Warner won't seek re-election

Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia announced that he will not seek a sixth term in the 2008 election. Warner was first elected in 1978 and is now 80 years old. While Warner claims he currently feels good enough to run for Senator again, he doesn't want to make a six year commitment to the people of Virginia and then not be able to fulfill it:

"I want to be fair to this wonderful state, which has been eminently fair to me all these years. You’ve given me my best shot, and I’m quietly gong to step aside and make way for others."

Warner, I must say, has my respect. He, unlike many Republicans, has stood up and questioned the President and his administration on several issues, most recently stating that he feels we need to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. Warner stood up for what he believed in and for that, I salute him.

But then there is of course the question of who will run for Warner's vacant Senate seat. If Warner ran again in '08, he would have been hard to defeat, but now the democrats have an excellent chance of winning another seat in the Senate. The most likely democrat to run is former Governor Mark Warner. Former Republican Governor, and former presidential candidate, Jim Gilmore, has stated his interest in running for the Senate as well. If Mark Warner and Gilmore are the two going head to head in the general election, I would bet that Mark Warner would score the victory. His popularity has lasted since he left the Governor's Mansion and Warner has always found a way to connect with voters. Expect to see the democrats jump on this opportunity and score a Senate seat victory.

People unhappy with Guiliani 9/11 ceremony role

This year, at the annual 9/11 commemoration ceremony in New York City, former Mayor Rudy Guiliani is scheduled to speak. Some people though are very unhappy about this:

-“I think it’s disgraceful that he’s going to be there,” said James Riches, a deputy fire chief who lost his son Jimmy in the attacks, and who said that he faulted Mr. Giuliani as not giving firefighters the proper equipment before or after the attacks. “It’s a photo-op for him.”

-Sally Regenhard, whose son, Christian, a firefighter, was killed in the World Trade Center attack, said: “I’m still very shocked and I’m very, very upset, for two reasons. Number one, the majority of firefighters and their families have made it clear how they feel about Mayor Giuliani. The second reason is that it’s totally unorthodox to have someone running for major elected office in the United States to have a forum like this.”

I must agree with the above sentiments. Rudy Guiliani has no place reading at the ceremonies. It is indeed nothing but a photo-op for him, a chance for him to make people remember his supposed heroic efforts on 9/11. Firefighters and policeman do not want the former mayor there. They were there on 9/11 and say Guiliani had left the FDNY and NYPD completely un-prepared for such an event. They also criticize his recovery efforts, stating that Guiliani used the tragedy to further his political career. The most disturbing piece of information that the firefighters present is the fact that Rudy called off the search for the remains of their lost friends as soon as he had found a vault with silver and gold in it that he had been looking for. Coincidence?....one would think not. Perhaps my favorite quote about Guiliani's "legacy" is when a New Yorker was asked by a conservative radio personality: "do you support Rudy Guiliani for president?" The man responded "no." He was then asked, "Why not, you're a New Yorker, you know what he did on 9/11" In reply, the New Yorker said, "Thats exactly why I don't support him, I am a New Yorker, I know what really happened"

Larry Craig: A new day, a new scandal....for the GOP

Larry Craig is a Republican Senator from Idaho and like Mark Foley, David Vitter, and others, Craig exemplifies the hypocrisy of the Republican Party. Craig, an outspoken critic of gay rights, had voted against civil unions for homosexuals, against gays serving in the military, against a bill that would stop discrimination against gays in the workplace. He has run on high moral values and preaches the conservative issues, even going as far as calling President Clinton, "a naughty boy" in 1999:

"Bad boy Bill Clinton, your a naughty boy, the American people already know Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy, I speak for the people of my state who probably even think Bill Clinton is a nasty, bad, naughty boy".

Wow, I must admit that statement is the gayest thing in politics I have ever heard, but in all seriousness, if your wondering what hypocrisy on Larry Craig's part I'm referring to, its the fact that he plead guilty to "lewd conduct" in a men's restroom in a Minneapolis airport. Here's a report from an undercover policeman who was in the stall in the bathroom trying to catch people like Sen. Craig, as the bathroom is apparently a public place where homosexuals go for homosexual activity:

"At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot.... The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area. Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times." Craig then handed the undercover officer his business card and said, "What do you think about that?"

