Another important speech last night was from Senator Joe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman may be the first Democrat to speak at a Republican National Convention.

Sen. Lieberman is officially recorded as an Independent, because in his last re-election the Democrats threw him under the bus and he had to run on his own against a candidate they put up against him. Since that time, if not quite some time before, Democrats have been in various forms of dislike towards him. But they need him to maintain the majority they hold in the Senate.

Of course Senator Lieberman engendered no great joy from Democrats from the speech he made. Instead of going straight down the Party line, instead of racing along with the far-left liberal policies advocated at the DNC, Lieberman – the 2000 VP pick of Al Gore – asked all Americans to vote for the person that was best for President. And his opinion is that Obama is not that man.

So many Senator Hillary Clinton supporters, Democratic delegates, and the Independent Senator of Connecticut have all endorsed McCain. A former Democratic Vice President, the current Democratic Vice Presidential pick, and the main competitor in the Primaries to Senator Obama have all said the same thing to the nation (before they polispoke their way to complete reversals based on political gain).

But don’t take my words, listen to Senator Lieberman – who knows what it takes to get elected.

Labels: Al Gore, Democratic Party, Presidential election race 2008, Republican National Convention, Senator Lieberman

Now for my commentary on Fred Thompson’s speech.

I thought it was a great speech. One of the most important things about it was the fact that unlike similar speeches by Democrats he did not really attack Senator Obama. He got in a few jibes, and they were accurate and well placed, but overall he focused on Senator John McCain.

Fred Thompson was focused on the character and experience of Senator John McCain. Without trying to make a comparison one could not help but see it. And with no disrespect to Obama, McCain towers over his Democratic rival.

Fred Thompson said,

“It's pretty clear there are two questions we will never have to ask ourselves, "Who is this man?" and "Can we trust this man with the presidency?"

Well even Democrats have stated unequivocably that they trust McCain as President. Senator Obama’s own VP pick stated that clearly and without hesitation. His polispeak since rings hollow and Democrats know it.

Senator McCain is a war hero. We all know that. But Democrats seem to want to forget that McCain is the most bi-partisan candidate in this election. It was noted all night, by Thompson and then later by Lieberman (the Democratic VP pick in 2000 for Al Gore) that the difference is doing versus speaking.

But Thompson was not without strong attacks.

“They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the "other" side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.”

Colorful and accurate when you consider that it was Senator Obama himself that noted he would ensure tax cuts for

“95% of those who RECEIVE A PAYCHECK” [Emphasis is my own]

Only those willfully wanting to believe that statement cannot see the connection of business owners, the price of their goods, and the hours and employment individuals receive. Tax one side of the equation and the response hits the other. A basic law of nature and physics, unless you are a Democrat.

To be fair Thompson did focus intently on the history of McCain. There is no question that in the past 18 months the voting record of McCain and President Bush have been similar. But most seem to miss the fact that it has mostly been President Bush moving towards Senator McCain’s view than vice versa.

Fred Thompson went on to say

“History-making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president. Apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history-making, Democrat-controlled Congress. History-making because it's the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation's history.”

Now to be fair, in the past there may have been Senators that have run for President that have been more liberal in their voting records than Senator Obama. I’m willing to give Obama the benefit of doubt on this. Though he has been easily found to be the most liberal Senator currently.

Thompson also stated that Obama is the most inexperienced. Again I have not checked the entire Democratic past. But the fact that he has had 3 ½ years in the Senate, of which about 2 have been used to run for President, speaks for itself. Still credit should be given to his time in the Illinios Senate. Though in comparison to McCain, or even Vice Presidential candidate Biden he is weak in that argument.

As for the Democrat-led Congress, well I’ve already stated how ineffective they have been. Their quest to look good on news video clips dominated their time, and the historic lowest-approval ratings, and consistent lower (by about 10 points) ratings than the unpopular President Bush says more than any other argument.

