I am please to report that a key, and much respected, republican Senator has finally seen the light. Sen. John Warner of Virginia said today that:
"President Bush should start bringing home some troops by Christmas to show the Baghdad government that the U.S. commitment to Iraq is not open-ended"
The reason for Warner's change of heart, according to him, is that troop withdrawals are needed because Iraq has failed to make any meaningful progress, despite the influx of troops form the surge. He believes bringing troops home would send a message across the region, that the U.S. is not going to buy the Iraqi government time forever, when their own people are too involved in a civil war to care about the U.S's fate. There is one part of it, though, that I do strongly disagree with: when asked the number of troops he would withdraw, the senator said he would only take 5000 out of Iraq to begin with.
5000?!?!?!?! There are over 160,000 and he thinks 5000 is enough? We need all of our combat troops home, in a safe manner of course. I'm aware that it will be a long, drawn out process to get every last combat troop out of Iraq, but 5000 to start out with is too small a number to send a powerful message to the Iraqis. The top democrats running for president, specifically Hillary Clinton, who has detailed her ideas, have the right idea. Begin the safe withdrawal of all our combat troops. Leave a small force there who's only goal is to hunt and stop the advancement of al-Qaeda. That is the only security threat to the U.S. in Iraq, and the sad part is that even al-Qaeda is there because of the U.S. This B.S. from certain republicans about Iraq being crucial to U.S. homeland security is a complete myth. Al-Qaeda, the only people in Iraq who wish ill will to the U.S., account for under 10% of the violence in Iraq. I hate to come off sounding harsh, but we have given the Iraqis 4 years to fight amongst themselves and settle their differences, but they continue to fight, and they continue to kill and injure hundreds of Americans in the process. If we stop patrolling the streets, trying to control civil violence, there will no doubt be an increase in Iraqi bloodshed, but too bad. I'm just going to say it no matter how horrible it sounds: better them then us. I'd rather read the headline of 100 Iraqis killed in a massacre than one american killed because he had to act like Mr. Policemen between the Iraqis. I'm all for protecting the U.S., so lets fight al-Qaeda, but lets not lose American lives needlessly because the Iraqis themselves can't be get along. Let's protect U.S. interests, and leave Iraqi interests to their own government.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Is the surge really working?
This question has popped up in the media as of late, especially among conservative republican commentators who support this war. There has been talk of the surge making progress in such places as Anbar province. However lets get the facts straight-----there is indeed some improvement in some areas because of an increase in troops. In several reports I have heard from men who fought in Iraq, say that they(the troops) can spend 30 days stabilizing a town, but in 30 minutes after they pull out, its back to the the old chaos. It makes sense and I'm not denying that increasing troops in certain areas can lead to a reduce in violence. Its like putting a policemen on watch in a dangerous criminal neighborhood here in the U.S. There might be a reduce in crime while they're patrolling the area, but once they leave, the criminals come out again. This is the same thing that is happening in certain areas of Iraq. There is no long term solution in these areas and its ridiculous for us to put our brave men and women's lives at risk for progress to only last a half an hour once we leave.
Then there is a situation where we have local leaders turning against al-Qaeda. This is a great thing, I don't want al-Qaeda to become prevalent in Iraq, but the thing that so many seem to be missing, is that al-Qaeda is not be rejected by local, tribal leaders because of the surge, but rather because these tribal leaders do not share the same interests as al-Qaeda. This does not arise from an increase in the number of U.S. troops, but rather a realization that terrorists are not just bad for the U.S., but bad for them too.
And the final problem with the so called progress of the surge, is that while some areas show improvement, other areas are getting worse. I'll use another analogy: its like your kid getting a D in math, so you hire him a tutor. The next semester, his math grade is a B, but then you notice his English grade, which used to be an A, is now a C. You can't call that progress and you can't call the surge's results progress. We make 2 steps forward in one area, while at the same time making 2 steps back in another.
I would like to close by simply stating that there is NO military solution to the conflict in Iraq. There has to be a diplomatic, political solution. The Iraqi government, which is supposed to be a form of democracy, has to be the most un-cohesive government this world has ever seen. Maybe people should begin to understand something---we shouldn't invade countries for the hell of it, and the president shouldn't lie to the American people or Congress about the needs to go to war. Simply put it: A Democracy forced upon someone is not a Democracy. The people of Iraq need to want a democracy, and they clearly don't. Why should American troops have to suffer any longer while fighting in the middle of another country's civil war?
