This is a response I made to a comment recieved from Logan Calder on my post America is still America. I felt this deserved to be heard on it own as well.

Logan,

I love involved comments that reflect when someone has read what I have written. Thank you. I will try to respond as clearly as I can.

The question of why so many, including myself, have said “I never thought I would see a black president” is pretty easy. It comes from the fact that for some 400 years African Americans have been in fact or in effect second class citizens. For those that are old enough, basically my mothers generation or older, to have lived in segregation the thought of a Black President is hard to conceive of when you can recall water fountains being segregated. For those in my generation, roughly 45 – 30, the memory of blatant discrimination provides the same disconnect. Perhaps the only generation that is oblivious to blatant daily discrimination would be those 20 and under now, though it does happen via television and movies everyday as I have often mentioned.

“Does this suggest that the country is not as racist as they believe??, or do you think that it is simply dramatic behavior?? or something else??.”

No the country is definitely as racist as it has always been in my life. The means by which that racism is enacted or portrayed has changed though.

The 200 incidents of nooses reported in 2007, an act that was unreported prior or since the Jena 6 issue hit the major news media – after 6 months of having been on-going, is one example. The singular consistency of police across the nation to overkill unarmed African American men, ONLY, and the fact that national news media avoids reporting this while relatively trivial news (Anna Nicole Smith's death, the Casey Anthony case, ect.) is followed every day for a year is another example.

But it must be said that President Obama was elected by a majority of all Americans. So there is a change in acceptance. I know of many people that voted for Obama because of retribution against President Bush (which is stupid since he wasn’t running). Others voted against the Republican ticket and the ridiculous adage that Democrats used to great effect – “a third term of President Bush”. And more than a few people were swept away with the thoughts of “change” (which is unspecific and dumb), an end to the Iraq and possibly Afghanistan wars, and/or receiving another stimulus check (which will not happen according to comments on the next stimulus package which I believe will fail miserably).

But for all the reasons Obama was elected there was a clear and steady voice of about 10% of the nation that vocally stated they would not vote for a Black President. If that is an extreme, which I think it is, then on the sliding scale to those that would vote for a Black President we must cross a percentage of Americans that might vote for a Black President under certain circumstances only, and those that would vote for a Black man because they felt peer and/or media pressure to do so, as well as those that did not vote for President Obama but were unwilling to be vocal about it. Put together that is a scary but illustrative number of Americans.

Still there is no question that the media made this election incredibly dramatic. The news media swooned over President Obama back in October of 2007 and never stopped to this point. It was so bad that the media had no choice but to admit their partisan manipulation of information about the election – though they waited until after the election to admit it.

So there are a number of factors that came together to get President Obama elected. Blind Democratic voting blocks, historical passion, a mood of change in the public attitude on key issues, an unpopular war, economic disappointments, a less eloquent and less attractive opponent, the age and health factors, news media bias, and the introduction of the internet as a new medium of great power. All of this combined led to President Obama’s win.

“1. Most white people that I talk to voted for Obama and felt, purely from a political standpoint that he was the best candidate.”

Most people in America right now expect another stimulus check from the Government, though it has been directly and repeatedly stated that it won’t happen. Most people hear and believe what they want to based on 30 second soundbites they watch on television. They infer policy from polispeak, and invariably get it wrong.

There are dozens of reasons to question President Obama’s politics and economic views. One of the most unrecognized is the fact that every economic policy President Obama advocates has been proven to not work in the past. These are not new economic plans, and they have never worked in the past – why do so many believe it will work in the future?

One great indicator of what business believes is the stock market. It is a forward indicator of the economy. While moved dramatically by emotion it is always based in the expectations of success or failure of economic plans.

Thus a positive expectation will cause a factual 10 point move to be a 100 point move, and conversely for negative indicators. The market has lost some 12% as President Obama has been revealing more of his economic intentions. That does not indicate the best political standpoint to me.

“2. I heard several times that “they would never let him win”…”they” obviously refers to white people. And since he won, and received massive support by whites, does this play into the original thought of racial paranoia??.”

Yes the “they” refers to Whites. And yes that is based on the legal, social, and media disparities that exist in America at this moment as well as the last several hundred years.

But again I refer back to what I have said before. The win by President Obama is a culmination of multiple factors. While race was one of those factors, the economy, the wars, and other immediate policies were of far more concern than race. Which is a positive in some respects, and very sad in others. Still there is a bit of paranoia in that as well, just as the scale reflects the racism of some in this nation.

“3. Is there a silent feeling of “wow, I didnt expect that…now what do we do” among blacks that are most likely to use race as an excuse for failure?”

Failure for a President has nothing to do with race. Which is an unfair statement because we have never before had the option to prove that point. But I believe that if President Obama is successful his race has nothing to do with that. Yet considering the nature of the media to emphasize negative racial stereotypes (when the media bothers to cover non-Whites at all) a failure of President Obama will likely be framed in Black and White. That is just an honest observation.

But I believe the nation as a whole is just now starting to ask the question that Democrats avoided throughout the Presidential campaign, ‘what does change mean?’

From a Black perspective, speaking for myself based on my views and those I have heard, there is no expectation of failure for President Obama in the Black community. And were he to fail, that is not about his race but his politics. Yet I again state, the media is more likely to create an issue of race motivating blame than any American. And once the media does so, the nation will likely be engulfed by the issue. Which ultimately helps the media make more money.

“4. Last, do you think that a large portion of blacks are silent about, but resent, the fact that Obama is half white. And could be just as easily (and fairly) called white…if the thought of calling him white is offensive, then you would be a racist, in my opinion.”

I personally could care less. There are millions of African Americans that are mixed with some other race or nationality. In fact most Americans whose family goes back to 1865 or earlier (as mine does) have a mixture of White and Black blood. It may not be spoken about, since much of that mixture from that time was the direct result of White slave owners committing rape – but not always as seems the case with Thomas Jeffesron, a rarity indeed. So President Obama’s heritage is about as important as that of President Bill Clinton, President Bush, President Roosevelt, President Lincoln, President Washington, and so on.

At the same time I must correct a thought you have. Race has always been a factor of what people see in this country. If you have dark skin you are presumed to be Black. You could be Hispanic, African, Arabic, Indian, and so on but you will be seen as Black at least initially. Just as every person from any Southeast Asian nation is considered generally from the same nation. It is an attitude that America has maintained since the days of slavery.

Any non-White is generally regarded as a lump of people of the same color. And because there is a visible difference there is a discrimination placed upon them, historically. Thus President Obama would and will never be called White, though he is a 50/50 mix. Because when those that care about such things look at him they see a Black man.

But I doubt many in the Black community care about his mixture. Because most African Americans can trace a fair amount of White ancestors to their family. There are always extreme views of course, but that is the exception and not the rule. But again the key here is the media.

The media has the unique ability to focus on the issues they wish, in a manner that emphasizes what they wish to convey. Right now the Casey Anthony case in Florida has been on national news programs for about a year. To my knowledge only Bill O’Reilly (for 4 minutes) and ABC News (for 30 seconds) have covered the Oscar Grant case. Exponentially less time has been focused on the 2 other Black men killed by police on New Year’s Day, while unarmed, one also on the ground and the other shot in the back 12 times.