John McCain is hardly the perfect Presidential candidate. He is even less perfect a Republican. And neither of these qualities is bad, especially when compared to a candidate that is even less perfect a candidate and more radically aligned with the furthest portion of his Party.

Some have criticized Fred Thompson’s speech at the RNC for not stating clearly that Senator McCain is not President Bush. I have to believe only the most myopic or the most blindly far-left cannot note the difference.

The differences between the 2 men has been noted in Primaries, policy decisions, and support from other politicians. Even just listening to the 2 men speak makes it apparent. But I do not fault the Democrats for their attempt to polispeak an illusory connection to a Senator that mere 2 years ago was the “Democrats Republican” and lauded by their Party.

Fred Thompson spoke at the Republican National Convention about the past, the experience, honor, and character of John McCain. Whether or not anyone likes or agrees with these things there is no dispute that they are facts. I cannot give a more detailed critique of something that is steeped in fact and avoided conjecture.

Labels: Al Gore, Fred Thompson, Presidential election race 2008, Republican National Convention, RNC, Senator Biden, Senator John McCain, Senator Lieberman

With all the questions floating around about which politician should be the Vice-President for the Presidential candidates, I wanted to take a stab at who I thought made sense. Now to be fair, most of the potentials being bandied about by pundits are not well known names to me. Then again I doubt that most of America is familiar with almost any of them either.

I will delve into the Democrats first. That’s only because I think that Party is the weakest, with the worst political platforms. I also disagree on most issues with them. But not least of all is the fact that I don’t know many that I think would be a good candidate – so I will just mention who I am sure it will not be.

Senator Hillary Clinton. Not even in a pipe dream. Senator Obama and the Clinton machine share no love. Senator Clinton is actively trying to stab Obama in the back right now. Former- President Bill Clinton has insulted every aspect of Obama’s campaign as well as African Americans in politics.

Beyond all that, she is the one person that every Republican would love to see on the ticket. There is so much ammunition ready based on the fiascos, lies, and corruption of the Clintons that it would be the fastest way to ensure a McCain win. Women and Black votes included.

Al Gore. Is anyone that wants this not on drugs? Yes he is popular today with his allegations that the world will end tomorrow in a boiling ball of flame. Of course he thinks he is the smartest man in the room, no matter where the room is. Including the Oval Office.

He is slightly better than Hillary as he is less hated. But he is also seen as being very weak. Internationally he may do well with scientists, but that’s about it. Say what you will but the nation was SO happy that Gore was not in charge after 9/11. And he is directly linked to most of the baggage the Clintons have because he was part of their do-nothing Administration.

John Kerry. Do I really need to say more? You might as well want John Edwards.

Colin Powell. Now this is interesting. He is respected in politics and internationally. He is a war hero. He is unquestionably patriotic. He is Black. He is intelligent. He is personable. But he is also a Republican.

Now if he were to be convinced that would be something. But I do not believe that he would take the position just because Senator Obama has made history. To my knowledge virtually all the positions that Obama has announced are opposed by Powell. Though it would be the biggest move since the Lincoln Administration (took a Republican to go with the best people regardless of political affiliation – that’s bi-partisan), I can’t see it happening. It’s a long-shot at best.

And that’s the Democrats I know and care about. All the others being spoken about I don’t know enough to make an intelligent choice on.

As for Republicans I only think there needs to me a choice of 2 people. Condoleezza Rice and Mitt Romney.

Condoleezza Rice is the first Black woman as United States Secretary of State, and just the second African American, or woman, in the position ever (only took 220 some odd years). She is unquestionably intelligent (unless you think Stanford is a community college), experienced both before this Administration and during on international affairs. Oh, and she speaks 5 languages.

She survived the trials and tribulations of the Jim Crow laws in Birmingham yet she is relatively young, at a politically youthful 53. She is an accomplished pianist. And she was a Democrat until 1982.