Then there is a situation where we have local leaders turning against al-Qaeda. This is a great thing, I don't want al-Qaeda to become prevalent in Iraq, but the thing that so many seem to be missing, is that al-Qaeda is not be rejected by local, tribal leaders because of the surge, but rather because these tribal leaders do not share the same interests as al-Qaeda. This does not arise from an increase in the number of U.S. troops, but rather a realization that terrorists are not just bad for the U.S., but bad for them too.
And the final problem with the so called progress of the surge, is that while some areas show improvement, other areas are getting worse. I'll use another analogy: its like your kid getting a D in math, so you hire him a tutor. The next semester, his math grade is a B, but then you notice his English grade, which used to be an A, is now a C. You can't call that progress and you can't call the surge's results progress. We make 2 steps forward in one area, while at the same time making 2 steps back in another.
I would like to close by simply stating that there is NO military solution to the conflict in Iraq. There has to be a diplomatic, political solution. The Iraqi government, which is supposed to be a form of democracy, has to be the most un-cohesive government this world has ever seen. Maybe people should begin to understand something---we shouldn't invade countries for the hell of it, and the president shouldn't lie to the American people or Congress about the needs to go to war. Simply put it: A Democracy forced upon someone is not a Democracy. The people of Iraq need to want a democracy, and they clearly don't. Why should American troops have to suffer any longer while fighting in the middle of another country's civil war?
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Catfight!!!----Freddy vs. Rudy
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson is expected to officially announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination some time in September. Although I do believe getting in the race too late is going to be a great obstacle for Fred to overcome, taking shots like this one at his fellow candidates is a good way to start building you support base, without being "officially" in the race:
"Anybody who knows me knows I've always cared deeply about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. So I've always felt sort of relieved when I flew back home to where that particular civil liberty gets as much respect as the rest of the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, New York is trying, again, to force its ways on the rest of us, this time through the courts. First, they went after U.S. gun manufacturers, seeking through a lawsuit not only money but injunctive control over the entire industry. An act of congress in 2005 blocked, but did not end, that effort. Now, the same activist federal judge from Brooklyn who provided Mayor Giuliani's administration with the legal ruling it sought to sue gun makers, has done it again. Last week, he created a bizarre justification to allow New York City to sue out-of-state gun stores that sold guns that somehow ended up in criminal hands in the Big Apple."
Now while not directly attacking former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani, Fred's intent is clear. Rudy is strongly pro-gun control and governed that way. I'm not going to get on the who is right or wrong rant at this time(although I will state that I am pro-gun control to an extent), instead I want to take a look at the political implications.
This is a major weakness for Rudy, not just in the republican primaries, but also in the general election. West states such as Colorado will be strongly contested in 2008, and the issue of gun control is a very touchy subject there. Most people in the West, with the exclusion of urban California, are anti-gun control. This was an area where Republicans could take advantage, but not if Rudy is the nominee. In fact he is probably more pro-gun control than all the Democrats in the race. But let me rewind back to the primaries. Rudy's pro-choice stance hasn't seen to affect him too much, his pro-gay marriage views haven't hurt him, but gun control might. The more liberal Thompson and the others can paint him, the less appealing he will become. It might not take out a chunk of his conservative support overnight, like it might once have years ago if he was running, but it can slowly chip away at his base support. Those conservatives who favor Rudy favor him, honestly, because they feel he is the only republican who has a shot at beating Hillary. While I strongly disagree with that assessment, there is no doubt that Fred's attack on Rudy was a smart move. Thompson comes off as the Reagan conservative, while making Rudy look like a wacky liberal to the base of the GOP. This attack, along with Romney's attack on Rudy's immigration views, will slowly erode away Rudy's conservative support, the question is: can they do it in time? My opinion is, in November, when the nation's eyes truly turn to the upcoming primaries, these attacks will be re-visited and will have an impact on Rudy's electability to conservatives. The republican side of the race is still so fluid and interesting; anything could happen. The most interesting issue though that I'm anxiously awaiting to see the result of is the question of whether of not republicans will nominate a social-liberal. They never have before, but if anything can drive them to vote for Guiliani, its the fear of losing to another Clinton.
