As Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson hit the campaign trail in Iowa on Thursday and Friday, he had some very interesting comments that I strongly disagree with:
On the threat of Osama bin-Laden:
"Bin Laden being in the mountains of Pakistan or Afghanistan is not as important...as he is more symbolism than anything else...If he disappeared tomorrow we still have this problem. If Iraq disappeared tomorrow, we'd still have this problem. "
On the U.S. turning its attention from finding bin-Laden to Iraq:
"Saddam Hussein was on the cusp of having defeated the United Nations and the free world and the United States. He had certainly had weapons of mass destruction."
Both of these statements are absurd. Bin Laden is much more than symbolism. He is the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He is the leader of al-Qaeda. Surely killing bin Laden would not end terrorism over night, but it would be a huge step. Millions of people who wish death to every American would have lost their leader. The spirit of the terrorist movement would be crushed and recruiting for al-Qaeda missions would be much harder, as many joined al-Qaeda just because of their wish to follow bin Laden. Fred makes it sound as if it does not matter whether we catch bin Laden or not. But it does matter. Its imperative that we fight al-Qaeda and we stop them from attacking the U.S. again.
And for Fred to say that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of having defeated the free world is ridiculous. The U.S. proved that we could topple Saddam's regime in a matter of weeks. Iraq was absolutely no threat to the U.S. Fred claims that Iraq did have WMDs, but that has been proven a million times to be a lie. Iraq had zero WMDs. By saying that they did is nothing more than furthering the lie put forth by the Bush administration for the start of this war. Politicians need to stop lying to the American people. The truth needs to be told: Iraq had no WMDs, they were in no way involved with 9/11, al-Qaeda was not there before the U.S. invaded, Iraq was no threat to the U.S., and most importantly, the Iraq war was completely unnecessary and it does not benefit the U.S. to be in the middle of Iraq's own civil war.
Fred Thompson is going to lose support fast if he can't get his facts straight. I am sick of some GOP members lying to the American people simply to get elected. Lies got us into the mess in Iraq and lies are the reason we have not yet found bin Laden. The truth is what Americans' want and need. The truth is what will prevail in '08 and the truth is what will keep America safe.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Will Fred Thompson make an impact?
Sen. Fred Thompson announced Wednesday night on Jay Leno that he will indeed be running as a Republican for the Presidency in '08. He joins an already crowded Republican field in his hope to be nominee. The question that many are asking is how big of an impact on this race will Thompson have on the race and my answer is not much.
The only reason Thompson even has a good reason to enter this race is because polls show that Republicans are dissatisfied with their choices, but I don't think Thompson adds anything thats not already there. I suppose some expect Thompson to be the Reagan of the 21st century, but I just don't see it. Reagan had a charisma about him that Fred lacks. While he can be charming at times, Thompson fails to live up to expectations for me. He was supposed to be this rock-star candidate, but he appeared so subdued on Leno. In his campaign launch video, he looks like an 80 year old man rambling on and on while bobbing his head every second or two. When I hear him speak, he fails to energize the room because of his own lack of enthusiasm. He comes off as if he just doesn't care, as if he's going to walk in the race and win it without having to work. He waits to officially enter the race at least 6 months after everyone else already did. He has not participated in one debate and has yet to take a stance on they key issues facing our country. If his only claim to fame is that he is a "consistent conservative", its not going to be enough. Huckabee is more of a conservative than Fred ever was and is far more charismatic, yet hasn't done too well in national polls. If Republicans wanted a strict conservative, they already have one, they want the entire package, whatever that might be.
Then there is the theory of many in the media that Thompson is going to completely unravel Mitt Romney's campaign. I couldn't disagree more. Thompson isn't just going to walk in and all of a sudden get all of Romney's support in the two key states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Romney has spent months in those states campaigning, not to mention millions of dollars. Fred doesn't have months to campaign or millions to spend. Thompson's biggest chance to win the nomination will come if he can do a good showing in Iowa and New Hampshire, I sincerely believe Romney will win both states, and then goes on to win southern states such as South Carolina. I could see a scenario happening where Romney wins Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Utah, Michigan, and a few other Northeastern states. Thompson captures the south. Guiliani wins more liberal states such as Florida and California. Then you basically have a three way happening and someone would have to do the math to see who that would benefit the most.
Bottom line is I don't think your going to see Thompson live up to the hype. I don't think he's going to unravel Mitt Romney's campaign and I don't expect him to get the nomination. Right now he's getting all the attention because he's a new face, but in a couple of weeks, he'll just be another Republican candidate. I suppose its me vs. the media on this issue, but I do not believe Thompson will have a huge impact on this race at all. He will soon fade into the background.