As I stated, Craig plead guilty to disorderly conduct, but now says that all this was a lie, a misunderstanding, and he blames, get this, gay people and the newspaper that broke the story, The Idaho Statesman. My only question is can hypocrisy go any further for the Republican Party? Craig is the second man this summer, after Republican Louisiana Senator David Vitter, to be involved in a sex scandal. While I do believe what is a person's personal life, should stay a private, when someone runs a campaign on his conservative values, in this case that involves being anti-gay, that candidate brings his private life into the public. If your going to run on your conservative family values, fine, but then you need to show that you embody those values. I'm hoping that Americans are realizing that the Republicans are not the good, ethical, squeaky clean, family value candidates they portray themselves to be. They are hypocrites who lie to the public to get elected and hopefully in '08, America will send them a message loud and clear and not re-elect them----showing them that no politician is going to get away with lying anymore!

Gonzo Gone!

It is official: current U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will vacate his position on September 17. There is of course speculation on whether it was actually Gonzo who resigned on his own will of whether it was the President who asked Gonzales to resign. Here's my take on it:

Alberto Gonzales has come under scrutiny from both democrats and republicans on the way he handled the firings of the U.S. attorneys as well as warrantless wiretapping. I think Gonzales finally cracked. He knew he was cornered when Congress came back in September and to try to further defend the administration's actions could lead him to either have to tell the truth(and damage the Bush administration even further) or commit perjury(which by the way I've argued that he indeed did lie under oath). Gonzales knew he could no longer do any good for the president so why continue to serve. The argument that it was actually Bush who "fired" Gonzales just does not convince me. Bush is loyal, to the point of being stubborn, when it comes to his friends.

I do hope when it comes time for a replacement to be named, that the Senate has a set of qualifications that the nominee will need to abide by, obeying the law would be a good start. The Senate does not need to give Bush a blank check, and I don't think they will this time.

Huckabee's Charm

I've always said that even though I strongly disagree with his ideas and principles, I truly like former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee, as a human being. While all the other GOP candidates seem stiff and unpleasant, Mike Huckabee comes of as a warm guy who one would just like to hang out with and have fun. Well now it seems that I'm not the only democrat who finds Huckabee likable:

"Is there a Republican in the field you admire, who you think might do a nice job?" Comedy Central host Jon Stewart asked Obama during his Wednesday night appearance on the program.
"I think some of these folks are decent people," Obama said. "I mean Mike Huckabee..."
Stewart then remarked, "Worst backhanded compliment ever!" - a remark that drew laughs.
"No, no, no," Obama insisted. "I think there are guys like Huckabee who I think are sincere and decent."

"Sincere and decent". That is indeed exactly how I would describe Huckabee. You might not agree with his positions, but you can tell that he truly believes in what he says and would always do what he feels is in the country's best interest. His appeal could have some real implications in the 2008 election as well. Once republican primary voters get to know Huckabee and get to see a little more of him, he could really pick up some momentum. I've said before that I think the Iowa caucus was his first chance to shine and he sure did. My advice to Guiliani, Romney, Thompson, & McCain: watch Huckabee, his like-ability might take him further than you think.

Hillary's Top 10

Here is an interesting list I just noticed on Sen. Hillary Clinton's website. It is an outline of presumably the top ten things she will accomplish if elected president:

1) End the Iraq War

2) Achieve affordable, universal healthcare

3) To create jobs for middle class Americans with the right investments in infrastructure and in new, clean, energy-efficient technologies that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and will combat global warming

4) To provide world-class education, from universal pre-kindergarten to affordable college for all

5) To promote 21st Century scientific innovation such as stem-cell research

6) To return fiscal responsibility, balance the budget, and safeguard Social Security and Medicare for future generations

7) To restore competence and eliminate cronyism in the government with a president who cares about and works for people who have been invisible to this president

8) To fight terrorism, strengthen our military, and care for our veterans

9) To restore America's standing in the world and rebuild our alliances

10) To build a more tolerant America, working together to achieve big goals with a president who is ready for change and ready to lead from day one

This is indeed the top 10 things every presidential candidate in this day and age should promise to accomplish if elected president. Hopefully if Sen. Clinton is elected president, she will accomplish all these things and more. For whomever can successfully tackle the above 10 issues, they might just go down in history as one of the greatest leaders of all time.

Maliki lashes out at Clinton & Levin

The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, lashed out today against the Democratic party here in the U.S., namely Senators Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin:

"There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. This is severe interference in our domestic affairs. Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton are from the Democratic Party and they must demonstrate democracy. I ask them to come to their senses and to talk in a respectful way about Iraq."

Wow, I'm not sure what to say about the Iraqi Prime Minister's remarks. One would have to suppose these remarks stem from the fact that Clinton and Levin, among others, have called for the removal of Maliki from the position of Prime Minister of Iraq. This is the second worrisome statement made by Maliki this week, earlier insisting that if the U.S. won't help him, he'll find other friends(Syria) who will. After all the U.S. has sacrificed for Iraq and after all we have done to assist Maliki, its scary that, since I guess Maliki can't manage politics in his own country, he has to resort to interfering in American politics by attacking the democrats.