"Anybody who knows me knows I've always cared deeply about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. So I've always felt sort of relieved when I flew back home to where that particular civil liberty gets as much respect as the rest of the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, New York is trying, again, to force its ways on the rest of us, this time through the courts. First, they went after U.S. gun manufacturers, seeking through a lawsuit not only money but injunctive control over the entire industry. An act of congress in 2005 blocked, but did not end, that effort. Now, the same activist federal judge from Brooklyn who provided Mayor Giuliani's administration with the legal ruling it sought to sue gun makers, has done it again. Last week, he created a bizarre justification to allow New York City to sue out-of-state gun stores that sold guns that somehow ended up in criminal hands in the Big Apple."
Now while not directly attacking former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani, Fred's intent is clear. Rudy is strongly pro-gun control and governed that way. I'm not going to get on the who is right or wrong rant at this time(although I will state that I am pro-gun control to an extent), instead I want to take a look at the political implications.
This is a major weakness for Rudy, not just in the republican primaries, but also in the general election. West states such as Colorado will be strongly contested in 2008, and the issue of gun control is a very touchy subject there. Most people in the West, with the exclusion of urban California, are anti-gun control. This was an area where Republicans could take advantage, but not if Rudy is the nominee. In fact he is probably more pro-gun control than all the Democrats in the race. But let me rewind back to the primaries. Rudy's pro-choice stance hasn't seen to affect him too much, his pro-gay marriage views haven't hurt him, but gun control might. The more liberal Thompson and the others can paint him, the less appealing he will become. It might not take out a chunk of his conservative support overnight, like it might once have years ago if he was running, but it can slowly chip away at his base support. Those conservatives who favor Rudy favor him, honestly, because they feel he is the only republican who has a shot at beating Hillary. While I strongly disagree with that assessment, there is no doubt that Fred's attack on Rudy was a smart move. Thompson comes off as the Reagan conservative, while making Rudy look like a wacky liberal to the base of the GOP. This attack, along with Romney's attack on Rudy's immigration views, will slowly erode away Rudy's conservative support, the question is: can they do it in time? My opinion is, in November, when the nation's eyes truly turn to the upcoming primaries, these attacks will be re-visited and will have an impact on Rudy's electability to conservatives. The republican side of the race is still so fluid and interesting; anything could happen. The most interesting issue though that I'm anxiously awaiting to see the result of is the question of whether of not republicans will nominate a social-liberal. They never have before, but if anything can drive them to vote for Guiliani, its the fear of losing to another Clinton.
FreedomWatch.org---a $15 million lie
Freedomwatch.org, a conservative, pro-war organization has just spent over $15 million on an ad pressing the need for support for this war. Now while I do respect the opinions of all people, I do not respect those who straight up lie in order to try to make a point. In this television ad, there is a graphic of the 9/11 attacks, with the airplane flying into the World Trade Center. While this graphic is being displayed, the following statement is read about Iraq:
"They attacked us on 9/11 and they will again"
See, this is what I hate about the republican party, twisting facts in order to fool the American people iton supporting a war that is unnecessary. It has been proven that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. To say that they did is a complete and utter lie. There was not one Iraqi on the hijacked planes. Saddam Hussein had no contact with Osama bin Laden. The "they" that attacked us on 9/11 was al-Qaeda. They were and are still in Afghanistan. By going into Iraq we have done the exact thing that this ad warns us against, just not in the way freedomwatch.org sees it. By focusing our attention onto Iraq, it left Afghanistan to be re-populated with thousands of new al-Qaeda members. By going into Iraq, we let the man who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, bin-Laden, escape. If the Republicans truly wanted to fight terrorism and keep America safe, they would support the re-deployment of our troops into areas, such as Afghanistan, where there ARE men who ARE planning to attack us again.