Let me focus on the last sentence. Like many African Americans, Secretary Rice was raised to look at Democrats favorably. Unlike many of the youth today that believe the ultra-liberal views of Obama is the only option, Secretary Rice has seen several of the current proposals in action under President Carter. Anyone old enough to have lived through the fiasco that President Carter made of the economy at the time, and the weakness he projected of America (by being incapable of recovering our hostages from Iran) logically would never want to go back to that process.

Secretary Rice helps to pull the Black vote, as well as women. She is young, balancing well against McCain’s age. She is in excellent health. She is a success, it cannot be said enough. She has experience, which in combination to McCain severely outweighs the experience of any combination the Democrats can come up with.

The patriotism us unquestioned, and for those that care she is Presbyterian to my knowledge.

And let me step back. I mentioned 2 people, and thinking about it as I write I have changed my mind. I think she is the only real and solid choice. A McCain – Rice ticket wins in my opinion. Do the math as you wish, but Democrats have nothing to compete with this.

And the only negative I can think of is the pre-existing issue of Iraq. But we already know how Senator McCain feels about that, so it’s moot.

Well in a mere few days we will see, and then the real decisions will start to be made.

Labels: Al Gore, Colin Powell, John Edwards, Presidential election race 2008, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John Kerry, Senator John McCain

Polispeak is never more beautiful and impacting than when it appears on the silver screen. Such are the thoughts of the Democratic Party and David Guggenheim. And to that end Guggenheim is in the process of filming Senator Obama, a film that will be presented at the National Democratic Party Convention and then hopefully (Dems think) out to the general public.

And why not. Look what Guggenheim did for the doom and gloom polispeak of Al Gore. Since the movie An Inconvenient Truth (which inconveniently contains misstatements and inaccuracies) Al Gore has swelled in popularity and political power. He has sparked the fuel for green everything and the masses accept him as never during his political career.

If Al Gore can be transformed into a media darling and political top cat, imagine what will happen to the already popular Senator Obama. You can almost see Democrats and Hollywood drooling.

One definite positive will of course be the fact that some 10% of voters with their heads up their arse will finally be lead to understand that their email stating Obama is a Muslim is false. Too bad no one has made a movie warning these same people about emails that promise to give them millions from an overseas lawyer representing a dead person with their same last name. If these are the voters that the Democrats think will win them the Oval Office, they are in trouble and have their eyes shut to it.

The thing that gets me is that there are some voters that will be swayed by a film, created by an Obama supporter (he has already donated cash to the cause) meant to be biased in favor of Obama. That’s not politics or a documentary, it’s a big infomercial. But of course how many millions are made off of infomercials each year??

Perhaps the worst aspect of this idea is what it will mean in the future. Direct marketing of Presidential candidates will vie time alongside votes for American Idol (if that show could only end). Billy Mays will be preempted to present the latest pitch by a presidential candidate, promising to fix the world while you sit in your ever so comfortable sofa, if you just make a vote. And as technology improves even fewer people will take the time to use that technology to check out facts, instead accepting the polispeak spouted on their latest Iphone streaming video or satellite television piped into their cars.

Look I have nothing against movies about Presidents, or even candidates. Generally the movies will give me a President I can respect, agree with, and is acting in the best interest and spirit of America. But the reality is that some writer dreamed up that candidate and the ones we vote for are severely more flawed. A movie hyping a candidate like the next hopeful summer box office hit only makes me wary.

Is Senator Obama a good candidate? Well there is no question that he is better than Senator Clinton – a liar and highly manipulative. He definitely sounds great giving a speech. And he is young, which America obsesses over to the tune of billions each year. But none of that makes him a potentially good President.
So rather than spending a stupid amount of money to hype Senator Obama as if he were Will Smith, why don’t Democrats spend one-tenth the money (and time) and just present a couple of fully defined plans they think will actually improve America? Or do they believe that Americans are too dumb to actually read?