The only reason Thompson even has a good reason to enter this race is because polls show that Republicans are dissatisfied with their choices, but I don't think Thompson adds anything thats not already there. I suppose some expect Thompson to be the Reagan of the 21st century, but I just don't see it. Reagan had a charisma about him that Fred lacks. While he can be charming at times, Thompson fails to live up to expectations for me. He was supposed to be this rock-star candidate, but he appeared so subdued on Leno. In his campaign launch video, he looks like an 80 year old man rambling on and on while bobbing his head every second or two. When I hear him speak, he fails to energize the room because of his own lack of enthusiasm. He comes off as if he just doesn't care, as if he's going to walk in the race and win it without having to work. He waits to officially enter the race at least 6 months after everyone else already did. He has not participated in one debate and has yet to take a stance on they key issues facing our country. If his only claim to fame is that he is a "consistent conservative", its not going to be enough. Huckabee is more of a conservative than Fred ever was and is far more charismatic, yet hasn't done too well in national polls. If Republicans wanted a strict conservative, they already have one, they want the entire package, whatever that might be.
Then there is the theory of many in the media that Thompson is going to completely unravel Mitt Romney's campaign. I couldn't disagree more. Thompson isn't just going to walk in and all of a sudden get all of Romney's support in the two key states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Romney has spent months in those states campaigning, not to mention millions of dollars. Fred doesn't have months to campaign or millions to spend. Thompson's biggest chance to win the nomination will come if he can do a good showing in Iowa and New Hampshire, I sincerely believe Romney will win both states, and then goes on to win southern states such as South Carolina. I could see a scenario happening where Romney wins Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Utah, Michigan, and a few other Northeastern states. Thompson captures the south. Guiliani wins more liberal states such as Florida and California. Then you basically have a three way happening and someone would have to do the math to see who that would benefit the most.
Bottom line is I don't think your going to see Thompson live up to the hype. I don't think he's going to unravel Mitt Romney's campaign and I don't expect him to get the nomination. Right now he's getting all the attention because he's a new face, but in a couple of weeks, he'll just be another Republican candidate. I suppose its me vs. the media on this issue, but I do not believe Thompson will have a huge impact on this race at all. He will soon fade into the background.
Bin-Laden to speak soon
There is breaking news today that Osama bin-Laden, the man behind the 9/11 terror attacks, will be releasing a new web video addressing the U.S. within the next 72 hours. This will be the first time bin-Laden has been seen on video in nearly three years. Here's my take on this disturbing piece of news:
The GOP is going to try everything to use this to their advantage. They are once again going to try to instill fear in Americans and lie by saying that they are the only ones who can be trusted to keep this nation safe. But I would hope Americans remember, its been six years after 9/11 and we are not even close to finding and killing bin-Laden. And why? Because George Bush lied to the Congress, lied to Americans, and lied to the world and got us into Iraq. By going needlessly into Iraq, we turned our focus from fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and onto Iraq. This allowed bin-Laden and other al-Qaeda members to escape. Now, the latest reports show that since we shifted out attention away from fighting terrorism, al-Qaeda has been able to regroup and regain strength, possibly even stronger than pre-9/11. This should be seen as a warning to those who think republicans can handle national security. They are the ones who let bin-Laden slip through their finger-tips. I would be willing to bet, that if we didn't get into Iraq, we would have found bin-Laden by now and he would be dead. We would have drastically demolished al-Qaeda and therefore greatly decreased the chance of a terrorist attack on our great country. I hope that the American people see this and, in the next election, vote for leaders who want to protect America and not those who want to continue avoiding the problem.
The GOP is going to try everything to use this to their advantage. They are once again going to try to instill fear in Americans and lie by saying that they are the only ones who can be trusted to keep this nation safe. But I would hope Americans remember, its been six years after 9/11 and we are not even close to finding and killing bin-Laden. And why? Because George Bush lied to the Congress, lied to Americans, and lied to the world and got us into Iraq. By going needlessly into Iraq, we turned our focus from fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and onto Iraq. This allowed bin-Laden and other al-Qaeda members to escape. Now, the latest reports show that since we shifted out attention away from fighting terrorism, al-Qaeda has been able to regroup and regain strength, possibly even stronger than pre-9/11. This should be seen as a warning to those who think republicans can handle national security. They are the ones who let bin-Laden slip through their finger-tips. I would be willing to bet, that if we didn't get into Iraq, we would have found bin-Laden by now and he would be dead. We would have drastically demolished al-Qaeda and therefore greatly decreased the chance of a terrorist attack on our great country. I hope that the American people see this and, in the next election, vote for leaders who want to protect America and not those who want to continue avoiding the problem.
