Romney To Address Mormonism

Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, has decided that he will finally address his faith in much the same way JFK did back in 1960. Romney will the give the speech, titled "Faith in America", at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas this Thursday.

My first thought when I heard this news is that this could be a mistake on the part of Romney. I'm not quite sure why Romney has decided that now, at the pinnacle of his strength, is the best time to give a speech. As the saying goes, why mess up a good thing? Romney is ahead in Iowa (discounting the latest poll that has Huckabee just a few points ahead and well within the margin of error), ahead in New Hampshire, and ahead in South Carolina. Indeed, a big reason for Romney's boom in South Carolina, that brought him from 4th place to 1st in about a month, is the fact that evangelical voters are finally warming up to him. So why go out and remind them of your Mormonism?

Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is with faith. We're not electing a leader of a church, we're electing the leader of America. But, unfortunately, a particular faith is something that is very important to many voters, especially in strong evangelical states in the South and Mid-West. So why, if he's doing so well, is Romney going to risk throwing his success away? As I said in the past, once Romney gets the nomination, he might need to make a speech, but right now, during the Republican nomination process, I'm not sure if its a good thing to remind the strong evangelical (bigot) voters of his faith, which many believe is a cult.

But, maybe I'm wrong. In fact, I hope I'm wrong. Not because I like Romney, but because I would like to see a stronger acceptance of all faiths. Too long have people been looked down upon just because they believe something different and that is something that should never happen in America.

Of course, there's also the possibility that, if presented well, this speech could be a real turning point in the Romney campaign. If delivered with emotion and pride, Americans will look at Romney in a different light. Currently regarded as a slick, stiff businessman, Romney now has the opportunity to open himself up to America. The only question is, will America open itself up back to Romney in response? For that, we'll just have to wait and see. I know that I will be watching intently Thursday night and I look forward to seeing how Romney is received. I just hope that Romney isn't elected because of his faith; there are many other issues for which he shouldn't be elected. His Mormonism isn't one of them.

Nuclear Arms In The Middle East

I wrote a commentary on November 14 concerning Israel, India, and Pakistan having stockpiles of nuclear and other WMD and not being a part of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as other nations are.  Now it has been revealed through newly released documents from the Nixon Presidential Library, that in 1969, Nixon and his close advisers were worried about a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.  Their worry was Israel's development of a Nuclear capacity.  National security advisor Henry Kissinger wrote Nixon a memorandum and pointed out that the Israelis are probably more likely than almost any other country to actually use their nuclear weapons.  Kissinger also said this is one program on which the Israelis has persistently deceived America and may even have stolen from America.

 

That was 38 years ago.  Just think what kind of WMD arsenal Israel must have at this time and it is unchecked by the United States and the international community.  It is time for the U.S. and other countries to demand Israel open its facilities to inspection.  

 

The leaders of Israel are too unstable to have this unchecked arsenal of WMD.  They would just as soon put our country in harms way to further their own ambition in the Middle East and the world.  They use their military power with impunity and they continue to build and extend their settlements on Palestinian land.  Is it any wonder why India and Pakistan developed a nuclear weapons program?  And is it any wonder why Iran may want to have a nuclear capacity when Israel can use its military with impunity?

 

The United States needs to re-evaluate its foreign policy with Israel.  No more blank checks and automatic backing.  Israel needs to earn our support like any other country.  Israel's powerful lobby in the U.S. needs to be kept at arms length.  The leaders of Israel can not be trusted; they lie.  And for those who think otherwise about Israel, they should read the book, "Body of Secrets" by James Bamford and judge for themselves.

Sen. McCain's Lack of Fiscal Knowledge

During Wednesday's CNN Republican debate, Senator McCain was asked what he would do to reduce the national debt.  The Senator's answer showed his ignorance of the subject matter and why he should not be taken seriously as a candidate.

 

McCain, in his answer, once again invoked Ronald Reagan.  McCain said that he would use Reagan's veto pen on excess spending to hold the line on spending while eliminating pork.  The Senator used the wrong President.  Ronald Reagan never balanced one federal budget in his 8 years in office and gave the country record deficits at that time.  The national debt increased $1.9 trillion on his watch and spending  was up over the previous administration (Jimmy Carter). 