"They attacked us on 9/11 and they will again"
See, this is what I hate about the republican party, twisting facts in order to fool the American people iton supporting a war that is unnecessary. It has been proven that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. To say that they did is a complete and utter lie. There was not one Iraqi on the hijacked planes. Saddam Hussein had no contact with Osama bin Laden. The "they" that attacked us on 9/11 was al-Qaeda. They were and are still in Afghanistan. By going into Iraq we have done the exact thing that this ad warns us against, just not in the way freedomwatch.org sees it. By focusing our attention onto Iraq, it left Afghanistan to be re-populated with thousands of new al-Qaeda members. By going into Iraq, we let the man who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, bin-Laden, escape. If the Republicans truly wanted to fight terrorism and keep America safe, they would support the re-deployment of our troops into areas, such as Afghanistan, where there ARE men who ARE planning to attack us again.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Another White House official to leave
Tony Snow, the White House Press Secretary said Friday that he plans on leaving before President Bush finishes his term in office. When he does depart, Snow will join the long list of names who have resigned from the Bush administration, among the most recent are: Karl Rove, Dan Bartlett, and Andrew Card. Now while we have heard the typical excuse, "the leaving to spend more time with my family", from many whom have left the White House, Tony Snow's answer must take the cake:
"I will not be able to make it to the end of this administration, just financially."
What exactly does he mean, financially? As Press Secretary, Snow makes $168,000 a year and made even more money when he was a pundit on Fox News Radio. Does he know how many people would kill to make that much money, and he thinks he can't make it financially??? I find that response to just be so damn insulting. There are people who are homeless and can't get a job, and Snow is complaining about not being able to make it financially with $168,000? And there is no doubt that Snow also has a ton saved up from when he was a conservative pundit. On a side not though, I am glad to see him go, but saddened at his excuse. Can't the White House come up with some type of a reason for all these resignations that is believable? But then again, I guess not, this is the George Dubya Bush administration and reason is the furthest thing from their brains.
"I will not be able to make it to the end of this administration, just financially."
What exactly does he mean, financially? As Press Secretary, Snow makes $168,000 a year and made even more money when he was a pundit on Fox News Radio. Does he know how many people would kill to make that much money, and he thinks he can't make it financially??? I find that response to just be so damn insulting. There are people who are homeless and can't get a job, and Snow is complaining about not being able to make it financially with $168,000? And there is no doubt that Snow also has a ton saved up from when he was a conservative pundit. On a side not though, I am glad to see him go, but saddened at his excuse. Can't the White House come up with some type of a reason for all these resignations that is believable? But then again, I guess not, this is the George Dubya Bush administration and reason is the furthest thing from their brains.
Update: Guiliani compares himself w/ the Rescue Workers
As former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani hits the campaign trail for his White House bid in 2008, he has been using his 9/11 record as his groundwork for becoming president. Last week when asked why he didn't warn of the health conditions posed to rescue workers working at Ground Zero, Rudy had this to say:
"I was at Ground Zero...I was exposed to the same stuff... so I'm one of them"
Well time for a fact check. Rudy spent 29 hours at or near Ground Zero the three months following the terrorist attack. Thats compared to the 12 hours a day rescue workers spent there for months. Rudy can boast about his 9/11 record all he wants, it means nothing. He uses self-serving statements to further his political career. The true 9/11 heroes, the rescue workers and responders, are being over shadowed by Rudy. He uses their hard work, claims it as his own, then turns around and uses that to get votes. Its pathetic when your one supposed qualification for running for the most important office in the world, is based on a lie. Once voters see who the true Rudy is, the one who will use anyone or anything to build his career, I pray to God they won't vote for him. We need a leader, not someone who pretended and continues to pretend to be a leader.
"I was at Ground Zero...I was exposed to the same stuff... so I'm one of them"
Well time for a fact check. Rudy spent 29 hours at or near Ground Zero the three months following the terrorist attack. Thats compared to the 12 hours a day rescue workers spent there for months. Rudy can boast about his 9/11 record all he wants, it means nothing. He uses self-serving statements to further his political career. The true 9/11 heroes, the rescue workers and responders, are being over shadowed by Rudy. He uses their hard work, claims it as his own, then turns around and uses that to get votes. Its pathetic when your one supposed qualification for running for the most important office in the world, is based on a lie. Once voters see who the true Rudy is, the one who will use anyone or anything to build his career, I pray to God they won't vote for him. We need a leader, not someone who pretended and continues to pretend to be a leader.
Define Pro-Life
This is a topic which is obviously very sensitive, but after something that happened to me today personally, I feel I need to address it. I was confronted today by someone who blatantly asked me whether if I was pro-life, it was an out of the blue question and an awful way to start a conversation, but I answered nonetheless. I told this person, I am pro-choice. He immediately jumped on me and called me "anti-life". After being taken a little back by his response, I quickly said, no I'm not anti-life, I'm just not what people like to define as "pro-life".