Republican Debate(a special editorial by John Lucia)
With the exception of Ron Paul, one has to feel like President Bush wrote the comments for the Republican candidates. Like Bush, they tried to sound tough, even Chris Wallace tried, but no one had a answer to Ron Paul when he said the same people who got us into this war and those who still support the war were wrong about everything that has happened in Iraq.
The word "honor" was used a number of times to describe how this war over WMD that did not exist should end. But well into the fifth year of war in Iraq no one can tell the american people how it will end or when or what will be the outcome.
Our men and women in uniform serve with honor and commit themselves to the ultimate sacrifice. They go where the President and Commander in Chief tells them to go, they do their jobs well, without complaint and serve their country. They do this even if a President commits them to an unnecessary war and occupation over WMD that did not exist. Our brave men and women in uniform serving in Iraq completed their mission over three years ago when no WMD were found and when Saddam was no longer a factor in Iraq. Yet, into the fifth year of this war those who want to keep it going have failed to articulate their definition of victory in Iraq. Our men and women in uniform have already been victorious and have served with "honor,courage and commitment." If any of those candidates don't think our troops can leave with "honor" now, they are the ones who are without "honor." Does any american truly believe that our wounded who are home from Iraq and trying to put their life back together and those who gave their life for their country did not serve with "honor."
A few of the candidates were of prime age (put up on the TV screen) during their generations war but never wore the uniform of their country. Yet they adopted the so called tough talk of some people in this administration who also either never wore the uniform of their country during their generations war or joined the safety of the guard so they would not be called to active duty. In other words they cut and ran. They try to talk and act tough to make up for their own inadequacy.
The debate indicated that what the GOP badly needs is a Dwight Eisenhower to lead them once again. I do not think the american people are ready to elect a republican president who wants to continue the war in Iraq over WMD that did not exist well into the future.
It is ironic that no republican candidate for President can explain how a war over WMD that did not exist could turn into the sad situation it has become and our men and women in uniform are still paying the ultimate price for that reckless decision. And to think that some of those candidates say our troops can't come home with "honor" until the war is extended with no end in sight and with out an explanation as to how to end the war. "Ike" would never look upon these candidates with pride.
The word "honor" was used a number of times to describe how this war over WMD that did not exist should end. But well into the fifth year of war in Iraq no one can tell the american people how it will end or when or what will be the outcome.
Our men and women in uniform serve with honor and commit themselves to the ultimate sacrifice. They go where the President and Commander in Chief tells them to go, they do their jobs well, without complaint and serve their country. They do this even if a President commits them to an unnecessary war and occupation over WMD that did not exist. Our brave men and women in uniform serving in Iraq completed their mission over three years ago when no WMD were found and when Saddam was no longer a factor in Iraq. Yet, into the fifth year of this war those who want to keep it going have failed to articulate their definition of victory in Iraq. Our men and women in uniform have already been victorious and have served with "honor,courage and commitment." If any of those candidates don't think our troops can leave with "honor" now, they are the ones who are without "honor." Does any american truly believe that our wounded who are home from Iraq and trying to put their life back together and those who gave their life for their country did not serve with "honor."
A few of the candidates were of prime age (put up on the TV screen) during their generations war but never wore the uniform of their country. Yet they adopted the so called tough talk of some people in this administration who also either never wore the uniform of their country during their generations war or joined the safety of the guard so they would not be called to active duty. In other words they cut and ran. They try to talk and act tough to make up for their own inadequacy.
The debate indicated that what the GOP badly needs is a Dwight Eisenhower to lead them once again. I do not think the american people are ready to elect a republican president who wants to continue the war in Iraq over WMD that did not exist well into the future.
It is ironic that no republican candidate for President can explain how a war over WMD that did not exist could turn into the sad situation it has become and our men and women in uniform are still paying the ultimate price for that reckless decision. And to think that some of those candidates say our troops can't come home with "honor" until the war is extended with no end in sight and with out an explanation as to how to end the war. "Ike" would never look upon these candidates with pride.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Quick GOP debate wrap-up
Well I just got done watching a grueling hour and a half of what Fox News calls a debate. First off, I was hoping for a little less bias than usual, but I'm afraid we may have gotten more than usual. Ron Paul got hammered by the questioners, who had an obvious sense of disgust in their speech when talking with Congressman Paul. At the same time, good-ol Fox conservatives and even Rudy Guiliani were allowed to slide and dodge the questions. Paul got mis-quoted, stopped in the middle of his sentences, and was even had it implied to him that he supported al-Qaeda by one of the panelists. On top of all that, everytime Paul gave a response, there was a clear sound of laughter in the background. I would hope it wasn't the other candidates or Fox News personality, but whomever was laughing, must have been pretty damn close to a microphone. But anyway....here is a quick, candidate-by-candidate analysis:
-Rudy Guiliani: a horrible showing for someone who is supposed to be the front-runner. This man answers every question the same: he laundry lists what he did as Mayor. In a president, Americans need someone who will talk about what they bring to the table. I could have been up there listing what Rudy did and didn't do as Mayor. I want to know what he WILL do as President, not what he DID do as Mayor.