The reason the democrats, including Clinton and Levin, want Maliki gone from Iraq is because of his complete lack of leadership. He has been in office for quite a while now and has done more harm than good in respect to the progress in Iraq. He has led to further division in the Iraqi government, with a large part of the Parliament refusing to cooperate. It has been said time and time again: there is no military solution to the problems in Iraq, there must be a political solution. With Maliki in charge, there will never be a political solution. He is too dependent on the United States and needs to have "friends" in case the U.S. pulls out. He expects the U.S. to just continue helping him with nothing from him in return, and must be frightened at the prospect that if a Democrat gets elected President in 2008, he'll be left all alone. The U.S. has handed Maliki the proverbial "blank check" for too long. If Iraq's government won't put any effort into helping out their own country, why should we. We have stayed there too long and for that matter, should have never gone in. But, because of the lies of our president, we are indeed in, and now we need to focus on how we get our brave men and women home safely and securely while at the same time, focusing on how to keep America safe and fight terrorism where it actually is.

Would another terror attack help the Republicans in '08?

Democratic Presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, has recently drew fire for suggesting that a terrorist attack on American soil between now and the 2008 Elections, would be a huge help to the GOP, stating:

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?'...But, if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world." Clinton then added that, "I'm the best to deal with that(terrorism)".

I certainly can see what sounds terrible about that statement. What Clinton said is one of those things that no matter how you phrase it, it comes out sounding awful. Yet, Clinton's assessment of what could happen might not be too far off, if there was, God forbid, another terrorist attack on the United States.

The thought of a terrorist attack being used for political gain is a real issue. The GOP is a master at making themselves appear strong and instilling fear in Americans. George Bush used that fear in 2004 to be re-elected. By making John Kerry appear to be weak on terrorism, and constantly bringing up terrorism in the debates against Kerry, Bush was able to make Americans feel like he, not Kerry would keep them safe. So while it is a rather awful sounding statement, it does have merit. The Republicans are already trying to fool the American people by calling democrats "weak on national security" and proclaiming that they would "give al-Qaeda a victory". I find it quite upsetting to see fellow democrats jump on Clinton for her remarks, when they know that, sadly, she is right. She has spent years fighting Republicans. She knows how they operate and knows how to beat them. My question is why did Clinton make this statement. It is a statement that to most people, should be obvious, the GOP try to use fear to their political advantage. Trust me, the Clinton campaign is well though out, she had planned to say this statement, it wasn't a mere slip of the tongue. It'll be most interesting to see if it can be figured out why she made this statement and how the whole situation will play out.

Things look even grimmer from the political side of the Iraq War

Democrats have listed several reasons why we need to get out of Iraq: needless American casualties, excessive war spending, our fueling of al-Qaeda, our letting al-Qaeda regenerate in Afghanistan, needing to get Osama bin-Laden, and of course the lack of any political progress.

Well as if things were not already looking grim for all of the above issues, it seems that the political progress has yet another reason to be seriously questioned. The Iraqi Prime-Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, basically said the following when visiting with Syria, who is not one of the U.S.'s close allies to say the least:

“If the Americans are getting impatient with us, then we’ll find other friends, we don’t have to abide by any timetables.”

Wow, American's are risking their lives when the leader of Iraq himself basically doesn't care if we stay or go. If the Iraqis don't care, why the hell should we care about their civil war. Lets fight al-Qaeda and thats it. Enough trying to help Iraqi factions make peace. Lets watch out for U.S. interests and let the Iraqis find "other friends" who will help them.

Pace expected to tell the President to reduce troop numbers

For over three years democrats and military officials have called Iraq a lost cause, and said that the occupation of Iraq is doing more harm than good. When people close to President Bush echoed similar, grim, feelings on the Iraq War, the President simply dismissed them from their service, but it now looks like there is someone who the President might not be able to overlook:

"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war. Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military."- Los Angeles Times

If this is true it could mean even bigger trouble for the president. While it may be easy to overlook the opinions of war veterans and low level generals, Peter Pace is a respected and honorable man, who has supported the president in the past. We have many enemies in the world that we may have to deal with in the future; Iraq is not one of them. The last thing we need to do is strain the military, let alone have more Americans killed because of a sectarian civil war. I just hope that the president and republicans begin to realize the truth about Iraq. The longer we stay, the worse, for us, it is going to get.