Of just these 4 items of news, which do you believe has a greater impact on the society, and make a more clear statement about law enforcement? What is more worthy of coverage; the abuse of power by police on a seemingly national level or the question of what one deranged mother might have done to her own child that has no effect on anyone else in the nation?

Thus I expect that if the question of how African Americans feel about President Obama’s lineage comes up, it will be due to the media. The answer will reflect what they wish to promote. It will likely have nothing to do with what the majority of African Americans believe. Though it will be promoted as if the Black community was speaking in a consensus. Something that I have not seen since the Civil Rights Movement, other than the election of President Obama.

I hope I have covered all your questions. If not please do let me know.

Labels: 2008 election, African Americans, Iraq War, news media, Oscar Grant, Polispeak, President Barack Obama, race in America, race relations

The following is a transcript of the video. Just in case you missed something or wanted to quote and/or respond directly.

Over the next few days there will be a slew of television ads discussing the views of each candidate and why you should vote for them. Some will make sense to the one part of the public or another. But they are just polispeak and no decision should be made based solely on a 30-second ad.

Before you decide who to vote for in this critical election I suggest you think of these things:

In the last 20 months we have come to know Senator Obama, but do you know the relationship that exists with Bill Ayers today – He is an admitted terrorist and self-described anarchist without remorse as late as 2001 while he helped start Obama’s political career?

Senator Biden believes Obama will be challenged on the international stage if elected within 6 months, as he directly said. This is because Obama is inexperienced. Can America afford an international crisis while in a financial crisis and fighting 2 wars?

The major media is overwhelmingly biased in favor of Obama. They have used this bias to avoid asking tough questions, such that a plumber asked one of the hardest questions Obama has received in this election cycle. What has the media failed to let you know? And what will they receive as a benefit for this lopsided support?

The Government has not been able to balance it’s spending in over 40 years, which you and I do everyday. Considering that every department and agency of the Government costs more and runs less efficiently year after year, why would bigger Government cost less or be better?

After a century of running the post office, the Government still can’t get that right. What would make you think that they will be able to run the incredibly complicated task of healthcare better than delivering the mail?

We all want the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to end. But how they end is important. If you think an immediate retreat is best, think of the 3 million that were killed in Viet Nam after America retreated there. More importantly think of the fact that Al Quida and Iran will use a U.S. retreat as a sign of weakness and fear of their radical beliefs, which would spur future attacks. How we leave is as important as when.

Senator Obama promised to take public funding for the race against Senator McCain. He backed away from that promise. Senator Obama promised to speak to America with McCain in at least one if not more town hall events. Again he backed away from that promise. What other promises is Senator Obama capable of backing away from?

Higher taxes on business sounds great, but small business creates jobs. Higher taxes means less money to hire or employ workers. With business slowing down, less money means more unemployment. Is your job recession proof, especially if business taxes are higher?

I don’t proclaim to know all the answers. I admit I support Senator John McCain. But that doesn’t change the fact that you should know the answers to these and other questions before you vote.

Vote for whomever you believe in, but know what you are voting for. Vote for a reason, not a 30-second soundbite. Vote because you love America.

I’m Michael Vass, owner of M V Consulting, Inc. and I approved this message.

Labels: Iraq War, Michael Vass, nationalized healthcare, Polispeak, political ads, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Biden, Senator John McCain, tax policy, That's why I vote

As the Democratic National Convention is about to start I want to step back and address a question I am often asked. Why am I not a supporter of Senator Obama?

I have been asked that by dozens of White Americans that presume I must be for Obama because he is Black. I have been asked that by almost as many African Americans for the same reasoning. And there are the far smaller group of Americans, of all color and ethnicity, that wonder because they presume I must agree with the Democratic Party policies.

So let me state this clearly, I do not support Senator Barrack Obama at this time. I doubt if I will ever support him. And I disagree with the Democratic policies he supports.

It’s not because I was a democrat and want to switch parties like the bitter Clinton Democrats. They are often White women, upset that a White woman was denied the chance to run for President. Their switch of support, like Debra Bartoshevich, seems like sour grapes more than anything else. And Democrats are responding in kind, splitting their party.



Which leads these Democrats to the right choice for the wrong reason.



Besides the fact that I think Democrats are a split party, created by the Clinton campaign, there are other issues.

Senator Obama has no experience. His own Vice Presidential pick has said he thinks Obama is unqualified. If Senator Biden, and Senator Clinton, agree with Senator John McCain how strong and qualified is Obama?

Senator Obama will be increasing taxes. He has already voted to do so for those making $31,850 or more. My belief he will limit himself to those making an unknown and ambiguous amount qualifying them as rich is shaky at best. His expressed view that businesses, of all sizes, need to pay more in taxes strikes me as harmful to a weak American economy.

Senator Obama has stated often that our dependence on foreign oil is bad. No surprise. Yet he still only considers the idea of domestic drilling. But how else will there be a stopgap to allow us to fund and create alternative energy sources? And his position on oil shale is directly Party line. How about cleaner coal? How about Nuclear energy?

Senator Obama is exclusive in his plans, targeting only the renewable energy plans that benefit stock positions held by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. How is that a grand benefit to America when only options that profit a few are considered? How is that different than the claims made by Democrats that Republicans are in the pocket of big oil, aren’t they in the pocket of Wind and corn ethanol (which has already increased the cost of food)?

Senator Obama has stated he would speak with any threat to America, no matter the provocation. He would speak with Iran, a nation that has sought the wholesale destruction of America and Israel for 30 years now. Like mere words would stop them from their declared God-given need to wipe us off of the earth. Obama is not God, especially to the

Senator Obama would run from Iraq as quickly as possible. There is no consideration for the outcome of such actions. There are no qualms about the probable increased threat to average Americans in their homes. Terrorism has not stopped since 9/11, it just hasn’t hit our homes stateside. But thousands of orphans given no choice and every reason to blame America will grow up looking to kill America. Just as they did at the end of the Gulf War, in 5 – 10 years they will strike American soil after a retreat that will be viewed in the Middle East as a defeat of America, and thus a vindication of Al Quida and other such groups.

Senator Obama wants to give millions the support of the Government. That in itself is not a bad thing, except that it is funded by Americans and perpetuates the ideal that America would rather feed the hungry rather than teach them to fish for themselves. It creates a culture that cannot support itself; and for those that think this means minorities remember that there are more Whites in prison, on welfare, and/or in Government care than all minority groups combined.

As I mentioned the Democratic Party is split. Not on substantive differences – as the voting records of Clinton and Obama are virtually the same. It is split on racial lines, due largely to the efforts of the Clinton campaign.

It is split with a Vice President that disagrees on key issues in a massive manner from the Democratic Presidential nominee he would work for. A VP that would not vote for a less experiences candidate, one that has done less bi-partisan work than he has in a decade. A VP that embodies the ‘old’ politics that Obama has railed against throughout the primaries.

So what makes Senator Obama the right man at this time?

Labels: Democratic National Convention, Democratic Party, energy alternatives, Iraq War, Nancy Pelosi, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Biden, Senator Hillary Clinton, tax increase

So the Democratic Presidential ticket has been revealed. It’s Obama – Biden for 2008. Has this pick really done anything to help Senator Obama win the Presidency and become the first Black President? Has this improved the confidence of the nation in selecting these men as our leaders?

No. At least by me.

I reviewed some of the things that Senator Joe Biden has said in the past, his record in the Primary race, and what I noted about him. The summary is as follows.