If McCain plans to emulate Reagan on fiscal matters, he will instead increase the debt and give the country even more deficit spending.  For a person who claims to "shoot straight" and have experience, his answer indicates he is lost when it comes to fiscal matters. The American people need to understand that when Bush leaves office ,the last 3 Republican presidents will not have balanced one budget in the 20 years they served and have increased the national debt by over $7 trillion. 

 

The Republican plan can be plainly understood.  They want to bankrupt the country to eliminate social security, medicare, and other government programs that truly help the American people.  At the same time, they support corporate welfare for the richest corporations and tax cuts and other benefits that go to the most wealthy people. 

 

The Republican's hands have been laid bare.  The GOP candidates have proven (with the exception of Ron Paul) that they care nothing for being fiscally responsible.  Remember, it was Bill Clinton who turned 12 straight years of deficit spending by Reagan-Bush into record surpluses.  Also it was Bill Clinton's administration who paid down a net of $14.2 billion of the national debt.  The people should remember that when they vote in the next presidential election. 

11/28 GOP Debate Review: Romney Scores Big

Tonight, the Republican Presidential hopefuls gathered in front of a Florida crowd and answered questions from ordinary people via YouTube. With the Iowa caucus just a few weeks away, the candidates went all out to differentiate themselves from each other, and most of them were successful.

From the very opening of the debate, the fight was on between the two GOP frontrunners, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. It was in that opening exchange, on the topic of illegal immigration, that Romney got the upper hand and set the tone for the rest of the night. To put it simply, agree with him or not, Romney creamed Giuliani. From that point on, Giuliani was mostly on the defense for the rest of the night, while Romney was red-hot. Romney is often called a "flip-flopper", but tonight he actually appeared the most socially conservative candidate. While I might strongly disagree with Romney's positions, his statements tonight were right on point with the right wing of the GOP. Romney was unquestionably the winner of the debate and I am even more confident in my earlier prediction that Romney will be the Republican nominee.

Two other candidates who I thought had a great night were John McCain and Mike Huckabee. McCain gained major points in my view for standing up to the other candidates and the traditional Republican view that waterboarding is okay. McCain made it clear that waterboarding is indeed torture and is indeed illegal and indeed should never be practiced by the U.S. On that issue I have major respect for McCain. Huckabee, yet again, was the most charming candidate on the stage. He is consistently able to make his point and state his positions without appearing negative. He also had the best line of the night when he said that Jesus was too smart to get involved in politics.

As far as the losers, I would say that there were two big ones. The first loser was Sen. Fred Thompson. Thompson needed to re-establish his frontrunner status, but he utterly failed. I have yet to see Thompson come out firm on a single issue. His debate style is also lacking to say the least. Thompson has a problem with taking long, odd pauses during the middle of his responses or taking several seconds to stare into space while trying to think of a response. If anyone is wondering why Thompson is doing so poorly, just watch this debate and you'll quickly realize why.

The biggest loser of the night, however, was Rudy Giuliani. This was Rudy's worst debate performance. Romney completely destroyed Rudy during the immigration debate early on and also later when it came to Rudy's pro-gun control stances. With Romney gaining on Giuliani in Iowa, New Hampshire, and now leading in South Carolina, tonight was Rudy's chance to gain back some of that support. He didn't though. If anything, Rudy did more to lose support to Romney than he did to win it.

I am going to point out one thing that was said that I take absolute exception to. Duncan Hunter said that the majority of people who join the military are conservative. I take great exception to the claim that liberals don't stand up to serve their country. The fact is that the military is just as diverse as America is as a whole. To imply that liberals don't serve their country is disgraceful and frankly Rep. Hunter should apologize.

The tide is turning on the Republican side. I think in the coming weeks we're going to see the decline of Rudy and the rise of Romney. Romney will win Iowa, win New Hampshire, win South Carolina and then have enough momentum to propel himself through Florida and beyond.

Diplomacy: Democrats Force Realty On Bush

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a lecture at Kansas State University ,said that the U.S. must improve its diplomacy.  He is asking for an increase in not only his department's budget but also the State Department budget.  Gates said we must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military and that there is a need for dramatic increases in spending on the civilian instruments of national security.  That is an astounding statement coming from someone in this administration.  (Diplomacy has always been a part of Democratic administrations concerning national security.)