-John McCain: McCain had a good night. I thought his passion showed and he looked and sounded the most presidential. Whether or not this is going to help him rebound after a disappointing summer, we'll just have to wait and see, but, overall, he had a definite connection with the New Hampshire audience and I would be willing to bet he won himself a few more votes.
-Mitt Romney: Romney didn't answer one question clearly. He dodged every question and the commentators never followed up. By the end of this debate, I didn't know whether Romney wanted in or out of Iraq, whether he wanted a nationwide ban to abortion or not, or how he was going to deal with the immigration problems he has so often spoke out on. I'm not sure if he was flip-flopping again or what, but when I thought I had his positions figured out...well...now I'm not so sure.
-Mike Huckabee: Huckabee, as usual, came off as the most warm candidate. I thought he had an okay night. He didn't hurt himself, but yet didn't have that defining moment he could really use. He just got lost in the shuffle and, unfortunately for him, I don't think people are going to wake up tomorrow and remember Huckabee as anything more than just another candidate.
-Sam Brownback: All I have to say is that this man is a one issue candidate. Every question he got asked, he answered by blaming it on there not being enough emphasis on families. Brownback needs to be more than just a strict social conservative, he needs to be someone who is ready to lead this country and, in this day and age, you need more than just "family values" to do that.
-Duncan Hunter: Like Huckabee, Hunter will be forgotten. He should have dropped out this race a long time ago. He doesn't bring anything new or different to the discussion and as far as I'm concerned, he comes off as just wasting time.
-Tom Tancredo: He had on okay showing, maybe slightly better than last time, only because he covered some tough issues and went straight to the point. But at the same time, Tancredo fails to make an impact, and should just drop out.
-Ron Paul: I can't help but feel bad for Paul. He was bullied by Fox and still held his ground. What surprised me the most was that the audience, republican voters, had great applause for many of Paul's responses that were quite the opposite of those of main-stream republicans. Maybe there is a niche for Paul to still make an impact. Over all he did really good and did a lot to make himself appear the alternative to the "Bush-Cheney" like Republicans.
WINNERS:
-McCain
-Paul
LOSERS:
-Guiliani
-Romney
And everyone else, just stuck somewhere in between. For those who watched it, I would love to hear your thoughts!
-Rudy Guiliani: a horrible showing for someone who is supposed to be the front-runner. This man answers every question the same: he laundry lists what he did as Mayor. In a president, Americans need someone who will talk about what they bring to the table. I could have been up there listing what Rudy did and didn't do as Mayor. I want to know what he WILL do as President, not what he DID do as Mayor.
-John McCain: McCain had a good night. I thought his passion showed and he looked and sounded the most presidential. Whether or not this is going to help him rebound after a disappointing summer, we'll just have to wait and see, but, overall, he had a definite connection with the New Hampshire audience and I would be willing to bet he won himself a few more votes.
-Mitt Romney: Romney didn't answer one question clearly. He dodged every question and the commentators never followed up. By the end of this debate, I didn't know whether Romney wanted in or out of Iraq, whether he wanted a nationwide ban to abortion or not, or how he was going to deal with the immigration problems he has so often spoke out on. I'm not sure if he was flip-flopping again or what, but when I thought I had his positions figured out...well...now I'm not so sure.
-Mike Huckabee: Huckabee, as usual, came off as the most warm candidate. I thought he had an okay night. He didn't hurt himself, but yet didn't have that defining moment he could really use. He just got lost in the shuffle and, unfortunately for him, I don't think people are going to wake up tomorrow and remember Huckabee as anything more than just another candidate.
-Sam Brownback: All I have to say is that this man is a one issue candidate. Every question he got asked, he answered by blaming it on there not being enough emphasis on families. Brownback needs to be more than just a strict social conservative, he needs to be someone who is ready to lead this country and, in this day and age, you need more than just "family values" to do that.