Biden was able to take 5th place in the Iowa Primary, gaining a total of 1% of the vote which is inauspicious at best. In polls before the South Carolina Primary, when Stephen Colbert was seeking to enter, the results of potential voters placed Biden a mere .4% ahead of Colbert (Stephen Colbert was projected to have 2.3%, Biden had 2.7%}. Overall his total delegate count was 0. Biden never won a single state.

In my own unofficial polls, found on Black Entertainment USA, M V Consulting, and this site, which were available from 2007 until February 2008 Senator Biden garnered 3% of votes in a competition of Republicans and Democrats. That poll also showed that Senator Obama would win the Democratic Primary with 51%, and Senator McCain would win the Republican with 16%.

Senator Biden has in fact failed to win the Democratic Presidential nomination twice. In 1988 and again in 2008.

Senator Biden is older (56) than Senator Obama, and has far more experience in Congress as he holds the 6th longest term length ever. So it can be said that when viewed by the Obama campaign motto of Change; Senator Biden is the ‘old politics’ that Senator Obama is trying to ‘replace’.

Like Senator Obama, Biden is a lawyer. He attended University of Delaware and the Syracuse University (where he was found to have plagiarized a law review article in his first year). Unlike Senator Obama he has been found to be a liar about his time in college. He has claimed in the past that he had 3 degrees; he has 1, and graduated in the top half of his class, actually place just above the bottom 10%.

His views on Iraq and Afghanistan are mixed, and oppose the declared views of Senator Obama. While Obama favors the retreat in failure policy advocated by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Moveon.org and Code Pink, Senator Biden has offered an option that differs. He supported troops in Afghanistan. He voted for the War in Iraq – along with virtually every Democrat in elected office at the time (Senator Obama was not in elected office then). He was in favor of larger numbers of troops in Iraq, and has not quibbled about funding our troops (which Obama has). His ultimate plan for Iraq is the creation of 3 states and allowing each of those states to be semi-independent and semi-autonomous but still working as a nation together.

Also of note is the fact that in the 2004 Presidential election, Biden advised John Kerry to pick Senator John McCain as a Vice-President. If that is not a statement of how close to political center and bi-partisan Senator John McCain is I cannot imagine what is.

But of major significance to me is the comment of Senator Biden about Senator Obama. Before Obama was the Democratic nominee, back when Biden was still in the Primary race, before the media had fallen in lust with Obama, Biden said what he thought.

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that's a storybook, man"

To which I ultimate stated

“Senator Biden needs to apologize to more than just Senator Obama. Every Black American deserves an apology. These comments are reminiscent of the mentality that necessitated the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s. These comments belittle every success and successful Black American in the nation. Hiding behind one term in a statement whose total purpose is too subtly insult will not fool us. The mainstream media may not wish to address this but I will.

For me, Senator Biden will never get my vote… But the underlying thought of his statement cannot be warmed-over by platitudes or a plea of a single term misstatement. The meaning of the full comment does not change. That meaning places me and 14% of America in a second-class, less than meaningful position. I will not accept that of an American President or politician if possible.”

So I will add this to my comment.

I would not vote for Senator Biden as President when his opinion of over 14% of this nation is demeaning and a throwback to the pre-Civil Rights years. That same reasoning prevents me from voting him into the 2nd highest position in America.

Senator Obama may feel that Biden is a solid mix, but I find his thinking flawed. Biden is an example of old politics – the kind that failed to come up with any energy alternatives in 30 years (Biden was first elected to office in 1972 before the Oil Crisis). Biden is a proven liar and cheat. Biden conflicts with Obama on how to resolve Iraq, and he has a proven zero appeal among Democratic primary voters.

If there was a question about how well Senator Obama could do in the Presidential election I feel it is now answered. I cannot fathom how he can win with Senator Biden on the ticket. Prepare for a McCain Presidency.

Labels: Democratic National Convention, Iraq War, moveon.org, Nancy Pelosi, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Biden, Stephan Colbert

Senator Obama is quite a man. I mean that seriously. It takes quite a man to step up to the plate for a position that most my age or above never expected to happen. He is facing down the most difficult hurdle an African American has ever come against in this nation’s politics and looks to be competitive.

Though with that said I have to say that I wouldn’t vote for him. Historical importance and all, he is not ready for the position – but he is damn close.

My problems with Senator Obama are purely on his political experience and policies. In terms of his presentation, the fact that he is breaking barriers and making history are all things I deeply respect about the man. I find him charismatic, and a capable public speaker. His ability at polispeak is unmatched by neither Senator McCain, nor any of the past Democratic primary candidates he beat.

But that is not enough to be President.

I’ll give you an example. Senator Obama visited Iraq for less than 2 days, after 2 ½ years since his last visit of less than 48 hours. That is not fact finding, nor is it being open minded to changes that he opposed. That is building voter interest on the backs of the soldiers in Iraq. The same can be said of his time in Afghanistan.

Senator Obama has not changed his position. He never was going to. Thus the trip, with enough media coverage to rival the President, was just a new take on the shake-hands-kiss-babies politicing. He got into the race saying he would remove all the troops in Iraq in his first term, then shifted to a 16-month policy that will still leave some unknown number of troops in Iraq, and after his trip he still maintains that policy.

But as I have said to many people and in this blog, how do you expect to win a fight if you tell your opponent that you will stop before it’s over? If this were boxing, Queensbury rules all the way, but this is war. When America left Saigon did anyone view that as a win? Besides the North Vietnamese. Can anyone give me a reason to believe that Al Quida and any other insurgents won’t just bide their time for 16 months to end, if Obama is elected President, and then rally to make Iraq a bigger mess than it is?

If people want to praise Senator Obama for his unyielding position on Iraq, which essentially calls for retreat and means that every orphan and anyone who lost a loved one in Iraq will be gunning for Americans within 5 years of our departure, even if it is not popular then how can they not praise Senator McCain for his unyielding and at times unpopular stance to win the war? Mark my words, not winning in Iraq means that more American lives will be lost, and in our nation not overseas.

But there is also the issue of domestic economic instability. The housing markets are tanking, as are many financials that facilitated this drop. Senator Obama is looking to speak with advisors (though not 300 as he uses for foreign policy which is impractical) that include Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and billionaire investor Warren Buffett.

Obama said in his meeting with advisers he expects to ``get their read on where the economy is going,'' and fashion some ``additional steps'' to address the short-term economic and financial and housing issues.

Robert Rubin helped to advise Senator Hillary Clinton. While many have chosen to forget, I recall that her campaign ended in debt of some $20 million. That’s after she loaned herself in excess of $6 million for her campaign. Somehow I think Rubin’s advice was ignored and/or faulty, you can pick which.

Warren Buffett is the greatest investor ever. He has made billions via investing. Yet he does not give one extra dime to the government than he has to. He has never donated any money to the I.R.S., but he has been very vocal to say that taxes should be raised. He is so sure that the government should have more of his own money that he is donating the bulk of his billions to a charity, run by Bill Gates – another man that made billions via business and investing. This tells me that he does not believe that the government can efficiently use his vast fortune to the benefit of Americans, whether Democrats or Republicans are in charge.