 

Gates pronouncements is an admission of Mr. Bush's failed foreign policy that has been based on the U.S.'s military might which led to the war and occupation in Iraq over WMD that did not exist.  The people realized long ago that diplomacy was abandoned by Mr. Bush.  Gates has followed the same path with the surge and continuation of the war in Iraq.  They are both trying now to salvage what is left of their reputations.  Gates wants more money for his department even as spending for his department is at record levels and that does not include the billions spent for the war.  That money could be better used for more important issues.  Diplomacy for one.

 

Mr. Gates supported the military option in Iraq over diplomacy.  We know from his and Bush's statements that they want a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq.  Will they define that as military diplomacy?  The civilian instruments of national security would be a better choice.  The Democratic position on diplomacy through many past presidents have served our nation well and kept our country safe.  They answered the military call when it was necessary to protect our national interest but never was in fear of using diplomacy.  They also kept our country free of such a massive foreign terror attack as occurred on 9-11.

 

Mr. Bush's arrogance, reckless behavior and lack of true diplomacy lost him the moral mantle of world leadership that America was known to possess.  Diplomacy could have saved the lives of thousands of Americans and Iraqis in the war in Iraq if Mr. Bush had used his responsibility as a leader with wisdom.  America's role in the world today has been tainted by the President's reckless behavior.  If he and Gates are ready to use diplomacy as an admission of their failure, let them start with Iraq and bring this war to an end with diplomacy.  It is not to late.

Rudy Giuliani----My Take

If there is only one person America should be fearful of having as its next President, it's Republican Rudy Giuliani. The term "Bush-Cheney lite" has been used often in this campaign, but let me assure you that Rudy is certainly not "Bush-Cheney lite". He is Bush-Cheney on steroids.

Rudy Giuliani is the most unqualified candidate to be President from either side of the isle. What exactly did this man do anyway? All he is known for is 9/11, but even that record is not as great as Rudy wants people to believe. Rudy wants to be seen as the hero of America; as "America's Mayor", but the fact is that Rudy is truly neither. If anything, Rudy can be blamed for some of the casualties on 9/11 for his failure to properly prepare for what many knew was an almost certain future attack. In 1994, it was determined that the FDNY's radios were faulty and failed to work properly under rough conditions. Knowing this problem and receiving many complaints from firefighters prior to 9/11, Rudy failed to equip the FDNY with working radios. Those brave first-responders were consequently unable to hear the call to evacuate the WTC and were buried under the rubble when the buildings collapsed. Rudy is also to blame for the illnesses of hundreds of 9/11 clean up workers who were not provided with the proper protective gear while working at Ground Zero. America's Mayor? The hero of 9/11? I think not.

And now that Rudy is running for President, he is looking to even further exploit his supposed heroism on 9/11 for political gain. If you ask me, it is absolutely sickening for Rudy to try to and succeed in making political gain off of the tragedy that was 9/11. Rudy Giuliani wasn't the hero. The first responders who went selflessly into harm's way to save lives are the heroes, as are those who stayed at Ground Zero searching for survivors. I even challenge the claim that Rudy is responsible for "uniting the city and the country on 9/11". Al Sharpton was absolutely correct when he said, "You didn't bring us together, our pain brought us together and our decency brought us together. We would have come together if Bozo was the mayor." The disgust for Rudy is even more evident when you go where people know him best-----New York City itself. Rudy can say what he wants, but the citizens of NYC, who were there pre-9/11, there on 9/11, and there today, want the country to know something---Rudy is a fraud: "Giuliani has exaggerated the role he played after the terrorist attacks, casting himself as a hero for political gain." Perhaps still what is the most disturbing fact is the personal gain that Rudy has earned from "cashing in" on his fame gained on 9/11. On 9/11, Rudy was worth about $2 million. But since that tragedy, Rudy is worth more than 30 times that amount with most of that money being made from speaking appearances concerning 9/11 as well as other 9/11 related events. Now maybe its just me, but if Rudy really cared about those affected by 9/11, wouldn't he have donated most of that money to the 9/11 relief fund or to the families who lost loved ones? But no, Rudy used and continues to use the tragedy of 9/11 for his own gain, thinking nothing of the people who were actually affected.