-Duncan Hunter: Like Huckabee, Hunter will be forgotten. He should have dropped out this race a long time ago. He doesn't bring anything new or different to the discussion and as far as I'm concerned, he comes off as just wasting time.
-Tom Tancredo: He had on okay showing, maybe slightly better than last time, only because he covered some tough issues and went straight to the point. But at the same time, Tancredo fails to make an impact, and should just drop out.
-Ron Paul: I can't help but feel bad for Paul. He was bullied by Fox and still held his ground. What surprised me the most was that the audience, republican voters, had great applause for many of Paul's responses that were quite the opposite of those of main-stream republicans. Maybe there is a niche for Paul to still make an impact. Over all he did really good and did a lot to make himself appear the alternative to the "Bush-Cheney" like Republicans.
WINNERS:
-McCain
-Paul
LOSERS:
-Guiliani
-Romney
And everyone else, just stuck somewhere in between. For those who watched it, I would love to hear your thoughts!
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
An early look at the key swing states for '08
As we inch closer and closer to the 2008 Presidential election, most states are safe bets for Republicans or Democrats. For example the midwest votes almost entirely republican, while big states like New York and California are strongly democratic. States like these do not have a huge impact on the race, as they are considered "safe". Yet, there are key "swing" states that do not have an allegiance to either political party. These are the states that are key for any presidential candidate to win, because without winning them, you can't win the election. Here's a look at the most recent polls out of these "swing" states, pitting the Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton against Republican front-runner, Rudy Guiliani:
-Arkansas: Clinton leads Guiliani 55-37
-Colorado: Guiliani leads Clinton 50-40
-Florida: Clinton leads Guiliani: 49-44
-Iowa: Clinton leads Guiliani: 47-41
-Michigan: Clinton leads Guiliani: 49-40
-Minnesota: Clinton leads Guiliani: 50-41
-Missouri: Clinton leads Guiliani: 46-43
-Nevada: Guiliani leads Clinton: 46-38
-New Hampshire: Clinton leads Guiliani: 44-40
-New Mexico: Clinton leads Guiliani: 50-44
-Ohio: tied at 44%
-Oregon: Clinton leads Guiliani: 42-41
-Pennsylvania: Clinton leads Guiliani: 45-44
-West Virginia: Clinton leads Guiliani: 42-36
-Wisconsin: Clinton leads Guiliani: 47-46
As seen, Hillary Clinton is leading in just about all swing states. If the election was held today, the electoral vote would go: 313(Clinton) to 225(Guiliani) if Ohio went for Guiliani OR 333(Clinton) to 205(Guiliani) if Ohio went for Clinton. Regardless of Ohio, if current polling is accurate on election day, Clinton will have a relatively easy victory as only 270 electoral votes are needed. Looking at these poll numbers, Clinton's campaign should be very happy, because just 2 months ago, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio all went by at least 5% in polls to Guiliani. Now Clinton either leads or is tied in those key states. Also interesting to note is Clinton leading in more conservative states such as Missouri and West Virginia. If these numbers hold up, expect to see a huge democrat victory in '08, not just for the presidency, but also in the House and Senate.
-Arkansas: Clinton leads Guiliani 55-37
-Colorado: Guiliani leads Clinton 50-40
-Florida: Clinton leads Guiliani: 49-44
-Iowa: Clinton leads Guiliani: 47-41
-Michigan: Clinton leads Guiliani: 49-40
-Minnesota: Clinton leads Guiliani: 50-41
-Missouri: Clinton leads Guiliani: 46-43
-Nevada: Guiliani leads Clinton: 46-38
-New Hampshire: Clinton leads Guiliani: 44-40
-New Mexico: Clinton leads Guiliani: 50-44
-Ohio: tied at 44%
-Oregon: Clinton leads Guiliani: 42-41
-Pennsylvania: Clinton leads Guiliani: 45-44
-West Virginia: Clinton leads Guiliani: 42-36
-Wisconsin: Clinton leads Guiliani: 47-46
As seen, Hillary Clinton is leading in just about all swing states. If the election was held today, the electoral vote would go: 313(Clinton) to 225(Guiliani) if Ohio went for Guiliani OR 333(Clinton) to 205(Guiliani) if Ohio went for Clinton. Regardless of Ohio, if current polling is accurate on election day, Clinton will have a relatively easy victory as only 270 electoral votes are needed. Looking at these poll numbers, Clinton's campaign should be very happy, because just 2 months ago, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio all went by at least 5% in polls to Guiliani. Now Clinton either leads or is tied in those key states. Also interesting to note is Clinton leading in more conservative states such as Missouri and West Virginia. If these numbers hold up, expect to see a huge democrat victory in '08, not just for the presidency, but also in the House and Senate.