These same people who will try to force into your head about being pro-life, are mostly hypocrites. I say this because it is those same "holier-than-thou" people who support this War, which leads to unnecessary American deaths. These same people will eat you alive if you mention gun-control, which would reduce shootings, and hence lead to less deaths. And what about when a mother faces death if an abortion does not occur? I am anti-war, I am pro-gun control, and when it comes to abortion, I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose. The Government has no right to tell a woman how to live with her on body.
At the same time, please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everyone should just go get an abortion to solve all their problems. Prevention is the best policy, but for reasons, mainly health, abortion needs to remain legal. I ask those who use "pro-life" to look more carefully at their beliefs, because then I think they would find the true people who stand up for life, are those who are "pro-choice".
These same people who will try to force into your head about being pro-life, are mostly hypocrites. I say this because it is those same "holier-than-thou" people who support this War, which leads to unnecessary American deaths. These same people will eat you alive if you mention gun-control, which would reduce shootings, and hence lead to less deaths. And what about when a mother faces death if an abortion does not occur? I am anti-war, I am pro-gun control, and when it comes to abortion, I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose. The Government has no right to tell a woman how to live with her on body.
At the same time, please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everyone should just go get an abortion to solve all their problems. Prevention is the best policy, but for reasons, mainly health, abortion needs to remain legal. I ask those who use "pro-life" to look more carefully at their beliefs, because then I think they would find the true people who stand up for life, are those who are "pro-choice".
Thursday, August 16, 2007
The GOP Candidates' major flaws
Just like the Democrats, Republicans do not have one ideal candidate. They each bring something positive to their party, but here I will take a look at each candidate's major problem in winning the primaries and a general election.
1. Rudy Guiliani- Rudy has so many past issues that could come up in a general election. Once his past comes out(such as the fact that his kids have completely disowned him), he is likely to become the most un-likable candidate from either party. His social views could also be a major problem in early key states, such as Iowa and New Hampshire.
2. John McCain- John's stance on two major issues have hurt him. And its not a surprise that both of those issues are related to George Bush. Bush's immigration bill, that McCain supported, greatly hurt him among the conservative base. McCain supporting this war so strongly has hurt his chances of gaining moderate republican support and independent support.
3. Fred Thompson- This guy has waited too long to get into the race. A lot of people have already made their mind up and know who their voting for and Fred has yet to even enter the race. The longer he waits to get it, the more people will have made up their mind on who their voting for, and thats more people who won't be voting for Fred Thompson.
4. Mitt Romney- Mitt is the ultimate flip-flopper. Every major issue important to the republican party, Mitt has flip-flopped on. His newly found conservative values may get him the nomination, but there is nothing the American people hate more than flip-floppers. Romney would be a disaster for the GOP, almost a sure shot that they would lose a general election.
5. Mike Huckabee- This guy has probably the most appealing personality of anyone running, but Huckabee just isn't a forceful guy. In the dog-eat-dog world of politics, you have to be ready to take tough stands and go after your opponents. Mike is the nice guy, and while there is nothing wrong with being nice in politics, Mike has played it too nice. He is getting walked over by the others and is not breaking out of the pact like he should have already done.
6. Tom Tancredo- This guy is the crazy conservative. His past comments on bombing Mecca and Medina just about alienate him from getting the votes of any sane person. His tough stances on immigration make his chances of getting any hispanic support zero. This guy is the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican field, appealing to some, but just too far out there for most.
7. Duncan Hunter- Hunter just doesn't have anything to say. He's hardly heard from in the debates and has not said anything about how he would run the country. Its hard to earn votes when no one knows any of your ideas for moving this country forward.
8. Ron Paul- Paul is the ideal candidate for anti-war republicans and independents, but the problem is that the primary voting block in republican primaries is conservatives who are pro-war. Paul might do surprising well in a general election as the republican nominee, but his chances of getting there are slim to none.
9. Sam Brownback- Sam's "holier than thou" attitude is just a turn off for so many people. Sam has this arrogance about him when he talks, as if he's better than everyone else because of his religion. His other problem is that he's a one dimensional candidate, he only talks about abortion. In this day and age, I just can't help but to think that there are way more important issues to take care of than abortion.
10. John Cox- Ever heard of him? neither have I, thats his problem.
Well there is my round-up of the negatives of the GOP candidates. If you haven't already, check out my blog on the negatives of the democratic candidates.