Paul Volcker, the predecessor to Alan Greenspan – the man who tried to get the Clinton Administration to do something about the internet bubble, is best known for ending stagflation and creating a recession that killed farming. To recap for those younger than myself Volcker reduced the inflation rates at the end of President Jimmy Carter’s term (13% in 1979) to reasonable levels during the President Regan Administration (3% in 1983). He also helped increase unemployment levels to those near equal to the Great Depression, bankrupted farmers, and generated the most protests that any Federal Reserve Chairman has ever received.

Senator Obama’s choices make a few things clear. It seems that his intention is to raise taxes (not just on the rich as he has already voted to raise your taxes this year), spend your money on policies that will feed the hungry as opposed to help them be able to feed themselves, and drive up prices for energy and oil.

The last 2 come from the fact that Senator has voted the most extreme liberal of the entire Democratic Party. He is not bi-partisan according to his record. Thus the Democratic Party opposes any domestic drilling for oil, preferring to use corn ethanol. That means that we will continue to drive up the price of oil – funding some of the enemies of America with more money than ever before – slowing the economy as businesses contract to offset the higher energy cost, and the cost of food will go higher since the price of corn is increasing. That’s inflation as I understand it. That’s hurting the average American. Higher taxes, higher energy costs and higher food costs – that is what I understand he is being advised to do.

There are other questions about Senator Obama that I have, but these are some of the more prominent right now. This is what the news media wants America to focus on. And just these reasons are enough for me, even though I have several others.

But is that what you want? Is this what you expect from a President after the polispeak is gone and action is required?

Labels: Bill Gates, Crude oil prices, Democratic Party, ethanol, Iraq War, IRS, Paul Volcker, Presidential election race 2008, Robert Rubin, Senator Barack Obama, Warren Buffett

I love polispeak. It’s my own descriptor for the inventive and nuanced manner in which pundits, candidates, and often bloggers discuss politics. It’s worse than spin, and almost always is based in facts - usually after it’s been spun through a blender and strained.

I cannot say that I am immune from this. Like every single pundit, blogger, and politician I hold an opinion, thus I am biased for or against various issues, policies, and/or proposals. I try to be honest and clear in my view. But not all are.

Here is a case in point. Professor Rodrigue Tremblay on globalresearch.ca has an impressive title. One would assume he has his facts in order and is presenting them clearly. But bias seeps in apparently, or the Professor is using faulty information. So sadly, those that rely on his opinion are being misguided. Of course they may not care, since we all tend to go to the source we prefer for answers we generally want.

Still some things are facts and they should be stated correctly.

First, in the quotes he uses of Senator McCain and Senator Obama, the bias becomes clear. He quotes McCain speaking on Iran alone. He then quotes Obama speaking about retreating from Iraq, and then the issue of Iran. It may not seem like a big deal, except in doing this he creates the impression that McCain has nothing to say on Iraq. That only Obama has a solution, which is false even if you don’t like McCain’s solution.

Considering he is using his title, as he is due, I have to believe he is aware of the effect of his selective quoting. Thus he is purposefully guiding the reader to a conclusion that he endorses, rather than allowing them to make the choice based on fact. I presume that either means he does not believe his readers can make the choice based on facts themselves, or he believes they will make a conclusion that he does not support based on the facts. But I could be wrong.

He then goes on to correctly point out that race is a major issue in this election. That the racial past of America provides perhaps the biggest hurdle, and makes any presumptions of polls useless.

Having set the stage to enforce the idea that race should not hinder this candidate (which I agree with) he then jabs at the current administration. While true that the President has remarkably low approval ratings, he skipped over the fact that the Congress – led by Democrats for 2 years now – has even lower approval ratings. What may be most revealing is that neither the President, nor the Congress is leading the nation in the right direction – meaning that both political parties have failed the general public substantively at the same time. But to say that detracts from his theme, though it is more grounded in fact.

He goes on to note that both Presidential candidates are moving along their party lines. That both are swaying towards their centers to gain more of the general populace. The impression is that in Senator Obama moving from the hard-core liberals of the far-left he is moving directly towards the center of the nation. The main complaint is that he is being a politician, which is what he is. Of course this ignores the fact that studies done over decades find that the majority of Americans are neither to the extreme right or left politically. Americans generally are centrist, perhaps leaning overall to the right (conservative) with exceptions on some issues. But that isn’t important to understand the moves each politician is making is it?

[by the way, Senator Obama has been rated, multiple times, as the most liberal Senator. So a shift towards the center keeps him firmly liberal and off the national center. Senator McCain has consistently been viewed as left of his Party’s center, and thus his move places him generally at the national average.]

Of course this all leads to the Iraq war. As already set up, Professor Tremblay has a skewed view on this issue. To further that view he then directly misquotes Senator McCain, with a quote that has been misused and explained for over a month now. But why let good rhetoric go unused even if it is false?

“Indeed, McCain voted for the Iraq war in October 2002, and he would be very happy to continue Bush's policy in Iraq, even to the point of extending the military occupation of that country “one hundred years” into the future.”

Yes McCain did vote for the war, as did almost every politician serving at the time – Republican or Democrat. He did not make a separate choice, nor was he the only voice. In fact I recall many video clips of Senator Clinton making an impassioned plea for the war, based on her extensive review of the facts. Thus the Democratic Party was no less involved than Senator McCain on this issue, and to isolate him is just a means of guiding the reader to a conclusion.

And as I stated there is the misquote. McCain did not imply or state there would be a military occupation (interesting choice of words there) of Iraq. He did state that America could have a presence in Iraq for 100 years, just as we have in Germany and Japan for 55 years and counting, Korea for 50 years and counting, Viet Nam for 30 years and counting. Note that not one of these countries is occupied yet we have had a presence (which McCain stated) there for longer than some voters have been alive, and thus it would be no surprise to have a military base (ie presence) in Iraq either.

But Professor Tremblay then goes on to point out what he wants his readers to accept as differences, each guiding them to his own desired conclusion.

He uses Social Security. He implies privatization is a bad idea and that Government support of SS is preferred. But isn’t the Government regulation of SS the reason it is going bankrupt and has no solution. Has it not been the political foot dragging of both political party’s that has kept the impasse going for at least 30 years while the problem got worse? And aren’t IRA’s privatized yet working well for millions of Americans for decades? So how bad is privatization.

On health care we are presented an idea filled with holes. Yes Senator Obama promoted Government lead universal healthcare. But name one department of the Government that has run efficiently or on budget in the past 40 years. If the Government has yet to run anything as simple as the Post Office or the VA in the past 2 generations, why do some suppose it will run our medical care better?

And this implies that our healthcare is bad, which is a lie. We are leaders in the world with thousands coming to America for our treatments as opposed to waiting for Government run medical care in their own nations. So if other nations can’t get this right, why should we try it? Is cheap and/or free bad care better than proper care that costs more? And if the Government is willing to provide $5,000 in credits (which is the correct amount I am aware of) to help pay to get that better care why is it bad?

As for abortion (which is not the sum of all women’s rights issues) I am conflicted. While I respect a woman’s choice, she is not the only voice in the matter. Responsible men, something downplayed severely by the general media but yet still existing, should have a voice as well. My opinion has nothing to do with religion or government. So I will leave that alone.

As for Supreme Court Justices, individuals that should have no party affiliation and can make decisions as they chose for life, I believe that it is not a major issue. It may be a secondary, or tertiary consideration for President – but there are far more pressing questions that need to be asked. And keep in mind that Congress can block any potential Justice, as they have in the past and will in the future. Professor Tremblay seems to forget to remind his reader that the President’s choice is still under the sway of Congress.