Bush already planning post-presidency career
Robert Draper's new book, Dead Certain, is, in a way, a biography of the the Bush years. It takes a in-depth look into the current administration, and while there are certainly many fascinating tidbits of information from Bush, Rove and others, one statement really stood out from the rest. Here is the president's plans after he leaves the White House:
"I'll give some speeches, just to replenish the ol' coffers. I don't know what my dad gets - it's more than 50-75 thousand dollars per speech...Clinton's making a lot of money."
Is it just me or does that completely rub you the wrong way? We are in the middle of a war where American lives are being lost. There are thousands of uninsured Americans who can't even begin to take proper care of themselves or their children because they can't afford healthcare. There are hard-working young men and women who can't afford to go to college because of a terribly low minimum wage. And through all of these issues, the one thing the president wants to talk is the money he wants to make when he leaves office.
Before he was elected president, Bush was worth an estimated $21 million and makes over $400,000 a year as president. I can't even imagine how our soldiers would feel hearing this; that while they're putting their lives at risk, the commander-in-chief is thinking about ways he can make more money. Just think how our soldiers would feel if their field commanders told them, "hey, I just can not wait to get out of here and start making me some money." Soldiers would be disgusted if their commander, whose only thought should be how to keep them safe and help them to achieve their mission, was talking about leaving them and making money. I guess I just feel that there is a huge level of inappropriateness. It just sickens me to think that the man who is leading our country would rather talk about how's he's going to make money instead of talking about how he is going to make this country a better place for its citizens, both while and after he's president.
"I'll give some speeches, just to replenish the ol' coffers. I don't know what my dad gets - it's more than 50-75 thousand dollars per speech...Clinton's making a lot of money."
Is it just me or does that completely rub you the wrong way? We are in the middle of a war where American lives are being lost. There are thousands of uninsured Americans who can't even begin to take proper care of themselves or their children because they can't afford healthcare. There are hard-working young men and women who can't afford to go to college because of a terribly low minimum wage. And through all of these issues, the one thing the president wants to talk is the money he wants to make when he leaves office.
Before he was elected president, Bush was worth an estimated $21 million and makes over $400,000 a year as president. I can't even imagine how our soldiers would feel hearing this; that while they're putting their lives at risk, the commander-in-chief is thinking about ways he can make more money. Just think how our soldiers would feel if their field commanders told them, "hey, I just can not wait to get out of here and start making me some money." Soldiers would be disgusted if their commander, whose only thought should be how to keep them safe and help them to achieve their mission, was talking about leaving them and making money. I guess I just feel that there is a huge level of inappropriateness. It just sickens me to think that the man who is leading our country would rather talk about how's he's going to make money instead of talking about how he is going to make this country a better place for its citizens, both while and after he's president.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Hillary Clinton: Change through Experience
In a speech Sunday in New Hampshire, New York Senator and democratic presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton, outlined her "four big goals" as president:
1) "restore America's standing in the world"
2) "rebuild America's middle class and the economy to support it"
3) "reform our government"
4) "I want to be able to say to you as your president, ‘Our children are well'"
Also in her speech this past weekend, Sen. Clinton praised the leadership abilities of F.D.R. and Lyndon Johnson and described herself as an alliance builder. She also addressed the issue of "change", saying,
"From my time in the White House and in the Senate, I learned you bring change by working in the system established by the Constitution." She again brought up Johnson and Roosevelt saying, "They got big things done because they knew it wasn’t just about the dream, it’s about the results. I want to work within the system; you can’t pretend the system doesn’t exist. Some people think you should have to choose between change and experience, well, with me, you don’t have to choose. I have spent my entire life fighting for change. Change is just a word without the strength and experience to make it happen.
Sen. Clinton has earned praise from Republican senators for working with them on legislation and her willingness to compromise. In her presidency, Clinton stated she would use this approach of compromise to prevent the kind of political divide we see today. She stressed how both political parties can find common ground and work together to get things accomplished. She also made it clear, however, that while she wants to work with Republicans, she would do it while still upholding values important to the American people, such as Social Security and women's rights, saying:
“You have to know when to stick to your principles and fight and yet know when to make principled compromises.”
It should also be important to note, that in her speech, Clinton announced she would reveal her universal healthcare plan in two weeks.