Well I know you my readers can. So what do you prefer, a movie highlighting a bunch of fluff or a couple of pages of facts? Which would sway you more?

Labels: 2008 election, Al Gore, Democratic Party, democrats, Polispeak, Presidential candidates, Senator Barack Obama

I can’t believe this. Actually I can. The insanity of imbalance and degree of scrutiny placed on Senator Obama now that he is a nominee is mounting. His every move is being analyzed for some secret Black meaning.

Take this video for example



I have seen about 3 different news organizations cover what you just saw. Not Senator Obama confirming that he is the Democratic nominee but the fist bump. The fist bump. I’ve watched as reporters have acted as if their hands are deformed as they try to recreate this action. I’ve watched as reporters have researched the history of the fist bump with an old Louisiana blues entertainer (who comments that the fist bump goes back to slavery days in the cotton fields). I’ve watched as commercial media makers are commenting how this will be a new craze to sweep the nation.

And I wonder how stupid most of these people are.

Simply stated, Senator Obama no more created the fist bump than Al Gore created the internet. Sports teams from the local to the national have been doing this for at least years if not decades. This year there was a Budweiser commercial with a Clydesdale horse and a Dalmatian dog that had a fist bump, will Senator Obama get credit for that as well?

More importantly who cares? Why is it a big deal? Why is every movement of Senator Obama being followed so closely.

I can’t recall such minute actions of a Presidential candidate being observed and commented on. Can you name an action that Senator McCain does or has done in the past 25 years that has been commented on with such fervor (his war injuries do not count).

So what is next? Senator Obama patted his wife on the butt that night as well, is that a new craze? Will that be the new thing the media attributes to Senator Obama (no doubt to be argued by various Women’s Rights groups)? Is it the next secret Black thing that the major media thinks needs to be spread around?

There are dozens of reasons to vote for or against Senator Obama, a fist bump isn’t one of them. There are dozens of reasons to be excited or interested about the nomination and potential of the 1st African American to reach this level in the Presidential race ever. There is a lot of history in this moment, after nearly 400 since the dawn of slavery in America and 143 years after Jim Crow laws. And the focus some place on the average everyday action of a fist bump insults every moment and aspect of the historic news.

Labels: Al Gore, budweiser, Democratic nomination, fist bump, presidential candidate, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama

My initial impressions of the Democratic Presidential debate in Ohio are that this is turning out to be quite a match. So far Senator Clinton has been quite forceful in trying to make a stand on universal healthcare, and to a lesser extent Iraq. NAFTA was a sore point.

I found her whining about getting the first question on issues she has made comments on and obviously wanted to answer, and suggesting that Obama should be offered a pillow – like on Saturday Night Live – less than Presidential and weak. And for the record she has only gotten the first question 6 out of 10 times including this debate where she chose to answer the open question to both candidates.

Her seeming demand that her plan was better and that professionals thought so fell flat. She did not answer the question of what is affordable, and if she would cause penalties to come out of the paychecks of those that do not accept her plan. Obama made a good case why children need to be covered and parents will chose to be covered if given an affordable option.

I think it looked bad that Clinton would not let the issue end and had to try to get the last word in on that issue, as well as several others. I’m upset that 16 minutes were spent on universal healthcare because Senator Clinton did not agree with Senator Obama. Especially since this is not a program that exists right now, and other questions on issues that do exist were not able to be asked of either candidate.

In terms of NAFTA, her answers were weak. She had the worst answer possible about her promise to Upstate New York. In her bid to gain the Senatorship, she promised to create 200,000 jobs. What has actually happened is that 30,000 jobs left since she has been elected. That is a fact. The reason why was,

“Because I thought Al Gore would be President.”

A leader should not promise things they cannot deliver. A leader should make clear that a plan that requires unknown probabilities is not a promise. Because I can tell you many in Binghamton NY, where I now reside, remember the promise that was made and the numerous jobs that have been lost since that time; and how the area in Central New York is suffering.