On taxes we again get a myopic view of the candidates. Senator McCain is proposing to cut taxes, Obama will raise them. That much is clear fact. The question is who is affected and how.

According to the Professor, cutting taxes is bad. Yet that is the only plan that has been theoretically and in the real world effective in helping the economy and the Average American. Raising taxes, especially in a economic downturn has never worked and is theoretically dumb. Those old enough to have live through President Carter know that this can lead to 13% unemployment and similar inflation.

But let’s take this to the real world. More money in people’s pockets is good. We all agree on that. Raising taxes prevents that. And Senator Obama has already voted to increase the taxes on those making as little as $31,850 or more. I would never call that rich. So in comparison we have one candidate willing to do what has worked for decades in various Presidencies and another that has proposed one idea, yet voted the opposite in the same election year he is running in. Or perhaps the Professor and I have different ideas of rich, as Senator Obama seems to.

Lastly is the big question experience. The Professor would praise Senator Obama, who lacks experience, for surrounding himself with politicians that have the experience. But at the same time he denounces Senator McCain for that same experience. Don’t be fooled by the use of terms like lobbyist, both politicians have them.

How can you say that McCain is bad for having experience, working with Democrats and Republicans to pass laws, and the relationships he has built over decades: and then praise Senator Obama for the lack of all these things – but the wisdom to have people with those same qualifications advise him. Is it not more logical to believe that an experienced leader would better be able to interpret and solicit advise from peers than an inexperienced politician from those that are his superiors (in age, experience, and political clout only – for those wondering the racial aspect of that statement).

He then throws all his preconceived ideas out the window and suggests that Al Gore is the best Democratic Presidential candidate. I am unconvinced.

Polispeak, it’s wonderful when a title and careful wording can be used to misquote, misinterpret and misguide the general public. But it should not provide you with the answer for whom to vote.

And for the record, I have yet to decide whom I wish to be President, though I do lean to Senator McCain. I just dislike blatant polispeak and engineered writing designed to use the reader.

Labels: Congress, Democratic Party, Iraq War, Presidential election race 2008, Professor Rodrigue Tremblay, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, Social Security, tax policy

Code Pink must be angry, Moveon.org annoyed, and the New York Times is the usual indifferent paper that is common. Why are all these groups likely experiencing such emotions? Because yet again all their hype has been deflated in regard to Iraq, the Marines, and our Armed Forces.

Haditha Iraq. I’m sure even those casually paying attention to news noted the slew of articles and news reports condemning 8 Marines, alleging a murder of 24 Iraqi civilians. The comments came out before charges were made, and they all made their decision before facts were ever presented. Across the nation ultra-liberals rejoiced, and Hollywood used this story as fodder for its anti-war anti-American Armed Forces rants they called entertainment movies.

Even politicians jumped into the act, half-cocked.



NOTE that Congressman Murtha did not know any facts on the case. When confronted with information that radio communications and drone videos proved the charges false, he ignored it. He nearly implicates the Commandant of the Marine Corps in his lies and illogic. But when confronted on the veracity of what he alleged he admits that nothing like his claims were ever said. He like so many ‘honest’ ‘unbiased’ organizations has twisted facts for their own purposes.

Yet today marks the 7th Marine that was accused and eviscerated by the media and Congressman Murtha that has either had their charges dropped completely or been found innocent.

And for those that never served in the military, a court-marshal or any charges are presumed correct and the defendant guilty until proven innocent beyond doubt. Guilty until proven innocent beyond doubt. And 7 Marines have been proven innocent to date.

But have you seen that reported in the media? Have you seen any of the over 30 articles mentioning the innocence of these men or remorse for having besmirched their names and that of the Marine Corps?

How about Congressman Murtha, who had a lot to say on television and in Congress. What did he say when the Marines were being found innocent of his accusations and false charges?



Now some would say that I don’t know what I’m talking about. That the fact I was a Marine does not count, because I have not been fighting in Iraq. Only a wartime soldier would understand his views. Ok, then tell me why he can’t respond to this man.



Playing to the crowd? How could it not be more obvious that this is what he is doing?

But today there is even more room for the ‘unbiased’ media, Moveon.org, and Congressman Murtha to remain silent and stupid (in my opinion). And the fact that 7 out of 8 Marines have been exonerated beyond doubt has been reported.

Who presented the news that allowed me to share this revelation with you? Fox News. Funny how the one news source I am constantly told lies, is the only news organization that has covered fully the fact that these Marines are innocent. They are the only ones I have been aware of to question the accusations and smears these Marines have endured.

So I have just one question, based on the silence of Murtha and those like him do you think that if (and in all likelihood considering the 7 prior cases when) the final accused Marine is found innocent beyond any doubt they will publicly – as boldly and prominently as when they first opened their mouths without facts – apologize to these Marines and their families?

Labels: Code Pink, Congressman Murtha, Fox News, haditha, Iraq War, Marine Corps, moveon.org, New York Times

Senator Obama has finally declared he will be going to Iraq and Afghanistan prior to November. Finally. It took long enough.

Senator Obama is known for his opposition to the Iraq war. It’s been one of the most critical points in his candidacy. The war is unpopular (now) and many seek an end at all costs. But most of those that are making such a call have never been in Iraq or Afghanistan and thus have no idea beyond those already in polls and party polispeak.

Considering that Democrats have voted overwhelmingly for the war, then jumped boat when the polls turned against the war I’m not surprised that so few have taken the time to get first-hand experience. It’s far easier to say



or even more recently to not only ignore that the surge has worked, some political stability has been established, and we have move closer to the goals we have been fighting for – but to say



But a future Commander-and-Chief must be able to go beyond petty political polispeak and posturing. Iraq is one of the key thoughts in America. How we resolve this issue will determine the safety of Americans worldwide for a decade or more.

I do not believe that as a senator opposed to fighting in Iraq, opposed to the surge, in favor of a timeline (which I think is stupid – it’s telegraphing your strategy which has never worked historically), and critical of anything that differs from this view that 2 days in Iraq back in January 2006 is enough. And if he only takes a trip of similar length it should be noted that it’s pandering to the public for votes.

But I look forward to Senator Obama going to Iraq and Afghanistan and getting more first-hand information. I really look forward to hear his comments on the obviously massive changes since his last short visit, especially when he speaks in a debate with Senator McCain on the subject.

Labels: Afghanistan War, Harry Reid, Iraq War, Nancy Pelosi, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

Lately my conversations with ultra-liberals have began to take a repetative tone. I’m hearing complete paragraphs of conversations that are verbatim. I’ve begun to wonder if it’s some kind of Ipod track that they have hooked up to their mouths. It’s as if their brains have shutdown to any original thought or the concequences of the party line.

Ok so some of the conversations have not been quite that bad. Some. But there have been massive misconceptions, faulty facts, and a complete disregard for consequences.

So let’s look at a couple of common quotes.

Oil companies are bad for making big profits.

Since when is making a profit a bad thing? Is that not part of the American dream? Isn’t that why every small business in America was created?

But go deeper. Beyond the jealousy of the profits they make, look at the impact they have. Oil companies do not make more money with higher oil costs – OPEC does. Gasolines price is ~60% based on the cost of oil. In the past year oil has more than doubled in price; yet gasoline has only risen ~40% in the same time. That means the oil companies are doing a good job of keeping the cost down.