In a very powerful speech, Hillary has reiterated something I feel is very important, change is nothing without the desire and will and experience to implement it. Sen. Barack Obama throws the word change around a lot, but, its one thing to talk about change, its another to bring it about. Throughout her years as a senator, Clinton has demonstrated strong leadership and is well known for her willingness to work with all political parties for the good of the American people. Barack has not shown that type of leadership. For the 2 years he's been in the Senate, he has very little to show for it. He has not lead on any important issues and without great leadership, change is impossible. I urge the voters to think about that. Bringing about change is going to take a lot more than just talking about it, it's going to take hard work and leadership. Thats what separates Hillary Clinton from Barack Obama----the experience to make change happen.
1) "restore America's standing in the world"
2) "rebuild America's middle class and the economy to support it"
3) "reform our government"
4) "I want to be able to say to you as your president, ‘Our children are well'"
Also in her speech this past weekend, Sen. Clinton praised the leadership abilities of F.D.R. and Lyndon Johnson and described herself as an alliance builder. She also addressed the issue of "change", saying,
"From my time in the White House and in the Senate, I learned you bring change by working in the system established by the Constitution." She again brought up Johnson and Roosevelt saying, "They got big things done because they knew it wasn’t just about the dream, it’s about the results. I want to work within the system; you can’t pretend the system doesn’t exist. Some people think you should have to choose between change and experience, well, with me, you don’t have to choose. I have spent my entire life fighting for change. Change is just a word without the strength and experience to make it happen.
Sen. Clinton has earned praise from Republican senators for working with them on legislation and her willingness to compromise. In her presidency, Clinton stated she would use this approach of compromise to prevent the kind of political divide we see today. She stressed how both political parties can find common ground and work together to get things accomplished. She also made it clear, however, that while she wants to work with Republicans, she would do it while still upholding values important to the American people, such as Social Security and women's rights, saying:
“You have to know when to stick to your principles and fight and yet know when to make principled compromises.”
It should also be important to note, that in her speech, Clinton announced she would reveal her universal healthcare plan in two weeks.
In a very powerful speech, Hillary has reiterated something I feel is very important, change is nothing without the desire and will and experience to implement it. Sen. Barack Obama throws the word change around a lot, but, its one thing to talk about change, its another to bring it about. Throughout her years as a senator, Clinton has demonstrated strong leadership and is well known for her willingness to work with all political parties for the good of the American people. Barack has not shown that type of leadership. For the 2 years he's been in the Senate, he has very little to show for it. He has not lead on any important issues and without great leadership, change is impossible. I urge the voters to think about that. Bringing about change is going to take a lot more than just talking about it, it's going to take hard work and leadership. Thats what separates Hillary Clinton from Barack Obama----the experience to make change happen.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
"What the U.S. military wants" us to see.
Katie Couric is currently reporting from Iraq. This morning she was on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, and when asked about the success of the surge, she had this to say:
"And so, you do see signs of life that seem to be normal. Of course, that’s what the U.S. military wants me to see, so you have to keep that in mind as well."
Well at least Couric is trying to get the facts straight--- she only gets to see what the military lets her see, and we all know the military isn't going to lead her to an area plagued by chaos. It is a serious problem that the military can't be fully truthful, it is, in a way, propaganda to keep this war going. The truth needs to come out: while there is some progress in some places, the overall situation in Iraq is worsening. Political and militant reconciliation between Iraqis seems less and less likely every day. Each day that we focus on trying to keep peace between warring factions, is a day that we are not intensely fighting al-Qaeda somewhere else. And basic utilities, such as running water and electricity, are no where to be seen for the Iraqi civilians because of war.
Americans need to get the whole truth, the entire picture, not just what the military wants us to see. If the media isn't allowed to get footage of the chaos, then they should be straight-forward in saying, "What you see is what we were allowed to see, we were not allowed to get into areas where conditions are much worse than these." We were lied into getting into this war, lets make sure we aren't lied to in thinking we should stay.
"And so, you do see signs of life that seem to be normal. Of course, that’s what the U.S. military wants me to see, so you have to keep that in mind as well."
Well at least Couric is trying to get the facts straight--- she only gets to see what the military lets her see, and we all know the military isn't going to lead her to an area plagued by chaos. It is a serious problem that the military can't be fully truthful, it is, in a way, propaganda to keep this war going. The truth needs to come out: while there is some progress in some places, the overall situation in Iraq is worsening. Political and militant reconciliation between Iraqis seems less and less likely every day. Each day that we focus on trying to keep peace between warring factions, is a day that we are not intensely fighting al-Qaeda somewhere else. And basic utilities, such as running water and electricity, are no where to be seen for the Iraqi civilians because of war.