Iraq is a big issue for both candidates. I personally do not agree with either of their positions. Thus rather than addressing how they debated this point, I will simply state that they both claim plans towards leaving Iraq.

I will say that on the issue of experience, which Senator Clinton claims Obama does not have, Senator Obama made a very good stand. He clearly outlined that his comments about acting against Al Quida in Pakistan back in the summer of 2007 is exactly what America recently did in killing the number 3 man in that organization.

I found the comments by Senator Clinton, butting in on the denouncement of Senator Obama to Minister Farrakhan because of his anti-Semitic comments, rude and unnecessary. It was an obvious try to try to corner Senator Obama as somehow being connected to Islam and the Nation of Islam. She attempted to embarrass Obama, asking him to reject on top of renounce Minister Farrakhan. To her annoyance, I imagine, he reiterated that he did both, renounce and reject. But what that had to do with her trying to get in that she supports Israel and Jewish people is beyond me.

In the closing statements based on the question what does your opponent need to do to win the nomination the answers were very telling. Senator Obama stated that Clinton was qualified and more worthy than Senator McCain, and took about 2 minutes in lauding her before he mentioned why he is after the nomination and why he felt he was better. Senator Clinton, by contrast opened with what made them both good candidates. She spent a minute discussing how “we are qualified” and “they both wanted the best for America” before continuing on her self-promotion.

Oh her not so subtle inclusion of gender seemed a pandering move towards women. As if she was the only one to be a history making candidate. That playing to women, almost as a fear tactic, was her battlecry. This contrasts the fact that Senator Obama never felt the need to emphasize that he is African American and that he would be making history and that this was the chance for Blacks to “change the playing field” as Senator Clinton implored.

Overall I felt Obama won the debate. He did not feel the need to press Clinton into a corner. He showed a very Presidential stance in that he took her attacks and rather than attack back he just answered the question. Unlike Clinton, Obama does not seem to need to hammer a fight to finality.

Perhaps the most telling thing is that Clinton felt the need to be unequivocal and final in her position about how Obama dealt with Farrakhan – a point that she was not involved with at all. She closed all options and demanded a response that met her standard. Obama worked as a facilitator, having a position and willing to take the extra step to get to a conclusion that he already agreed with.

That is the potential Presidents that we see. In Senator Clinton, a President that will demand and fight to get only and exactly what she wants, at whatever cost. In Senator Obama, a President that is level headed and willing to bend as long as he is in the direction he believes is right. Considering the differences between the Democratic and Republican political parties, which do you, think will be most likely to pass laws that the candidates are basing their nominations on?

Labels: Al Gore, al quida, Binghamton NY, Democratic candidates, Iraq War, Minister Farrakhan, NAFTA, Pakistan, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, That's why I vote

**part ogf the I Love America That's Why I Vote! campaign**

So as the political parties work closer to deciding who will be their nominee a renewed call is circulating for a modified system for deciding the winner of the Presidential election. As is too well known, the popular vote in the nation does not decide who is President. The most notable example of this has to be the election of 2000, with Al Gore eventually winning the popular vote and losing the election.

The question of why the general vote does not decide the winner can be summed up in possibly it’s biggest detraction. Were there to be a straightforward vote, candidates would focus the predominance of their attention and campaigning to states with large populations. Thus New York, California and others would be huge targets, while states like Montana and the Dakotas would be virtually ignored. That would take away the importance of these states in the election cycle. Considering the numbers in New York City alone, which the state of Illinois matches in population, the disparity becomes clear.

Thus the electoral college attempts to balance the field, giving more weight to the less populous parts of the nation. Though it fails as well. Many like myself are annoyed with the fact that the popular vote does not directly influence who gets to be President, and that candidates are more concerned with the mathematics of a win versus the public.

