want no to harm to the U.S. If anything it would spark an outrage in the Middle East and then every Muslim would be out to destroy the U.S.
Rep. Tancredo. here's an idea: lets go after al-Qaeda where they are planning attacks, instead of playing world police in Iraq. Maybe if we target the terrorists in Afghanistan and work with Musharraf, we could capture and kill bin-Laden. Thats the way to protect the United States.
Mitt Romney's idea of serving your country:
At a press gathering Mitt Romney was asked if his five sons were serving in the military. In response Romney said, "The good news is that we have a volunteer Army and that's the way we're going to keep it. My sons are all adults and they've made decisions about their careers and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard."
Okay, well in a way I think Mitt is absolutely correct. We do have a volunteer Army and if people, much like myself, would rather have a civilian career, I find no problem with that. But this is where Mitt completely lost his mind:
"One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."
So Mitt Romney believes that driving around Iowa raising money for him is serving your country? Its certainly not equal to the sacrifice our brave men and women make in Iraq. Maybe thats why the Republicans don't mind sending thousands of troops to fight an endless, needless war, because they believe that serving your country in the military is just as easy as driving around in a nice, air-conditioned SUV in Iowa and stopping at fund-raisers. It brings up the question: if you support this War continuing and you support the surge, maybe you should join the war. Or maybe those that want to continue sending men and women to Iraq, should just go spend one, just one, day on the streets of Baghdad. Maybe then they would stop thinking of their un-yielding loyalty to the republican base, and start thinking of those who are actually fighting this war.
Okay, well in a way I think Mitt is absolutely correct. We do have a volunteer Army and if people, much like myself, would rather have a civilian career, I find no problem with that. But this is where Mitt completely lost his mind:
"One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."
So Mitt Romney believes that driving around Iowa raising money for him is serving your country? Its certainly not equal to the sacrifice our brave men and women make in Iraq. Maybe thats why the Republicans don't mind sending thousands of troops to fight an endless, needless war, because they believe that serving your country in the military is just as easy as driving around in a nice, air-conditioned SUV in Iowa and stopping at fund-raisers. It brings up the question: if you support this War continuing and you support the surge, maybe you should join the war. Or maybe those that want to continue sending men and women to Iraq, should just go spend one, just one, day on the streets of Baghdad. Maybe then they would stop thinking of their un-yielding loyalty to the republican base, and start thinking of those who are actually fighting this war.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New....Hampshire?
Well with the 2008 Presidential Campaign starting earlier than ever, it appears the nomination process will too start earlier than in previous years. On August 9, it was announced that South Carolina had moved its republican primary up to January 19. This was in response to South Carolina wanting to be the first Southern state to hold a primary after Florida moved its primary up to January 29, ahead of South Carolina. Now seeing as South Carolina is currently scheduled to be the first primary(ahead of New Hampshire), New Hampshire is expected to move their primary up. New Hampshire law says that the state's primary must precede any similar contest by at least 7 days. That would put New Hampshire's date at January 12 or sooner. Well the only problem with that is that the Iowa caucus is scheduled to take place on January 14. Iowa by law is required to be the first state to participate in the nomination process, traditionally occurring 8 days before New Hampshire. That could push Iowa back to January 4 or sooner. With January 4 being so close to the New Year's Holiday, some are proposing to push it back to before Christmas or in between Christmas and New Year.
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand the sooner the primaries happen and the closer together they occur, the less chance someone has to bounce back after a defeat. On the other hand, I feel that with this campaign starting so early and with so many people paying attention, why not just get it done and over with.
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand the sooner the primaries happen and the closer together they occur, the less chance someone has to bounce back after a defeat. On the other hand, I feel that with this campaign starting so early and with so many people paying attention, why not just get it done and over with.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)