The profits that oil companies make is not isolated to 2 people as ultra-liberals would like you to think. Millions of mutual funds and IRA’s hold large positions in these oil companies. When they make a profit (which is their job) their stock goes up and investors and retirees have more money. Capping their profit in fact will take money away from retirees and investors, thus hurting the average American.

Capping profits will not stop the need of an oil company from making a profit. To get that profit they will need to cut jobs and stop research into efficiancies, exploration, and alternatives. That means the unemployed in the nation will go up. That will hurt the economy. And if they cut jobs, hundreds of other companies that work directly with this industry will have to cut back too. And by the way, the price of oil will not be forced down a penny while this happens.

We need to leave Iraq now.

As I have said many times that’s not only impossible, it’s stupid. You cannot end a fight just by walking away, not after people have died. Walk away and the orphans (possibly created by the people we are fighting and having nothing to do with our troops) will turn to the only people with power in the area. A great many of those people want to kill every American because we exist. They are the same people that created 9/11 and several other terrorist acts that have failed in the over 2300 days since 9/11. Those orphans will be fed hate against America, and I will guarantee will be committing terrorist acts against us in 5 years from an immediate pullout.

Add to that the fact that if Al Quida and Iran get to boast about making the ‘cowardly Americans run away’ they will gain respect and recruits to their causes.

We will have troops in Iraq for 100 years.

Pay attention to what you are hearing and being told. Troops in Iraq is not fighting a war in Iraq. We have had troops in Germany for 50 years, Japan for 50 years, Korea for 40 years, and Vietnam for 30 years (ronding off the years). Last I checked we are not at war with any of these countries. Nor are we removing those troops and bases in any decade in the near future.

President Bush has ruined America.

How? As far as I have lived and am aware there is nothing I do today that I have not been able to do in the past. There is no restriction to travel, doing business, paying bills, dating, or any other aspect of life that did not exist 30 years ago. So how has America been ruined?

We still elect officials and create laws. We still drive cars and build homes. We still criticize the government and elected officials when they do or porpose something stupid. We are till the most free nation in the world, with tens of thousands entering the nation every year for that reason (illegally or not).

What I think is really meant by that is someone saying that does not like President Bush. I agree that President Bush may be the least articulate, least intelligent Presidents ever. I agree that he has failed the nation in several aspects. But he is not the horrendous life-threatening force that some want to see him as.

So many want to live in the past. They can’t get past the decision, made by Senators and Cogress – of both political parties – to go to war in Iraq. But that was the past, as is who to blame. The 2008 election is about the future and answers to issues happening now, not in 2002.

I want change. Real change.

This is a really stupid statement. Unless the definition has been altered since I was in 3rd grade, the 2008 elecetion guarantees change. No matter who wins, change is a fact. The comment makes about as much sense as saying that a person is “keeping it real”.

The statement should be ‘I want to change X’ or ‘I want a positive change in Y’. Better yet is the statement ‘I will change Z like this and it will be positive’. But if a politician were to say that then you might actually form an opinion on what they think and intend to do. Some would agree others not. You could lose an election (or gain a landslide) for such comments. Having a plan and a clearly stated objective is a boon and a bane.

But just ambigously wanting to change things, since that is the only predictable outcome of the 2008 presidential election, is safe and allows voters to inject their emotions. That definitely will win an election. To bad that it makes no impact or potential steps torwards improving anything. It can’t since it doesn’t even attempt to define what it will change or how.

In the 2006 mid-term elections Democrats were elected under the rally call of change. What change happened is that millions of taxpayer dollars were used to hold a multitude of Congerssional meetings on issues that never involved a single law being broken, the health of professional athletes, pointing the finger of blame at one political party or another. Please tell me how any of that prevented the mortgage crisis, put food on a table, or money in anyones pocket? But you can’t call them liars, because it was a change.

Is Senator John McCain President Bush? No. So a 3rd term of Bush is a stupid and feeble statement based on capturing an emotional response and not the benefit of the nation. Is global warming real? Probably not, but there is nothing wrong with having a cleaner world. Can you fix an economy (ie giving people more money in their pockets) by increasing the taxes they pay? It’s never worked before.

So when you think of the Presidential election think of this – How do you want to change the issues you think are important to America? How will those changes happen without hurting other Americans? Who has a plan to attain those changes? What plan is based in the reality (and not emotion) of the world today?

Labels: 2008 election, Crude oil prices, Democratic Party, Iran, Iraq War, OPEC, President Bush, Senator John McCain

As the race for the Presidency of 2009 reaches its next stage I feel it’s important to go back over several issues that were ignored in the recent past. Issues have been broadcast for days and weeks now about the character of associates of the candidates, and race and gender. Yet most pundits and major news media have seemingly forgotten the issues in their never ending desire to promote their ratings.

So let me present the issues that I have noticed are truly important to the majority of Americans.

1. The war in Iraq.
No matter your opinion of how correct we were to get into the war in Iraq, America is fighting now. Placing blame on the past decisions has kept many busy, and used up valuable energy, but resolved nothing. The issue at hand is simply this; either we win or we run away.

If we run away, the results will include the instability of the region, the empowerment of Iran, an increase in the cost of oil, likely heightened threats against Israel, and inevitably attacks against Americans and America. When I say attacks against us I mean just that, terrorist acts on varying scales killing civilians in their homes and work on our soil. Because the various factions that take over Iraq in our absence will definitely (fairly and unfairly) blame every ill on America, and the orphaned sons and daughters will eventually be coerced to seek out and kill Americans.

Conversely if we go for the win we must commit more funds and resources, risk international disdain, and lose members of our military. Ultimately we will have to have a military base in Iraq, not unlike Japan or Germany. As much as ultra-liberals may like to misquote Senator McCain’s comment, it is likely that winning the war in Iraq will require our PRESENCE over the next several decades, with some portion of that time being in various levels of actual combat.

2. Education
There is little argument that the children in public schools today are dumber than the generations that preceded them. It may not be the nicest statement, but it is accurate. Children today are less creative, active, and deductive than perhaps since the start of the industrial revolution. They are being asked to memorize various facts, yet comprehension of those facts are at record lows. Fewer know what is in the Bill of Rights, can identify North America on a map, or how to properly structure a sentence. And this is while there is unprecedented access to the knowledge base found on the internet, and more instantaneous connectivity then ever before.

Kids today are being taught less and retaining bare minimums. While this may be most obvious in cities throughout the nation, it is a national event. The long term effects of this will be devastating to the nation.

3. Economy
While the unemployment levels are hardly at levels in the 70’s many are feeling like they have less money than in decades. Interest rates are incredibly low, yet tens of thousands are on the edged of losing their homes. Average wages are up from the past and discretionary spending is high (unless you count an iPod as essential) but the average person has $6,000 in credit card debt. Few feel secure in their jobs.

Considering that crude oil prices are brushing against my prior year high estimate, gasoline and winter heating oil prices are sure to hit millions hard. Add to that the higher cost of food due to ethanol production, and that glut levels are increasing with Federal production mandates, and you find consumers with less money than may have been planned. This says nothing of the potential inflation that may be caused with interest rates as low as they are.