1. Rudy Guiliani- Rudy has so many past issues that could come up in a general election. Once his past comes out(such as the fact that his kids have completely disowned him), he is likely to become the most un-likable candidate from either party. His social views could also be a major problem in early key states, such as Iowa and New Hampshire.
2. John McCain- John's stance on two major issues have hurt him. And its not a surprise that both of those issues are related to George Bush. Bush's immigration bill, that McCain supported, greatly hurt him among the conservative base. McCain supporting this war so strongly has hurt his chances of gaining moderate republican support and independent support.
3. Fred Thompson- This guy has waited too long to get into the race. A lot of people have already made their mind up and know who their voting for and Fred has yet to even enter the race. The longer he waits to get it, the more people will have made up their mind on who their voting for, and thats more people who won't be voting for Fred Thompson.
4. Mitt Romney- Mitt is the ultimate flip-flopper. Every major issue important to the republican party, Mitt has flip-flopped on. His newly found conservative values may get him the nomination, but there is nothing the American people hate more than flip-floppers. Romney would be a disaster for the GOP, almost a sure shot that they would lose a general election.
5. Mike Huckabee- This guy has probably the most appealing personality of anyone running, but Huckabee just isn't a forceful guy. In the dog-eat-dog world of politics, you have to be ready to take tough stands and go after your opponents. Mike is the nice guy, and while there is nothing wrong with being nice in politics, Mike has played it too nice. He is getting walked over by the others and is not breaking out of the pact like he should have already done.
6. Tom Tancredo- This guy is the crazy conservative. His past comments on bombing Mecca and Medina just about alienate him from getting the votes of any sane person. His tough stances on immigration make his chances of getting any hispanic support zero. This guy is the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican field, appealing to some, but just too far out there for most.
7. Duncan Hunter- Hunter just doesn't have anything to say. He's hardly heard from in the debates and has not said anything about how he would run the country. Its hard to earn votes when no one knows any of your ideas for moving this country forward.
8. Ron Paul- Paul is the ideal candidate for anti-war republicans and independents, but the problem is that the primary voting block in republican primaries is conservatives who are pro-war. Paul might do surprising well in a general election as the republican nominee, but his chances of getting there are slim to none.
9. Sam Brownback- Sam's "holier than thou" attitude is just a turn off for so many people. Sam has this arrogance about him when he talks, as if he's better than everyone else because of his religion. His other problem is that he's a one dimensional candidate, he only talks about abortion. In this day and age, I just can't help but to think that there are way more important issues to take care of than abortion.
10. John Cox- Ever heard of him? neither have I, thats his problem.
Well there is my round-up of the negatives of the GOP candidates. If you haven't already, check out my blog on the negatives of the democratic candidates.
The Democratic Candidates' major flaws
There are currently eight democrats with the hope of winning the 2008 Presidential Election. All eight have some great upsides and major pluses, but they also have some key flaws. These key flaws are what divides democrat's on who their nominee should be; there is no "perfect" or ideal candidate.
1. Hillary Clinton- Hillary's major flaw is her image. A lot of people picture Clinton as a cold, stiff person. In other words her appeal and favorability is believed to be limited and democrats don't want to go into a general election with a losing candidate again.
2. Barack Obama- Obama's main issue that he will have to overcome is his experience..or lack there of. With having only spent two years in the U.S. Senate, Obama is still seen as a rookie. The fact that he has had numerous slips and mess-ups in the debates, further speculation as to whether or not Obama is ready to run a general election campaign and ultimately run this country.
3. John Edwards- Edwards has become the populist candidate. He has taken a sharp turn to the left and is appearing to be more and more liberal each day. This might have appeal to the far-left faction of the democratic party, but to moderate democrats and the American people, Edwards is seen as just a little to "out there".
4. Bill Richardson- Bill's huge issue is getting a point across. He has performed horribly in the debates and whenever he makes a speech, he fails to get his message out there. In this day and age, ability to deliver a speech is a key asset needed to reach out and appeal to people. Richardson's inability to reach out to an audience greatly hurts him as people don't get to see Richardson's views adequately expressed.
5. Joe Biden- Joe Biden is the angry candidate. When you see him in the debates, he always seems angry. While a little force in your voice can be a plus, Joe takes it a little to far. His passion comes off as anger, and instead of people listening to what Biden is actually saying, all people hear is enraged yelling.