But there is a solution proposed that might answer this dilemma. It’s not perfect, and again bigger states take more precedence, but that’s not a new thing. The plan is called the National Popular Vote.

“…the states would begin awarding their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of who carries each state.

If the candidates tied in the popular vote, each state would give its electoral votes to the candidate who carried that particular state — basically the same system used now.”

Now that plan is far from perfect but doesn’t it sound better than what we have now? Doesn’t it place the candidates more in a direct accountability to the voters? Wouldn’t it reflect the sentiment of the nation more accurately?

Some want to focus on the weaknesses and potential delays of the proposed system. That if there was a need for a recount in an especially close race, it would have to be done nationally and that this is impractical today. Of course if such a system were to be employed we would need far better technology to record each vote, thus making it easy to recount as well. And upgrading the voting system from the sometimes overly archaic punch tab machines that evoke the hi-tech and cutting edge of 1950’s technology.

At least this much is known right now. The current voting system is faulty at every level from the individual voting machines up to the Electoral College. No one likes the system as it exists. And efforts to patch the worst aspects of the system are currently failing miserably.

Something needs to be done, and sadly it will not be in time for the 2008 election. But until it does get fixed, or at least replaced with a system that is closer to an accurate representation of the voice of the people, you at least know what is going on.

No matter the failures remember this, 118,599 total votes decided which way the electoral vote of Ohio would go in 2004. That’s just 1 extra person for every 100 in that state. Just 1. Imagine if just 1 extra person per 100 in the nation made their voice heard.

Now imagine that you are that person stepping up and making sure that America makes the best choice possible. That’s how powerful your vote is. Use it, it’s your Constitutional Right.

Labels: Al Gore, California, electoral college, electoral vote, Montana, National Popular Vote, New York, North Dakota, South Dakota

Continued from Part 1...

The scarier thought is that there will be an accident that creates a plague to make the Black Death (bubonic plague) look like having sniffles. The odds of this are massively increasing each day if you ask me. If you wonder how, it’s simple. Cloning and genetically modified foods and animals.

We don’t understand the basic DNA strand. We have no idea what everything does, or how they are connected. Yet we are actively changing aspects of these chains to create effects we think we want. Scientists may feel very strongly about how correct they are, but they felt just as strong about the world being flat or eggs being bad for you. Science is never written in stone, and we constantly find out that things we absolutely knew a year ago are completely wrong. In the meantime there is an immense volume of things we don’t even know enough to guess about.

Think of it as Russian Roulette, with genes instead of bullets. Nature has spent millions of years to create the right genetic structure, without short term or long-term negative effects. In the last 20 years humans have decided we know better and are messing with what nature has in place. We don’t know what the floor of the ocean looks like, we don’t know when oil in the ground will be used up, we can’t even tell what the weather will be locally with any guarantee. Yet genetically manipulated plants and animals are ok for consumption because our governments say so. (That’s the same governments that can’t balance a budget and regularly mismanage everything they touch – like the post office) So if you think about it, some uber-scientist trying to make a better cow or wheat have a very reasonable chance of making a disease completely without knowledge as a by-product or accident.

But none of these are the #1 issue facing us.

Nope the worst thing facing man today is global warming, or also called global climate change. This is just political garbage. This part of the show had a nice comment by Al Gore, and clips from his movie. They even took a couple of shots at Fox News reporters for questioning if global warming exists. That’s political, not science.

The fact is we have no idea what is going on with the environment. None. Beyond about 1-200 years ago we have no records of the weather. There were none to be had. What was the weather in 1542? No idea is known as fact. General guesses are made based on what was written and what we can understand in the ground, but that’s only a guess. 50,000 years ago? Forget it. Pure guesses based on what we can find. It may be presented as fact but we have no better idea than what killed the dinosaurs. Matter of fact we have better ideas of how many types of dinosaurs existed than the weather.

Continued in Part 3...

Labels: Al Gore, bubonic plague, genetic manipulation, global warming