The Presidential candidates have offered 2 different ideas. One is to take more money from taxpayers, the other to cut taxes. While the tax increase is stated to target only the “rich” such a definition is vague at best. Recent votes in Congress have included those making $31,850 or more for increased taxes of at least 3%. The tax cut is stated as being universal, with a goal of affecting the middle class primarily.

4. Safety
National safety from internal and external sources. While some would prefer to think that America is safe from future foreign attacks, the reality of the world is that we are not. Like the best of safes, eventually someone will break in and in like manner America will be attacked. Minimizing the nature and scope of such an attack is vital. A madman with a gun or suicide bomb is unsettling, but far less devastating than airplanes as weapons, a radioactive ‘dirty’ bomb, poisonous gas, or other mass attacks.

As far as I am aware, these are the most critical issues facing America. These are the questions that need to be answered by our next President. There are other issues but these seem to be the primary ones.

This is what we need to hear the candidates answer. This is the planning that we need to understand. These are the things that will provide us the best President for the nation.

Any other reason or issue is secondary in my opinion. Even worse, the attempts by the media to grab ratings distorts the answers we need to hear and blocks the things we need to know. Answers and plans.

As this final phase of the Presidential race continues I suggest we all keep these issues in mind.

Remember you only get one vote, and once you have you don’t get a do-over.

Labels: Crude oil prices, education, Iraq War, Presidential election race 2008, tax policy, tax rates, terrorist attack

Looking forward to the April 22 primary in Pennsylvania I found some information that is troubling looking forward. There is no question that without a landslide of votes for Senator Hillary Clinton, in every Primary until the Democratic Convention, there is no way she can win the Democratic nomination without stealing super delegates. A super delegate decision is also sure to enrage Democrats backing either candidate.

And that’s where the rub comes in. Recently various news agencies and polling organizations have begun to ask voters how likely they are to back an opposing candidate that lost the nomination. And there is a massive difference, led by the fact of race.

For all the polispeak and posturing of Democrats and Liberals about supporting minority issues and representing African Americans in particular, the fact is that a significant portion of voters will vote for the White candidate or none at all. If that sounds bigoted, racist, prejudiced and anti-American I agree that it is.

Based on the primaries and caucuses that have occurred to date we can see certain trends and numbers.

Whites that find race important favor Clinton over Obama by 63% to 32%. Even those that said race was not a factor backed Clinton by 11%. Of this group of people 41% said they would only be satisfied if Clinton were the nominee.

Why is this critical? Because

“Pollsters have long expressed doubts about using polls to precisely gauge voters' feelings about the sensitive issue of race, concerned that some people give answers they think are socially acceptable.”

Or in my words, some of those polled are the quiet cowardly racists that try to stab Blacks in the back rather than being upfront and vocal about their small-minded nature.

Who are these people? What are they like?

“In the exit polls, whites saying they considered the candidate's race were likelier to be from the South and rural areas, less educated, lower earning and older. That's consistent with voting so far, in which Obama has done better among whites with more education and higher incomes, especially men.”

So in looking forward, assuming Senator Obama is the candidate the real question is how many Americans will be willing to vote for a Black candidate? It appears that there are more than enough White voters raised and believing in the Jim Crow, segregationist, prejudiced, stereotyped, illogical thoughts about race that was America’s norm until the mid-1980’s. And if you are younger than 40, yes before the mid-80’s there was a real and vastly different view of race. That view has not disappeared, nor changed significantly and the voting preferences abovementioned relate to that.

So while pundits will polispeak about the Iraq war – and how it was wrong that it started which is moot, the economy – where raising taxes is about as intelligent as suing the homeless, illegal aliens – which can’t even be referred to as such even though they have roken the law entering the nation, and many other real issues America must deal with; the real issue will be the one thing Senator Obama has avoided making a primary issue – race.

If Senator Obama is to win or lose the Presidential election due superior plans for the future of America then that is the will of America. But it seems impossible to say that while the question of voter prejudice is not only openly stated, but also hidden. Which leaves me with a thought.

No pundit or politician will address the fact that race relations remains the most critical, dividing, and divisive issue in America – 388 years after the first slave was sold and 143 years after their freedom was acknowledged and protected. There is no polispeak to spin this fact in a positive manner, and no one has the balls to stand up and be counted for really speaking on the issue.

So whether or not Senator Obama wins the Democratic nomination (which he should but could lose through super delegates) or the Presidential election, the problem and its effects will continue to prevent America from being as great as it can be. I have already stated my solutions in terms of reparations, an apology, and honest talk.

Given this, what do you propose? How do you feel? What is the answer?

Labels: Democratic nomination, illegal aliens, Iraq War, Jim Crow, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Reparations for Slavery, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, U.S. economy

**Just a quick hello to all those visiting this site from TV One. I hope you enjoy the various posts and visit/comment often.**


So as we approach the next vote in the Democratic Primary process, little new events or information has been passed on to the public. With the Republican race over, Senator John McCain has begun to collect monies and release television commercials emphasizing his experience both as a Senator and military commander. On the Democratic side, substance has been replaced in part by hype obfuscating points that I find far more interesting.

Even today this malaise can be seen in the questions being posed to General Petraeus by the Senate Armed Services Committee. Democrats are pushing that the events in Iraq are not working, that there is no end in sight ever, that the war is unwinnable, and that the only solution is to run. Republicans are thanking the service and sacrifice given, acknowledgement of the benchmarks reached, understanding of the progress and stability that has been attained, and the outlook for a measured end of the conflict. Politics are clouding every fact, effectively using our soldiers as political tools in all the polispeak.

But the bigger issues that are not being discussed as much as they should include Senator McCain’s potential choice of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as Vice-President. Back in February I noted that she was at 10-1 odds for gaining the coveted position.

“I expect that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the real favorite. She brings in some of the Black and women vote. And she is easily qualified for the position. I see the Democrats seriously troubled in trying to attack her on anything. My dream pick would be Colin Powell though.”

The implications of Secretary of State Rice as V-P are far reaching especially in terms of Iraq, Afghanistan, foreign relations, and the economy. Considering the emphasis on race relations lately, there is also the potential of improving the laws affecting African Americans. Women’s issues are also potentially on the forefront of change.

Glancing at the Democrats, Senator Hillary Clinton dominates the landscape. Not that this is a good thing.

Besides the fact that Senator Clinton is trying to duck the fact that 3 senior campaign members are connected to pro-Columbia efforts (of which only Mark Penn has been fired for) which she publicly denounces, there are less emphasized issues as well. One big fact I have a problem with is the Clinton taxes.

The Clintons made $109 million, paid $34 million in taxes, and $10 million to charity.

Sounds nice until you pay attention to the details. The first is the fact that 34% is not the top tax bracket, meaning that the Clinton’s took many deductions. That is not important, except it is a major campaign point for the Democrats. That is that the “rich” – which I think $109 million qualifies as – do not pay enough in taxes. Yet rather than paying the full taxes, or giving the I.R.S. extra money as a gift, the Clinton’s paid less. So either the Clinton campaign is lying about wanting to take more money from the rich – but since she voted to increase taxes of everyone from $31,850 and above I doubt that, her money is excluded, or she only thinks that the money should be taken by certain people for certain needs of the government. That last reason is hardly Democratic, fair, or in the benefit of the public.