6. Chris Dodd- Chris has the exact opposite problem that Biden has. Dodd comes off as too sub-dued. His passion for this country fails to come out in his speeches and his debate performances are forgettable.
7. Dennis Kucinich- Dennis has very little appeal to main-stream democrats. He is by far the most far-left candidate in the race. He is the democrat who would do the worst in a general election, as his message just doesn't resinate with the majority of the American people.
8. Mike Gravel- The question for this guy is, "where were you the last 30 years?" In fact my favorite interview of this campaign came when Chris Matthews asked Gravel that exact same question and Gravel responded, "under a rock!" (get it, gravel..rock) Another major issue for Gravel is his over all wackiness. Its not something you can pin-point, the man just comes off as crazy.
There you have it, what I think are the flaws of the democratic candidates. None are the perfect candidate, but then again there has never been a perfect candidate, but I feel confident that one of those people in that list will be our next president.
Be sure to check out my blog on the flaws of the GOP candidates as well.
1. Hillary Clinton- Hillary's major flaw is her image. A lot of people picture Clinton as a cold, stiff person. In other words her appeal and favorability is believed to be limited and democrats don't want to go into a general election with a losing candidate again.
2. Barack Obama- Obama's main issue that he will have to overcome is his experience..or lack there of. With having only spent two years in the U.S. Senate, Obama is still seen as a rookie. The fact that he has had numerous slips and mess-ups in the debates, further speculation as to whether or not Obama is ready to run a general election campaign and ultimately run this country.
3. John Edwards- Edwards has become the populist candidate. He has taken a sharp turn to the left and is appearing to be more and more liberal each day. This might have appeal to the far-left faction of the democratic party, but to moderate democrats and the American people, Edwards is seen as just a little to "out there".
4. Bill Richardson- Bill's huge issue is getting a point across. He has performed horribly in the debates and whenever he makes a speech, he fails to get his message out there. In this day and age, ability to deliver a speech is a key asset needed to reach out and appeal to people. Richardson's inability to reach out to an audience greatly hurts him as people don't get to see Richardson's views adequately expressed.
5. Joe Biden- Joe Biden is the angry candidate. When you see him in the debates, he always seems angry. While a little force in your voice can be a plus, Joe takes it a little to far. His passion comes off as anger, and instead of people listening to what Biden is actually saying, all people hear is enraged yelling.
6. Chris Dodd- Chris has the exact opposite problem that Biden has. Dodd comes off as too sub-dued. His passion for this country fails to come out in his speeches and his debate performances are forgettable.
7. Dennis Kucinich- Dennis has very little appeal to main-stream democrats. He is by far the most far-left candidate in the race. He is the democrat who would do the worst in a general election, as his message just doesn't resinate with the majority of the American people.
8. Mike Gravel- The question for this guy is, "where were you the last 30 years?" In fact my favorite interview of this campaign came when Chris Matthews asked Gravel that exact same question and Gravel responded, "under a rock!" (get it, gravel..rock) Another major issue for Gravel is his over all wackiness. Its not something you can pin-point, the man just comes off as crazy.
There you have it, what I think are the flaws of the democratic candidates. None are the perfect candidate, but then again there has never been a perfect candidate, but I feel confident that one of those people in that list will be our next president.
Be sure to check out my blog on the flaws of the GOP candidates as well.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Rudy flip-flops AGAIN!
Rudy Guiliani is trying to appeal to republican primary voters by appearing to be more conservative. His latest attempt to that has him planning on releasing a detailed plan on how to stop illegal immigration. Guiliani has recently said, "I promise I will end illegal immigration!" This is quite the opposite opinion of illegal immigration than he had in 1994, when the mayor had this to say:
"Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens, if you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city. You’re somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair.”
All I can say is Rudy flip-flopped again. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but it always gets me: when a candidate knowingly goes against what they truly believe in, just to get votes. I don't care whether your democrat, republican, or anything else, its just wrong. If you have to be un-truthful to yourself, you shouldn't be running for president or any elected position for that matter.
"Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens, if you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city. You’re somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair.”
All I can say is Rudy flip-flopped again. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but it always gets me: when a candidate knowingly goes against what they truly believe in, just to get votes. I don't care whether your democrat, republican, or anything else, its just wrong. If you have to be un-truthful to yourself, you shouldn't be running for president or any elected position for that matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)