When you look at his foreign policy, Rudy is even more of a neoconservative warmonger than Bush and Cheney. Giuliani practically lights up whenever he is asked about Iran and gets to respond that he is ready to attack if necessary and that he would not talk to Irani leaders. The fact is though, that if you refuse to negotiate and talk with Iran, then you leave yourself no option but war. And to make Rudy's policy towards Iran even more radical, he has said that he is not sure if conventional weapons would be enough. I can understand saying that nothing should be taken off the table, but Rudy makes it sound as if he looks forward to getting his hands on the U.S.'s nukes and blowing Iran apart.

Giuliani has also been Bush's biggest supporter concerning the Iraq War. Just a few days ago, Rudy said that he thinks President Bush handled the war perfectly and that he would have acted the same way. To say that it was handled without a single flaw is ridiculous and outrageous. Even avid war supporters like John McCain have criticized Bush's handling of the war.

The final thing that irks me about Rudy is his sudden change of position on key issues. As Mayor, Rudy was an unequivocal pro-choice politician, but now that he is running for President, Giuliani says that he would appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court who would ultimately like to overturn Roe v. Wade. Giuliani can't have it both ways---he either supports a women's right to privacy or he doesn't. It's the same case with Rudy's immigration policy. While Mayor, he was a strong advocate for sanctuary cities, but now he says that he wants an immediate end to illegal immigration and wants harsh punishments for undocumented workers. Another perfect example of Rudy straddling the line is his stance on gun control. While Mayor he was strongly pro-gun control, but now he says that he fully supports every individual's right to own a weapon. As far as I'm concerned, this "wishy-washy" stance on issues is even worse and more annoying than Romney's flip-flopping. At least when you flip-flop you end up with just a single position, but Rudy is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

So if there ever was a candidate that Democrats, and for that matter sane Republicans, need to stand up to, its Rudy Giuliani. America doesn't need a President who uses tragic events for personal and political gain. America doesn't need a President who would rather nuke a country than negotiate for peace. America doesn't need a President who can't admit when he was wrong. America doesn't need Rudy Giuliani.

Photo credit: Phelan M Ebenhack/AP

New Reports Paint Bad Picture

There are two new reports out concerning the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The war in Afghanistan is in its 6th year and the war in Iraq has been going on for almost 5 years and neither report paints a favorable picture.

 

The Washington Post reported that strategic goals that the Bush administration set out for 2007 in Afghanistan have not been met according to a White House assessment.  Individual battles with the Taliban have been successful, but the Taliban has had unchallenged expansion into new territory.  The U.S. military and intelligence have sharp differences as to where the war is going.

 

2007 has been the deadliest year for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.  The U.S. and NATO forces clear an area out and hold on to it  for a while only for it to be taken back by the Taliban.  The war is being fought in no man's land.  The Reagan-Bush administration armed the Taliban to fight the Soviet occupation and now the Taliban is fighting the U.S. and NATO occupation.  After 6 years there is still no one who can tell the American people how the war will turn out and how many more Americans will lose their lives in an unstable country in an unstable part of the world.

 

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports Al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Islamic Iraq Council, said that the U.S. has not backed up claims that Iran is fueling violence in Iraq.  Al-Hakim spent years in exile in Iran and is considered close to Iran's leaders.  Al-Hakim is also thought to be Iraq's most influential Shiite politician.

 

I wrote in several past commentaries that however and whenever this war ends, Iraq and Iran will be allies.  The Shiite majority in both countries will stand together.  It is past time to bring our troops home.  One more American death will be too many.  Saddam is long gone, there were no WMD, and we are not fighting the people who are responsible for the tragic events of 9-11.  The new leaders of Australia and Poland have it right.  Both parties in Congress have to get their act together and end the Iraq war as well as work on a solution for the growing violence in Afghanistan.

Ron Paul----My Take

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

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

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

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

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

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

Troops Surge, But Still No Political Progress

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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