Americans need to get the whole truth, the entire picture, not just what the military wants us to see. If the media isn't allowed to get footage of the chaos, then they should be straight-forward in saying, "What you see is what we were allowed to see, we were not allowed to get into areas where conditions are much worse than these." We were lied into getting into this war, lets make sure we aren't lied to in thinking we should stay.
The Failures of Television Journalism (a special editorial by John Lucia)
There are over 500 members of Congress elected by the people, yet it is only a small number of them that appear on television and the American people only get to hear their views on issues facing the country. Our people deserve to hear from other members of Congress and have the benefit of their views as well.
Guests like Senator McCain, Newt Gingrich etc., are on T.V. over and over again and give out the same hype and failed messages. There are no fresh thoughts or ideas coming forth. It is no wonder we never solve any problems. Television needs to open up their guest list to other members of Congress to broaden the debate. Other members of Congress should be extended that opportunity and the people should get to hear what they have to say.
One would think the networks and their journalists would have learned a lesson after they paraded the same people over and over again on their shows during the run up to war in Iraq and who told the people over and over again we had to go to war in Iraq over WMD that did not exist. Now well into the fifth year of this war the same people are once more on the shows telling the people we have to stay in Iraq over WMD that did not exist. The American people have had enough of that spin.
George Bush has not balanced one Federal Budget since he has been in office and has given the country record federal deficits, yet I do not recall seeing Senator Kent Conrad on any shows informing the people just how serious the problem is. Senator Conrad is an expert on the federal budget and the networks know that. But because Senator Conrad is not a high profile Senator, the people are fed Mr. Bush's spin and denied Senator Conrad's knowledge on the subject matter. Interest paid on the national debt for fiscal year ending September 2006 was $406 billion. Senator Conrad could explain what that money could have been used for if Republican's balanced the budget instead of wasting that money on interest payments.
Mr. Scot Ritter, a U.N. inspector in Iraq, said over and over again during the build up to war in Iraq, that Iraq possessed no WMD. The networks disregarded his statements and proceeded to promote Iraq having WMD on their own accord, following the administration's lead. The war and our own inspectors who combed Iraq for over a year during the war proved Mr. Bush and the networks wrong and Mr. Ritter right. It is noticeable that Mr. Ritter has not been a guest on any television shows(to my knowledge) since it was discovered that Iraq had no WMD.
Programs like Meet the Press, Face the Nation, The Situation Room, Tucker, Hardball and others could acquire some respectability if they broaden their guests beyond the usual members of Congress who offer the same old spin on the issues. I for one would like to know what others think and why they think that. The bottom line is that television and journalist fail to meet their obligation of pursuing the facts and having an honest debate on the issues.
Guests like Senator McCain, Newt Gingrich etc., are on T.V. over and over again and give out the same hype and failed messages. There are no fresh thoughts or ideas coming forth. It is no wonder we never solve any problems. Television needs to open up their guest list to other members of Congress to broaden the debate. Other members of Congress should be extended that opportunity and the people should get to hear what they have to say.
One would think the networks and their journalists would have learned a lesson after they paraded the same people over and over again on their shows during the run up to war in Iraq and who told the people over and over again we had to go to war in Iraq over WMD that did not exist. Now well into the fifth year of this war the same people are once more on the shows telling the people we have to stay in Iraq over WMD that did not exist. The American people have had enough of that spin.
George Bush has not balanced one Federal Budget since he has been in office and has given the country record federal deficits, yet I do not recall seeing Senator Kent Conrad on any shows informing the people just how serious the problem is. Senator Conrad is an expert on the federal budget and the networks know that. But because Senator Conrad is not a high profile Senator, the people are fed Mr. Bush's spin and denied Senator Conrad's knowledge on the subject matter. Interest paid on the national debt for fiscal year ending September 2006 was $406 billion. Senator Conrad could explain what that money could have been used for if Republican's balanced the budget instead of wasting that money on interest payments.
Mr. Scot Ritter, a U.N. inspector in Iraq, said over and over again during the build up to war in Iraq, that Iraq possessed no WMD. The networks disregarded his statements and proceeded to promote Iraq having WMD on their own accord, following the administration's lead. The war and our own inspectors who combed Iraq for over a year during the war proved Mr. Bush and the networks wrong and Mr. Ritter right. It is noticeable that Mr. Ritter has not been a guest on any television shows(to my knowledge) since it was discovered that Iraq had no WMD.
Programs like Meet the Press, Face the Nation, The Situation Room, Tucker, Hardball and others could acquire some respectability if they broaden their guests beyond the usual members of Congress who offer the same old spin on the issues. I for one would like to know what others think and why they think that. The bottom line is that television and journalist fail to meet their obligation of pursuing the facts and having an honest debate on the issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)