Add to this the fact that former-President Bill Clinton collected $191,000 a year as part of his retirement package as President. That’s tax-payer money being given (wasted) to a millionaire. And rather than denying the money, of not cashing the check, they kept it (and that money is not taxable as I recall). How many people that money might help is unknown, but even if it were to help just one family who do you think needs the money more.

Oh and by the way, the 10% given to charity (which is a write-off) is important too. Because according to at least Dick Morris – a former top political aide of the Clinton’s – every dime of that was given to the Clinton Library. Which is controlled by guess who, and thus usable in any manner they desire.

Like Bosnia, Ireland, and many other issues, it’s a lie and slap in the face of the American citizenry.

And now I come to Senator Obama. There really isn’t much new with him, except his friends. One is Rev. Wright, who continues to be attacked unfairly by the major media. Weeks later the questions and opinions of the polispeak compilation of 10 second clips from less than a handful of the over 1000 sermons made by Rev. Wright are cascading forth having ebbed only slightly. Thus the single most difficult obstacle to the nomination is visibly what it was invisibly a year ago, skin color. And this will be re-visited at some point and some degree if Senator Obama is nominated.

The other friend of note is a real concern in my opinion. That is the former Weatherman and ultra liberal. A self-admitted bomber of American citizens and soil. A declared friend of Senator Obama. That troubles me.

But the real question for him is only the one issue that he can do nothing about. His race. He is not Black enough for small minds like Rev. Manning and other racist bigots – in my opinion. He is too Black for the Clinton campaign and those with ears too gentle to hear honest commentary about race relations in America.

Sadly the real question should be is a Presidential candidate without experience what America needs during a time of war.

But not to worry. CNN, Fox News and the rest have spent the day covering General Petreaus being questioned in a manner to benefit the polispeak political aspirations of the various parties, ultimately at a cost to our soldiers. No matter what view you may have, this PT Barnum extravaganza fails them first and everyone second.

Just remember in the remaining primaries and the general election in November 2008, that the questions being avoided are perhaps the best reasons to vote and whom for.

Labels: Condolezza Rice, Democratic, Iraq War, Polispeak, racial controversy, republican, Reverend Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, tax increase, Vice President

How rich do you feel if you are making $31,850 or more?

If you are like most families and individuals in America, I imagine that you don’t. In fact I would say most would feel relatively poor. Not because of a lack of luxury items or failing in a competition with the Jones’ but because of a scarcity of essentials and a knowledge that loss of everything is possible.

Americans in the middle class don’t feel rich because they are the ones losing their homes to the mortgage crisis. They are the ones incapable of affording better colleges (or sometimes any college) for their children. They are the families most often without healthcare coverage and unable to afford medical costs.

And they are the ones that are going to feel even worse if Democrats, and the Presidential candidates Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, get their way. I don’t say this because of some ideal, or dedication to the Republican Party. I say this because that is exactly what they are voting for.

“Senators voted 52-47 to reject a move to extend tax cuts for middle- and higher-income taxpayers, investors and people inheriting businesses and big estates.”

and

“Obama and Clinton both promise to reverse Bush's tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they'll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more.”

So, if you make $31,850 or more you may not feel like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett but you are going to get taxed like them.

This is not a surprise because for all the statements by Democrats that running scared from Iraq will turn the economy around, and their implication that universal healthcare is the same thing as free health care the facts are that more money will come out of our pockets to pay for it all. Your pocket, whether or not any of the things you will be paying for will provide a single benefit for you or those you know.

This is what a Democratic President will provide. Some may believe that this is a small price to pay. Some may believe that all businesses should pay more in taxes. And some may believe that terrorists and those hostile to the existence of America will give up their fights just because we turn our backs.

But I believe that increasing the taxes that the middle-class and businesses pay will not improve the economy. I believe that giving money TO problems rather than spending money to FIX the problems is foolish. I believe that turning your back on a bar fight will get your head cracked open from a chair smashed upon it. I believe that nothing is free, and some things are too expensive to be worthwhile.

The Democratic candidates have marched across America saying they will only tax the rich. They have said that they will only affect big business. They have said that they will make America safer. All are great things. But the facts of their actions indicate they are lying if not confused.

“Under both Democratic plans, tax rates would increase by 3 percentage points for each of the 25 percent, 28 percent and 33 percent brackets. At present, the 25 percent bracket begins at $31,850 for individuals and $63,700 for married couples. The 35 percent bracket on incomes over $349,700 would jump to 39.6 percent.”

So here is the big question for the up-coming election. If you aren’t rich at $31,850 and the Democrats are going to increase your taxes, what other plan proposed by them is equally skewed to your disadvantage?

Labels: American economy, Bill Gates, college tuition, Democratic Party, Iraq War, mortgage crisis, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, tax increase, tax rates, universal healthcare, Warren Buffett

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

I had an interesting conversation last night with a guy on the current status of the Presidency and the up-coming election. It’s a conversation I’ve had many times and I think needs to be discussed in a broader manner.

The crux of the conversation dealt with the anger this one guy had with President Bush. In his opinion, which I have seen mirrored in the media and on many blog sites, President Bush has driven the nation into the ground, broken laws, and involved us in a war that we have no place in. In this opinion America has been lessened by the actions of President Bush.

I disagree.

First I suggest that there is a separation that needs to be made from the emotion some carry with the actual effects of President Bush. While he may not be liked, that is not the same as what he has done being bad for the nation. Much like President Nixon, who was massively disliked in the 70’s, time and a review exempt of emotions shows that he did many things that were in the best interest of America and he was in fact a decent President.

President Bush finds himself as the second President to be involved with an openly disliked war. The fears of mothers and loved ones for the Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan is no small thing. But that does not mean that President Bush has done something wrong. Nor does it mean this is not in the best interest of America in the long-term.

America needs oil, a moderately peaceful Middle East, and a beachfront against terrorists that would kill every American man woman and child for no reason other than they exist. And as I mentioned in conversation, if this were likened to a bar fight the Democrats want to shout “I am done, I give up” then turn and walk away. Those same Democrats want to ignore the fact that in the middle of a fight, your opponent will likely not stop, and given the chance as you walk away back exposed will strike you over the head with a barstool. Just because some want to stop fighting, our enemies so not.

Perhaps some would prefer to fight terrorists on American soil. Perhaps they would be more motivated in attacking our enemies after they have taken down our skyscrapers and killed our children in schools and school buses. Some are disheartened because in attacking these vile individuals there is a cost of some innocents, as is true in every war.

But I say that I do not want to risk the hundreds or thousands that would die in America. I do feel badly for the tens of Iraqis and Afghans that die as a result of hiding, abetting, and/or ignoring those that attack America. But I feel far worse for the thousands that died in New York. Is it fair? Maybe not, but I love America far more than I do any other nation.

Some say President Bush has taken America down a dark path. I disagree. I would say that America has not changed course since arguably WWII. Less debatable is that America is still tracking the same direction that we have been on since the 1980’s. Every President, Democrat or Republican, has not deviated from this course. Some Presidents have just had worse media coverage, and more difficult events to deal with. (And with all honest and lack of emotional predetermination the next President will follow in that direction as well)

President Clinton attacked Iraq. America was the police force of the world during his administration. The Tech Bubble was created during his fiscal watch, and the resulting crash was caused by his in/action. President Clinton allowed Osama Bin Laden to live and kill thousands of Americans, and he lied to America directly. But I don’t see the passion for the laws he actually broke; and I do hear compassion about the actions he took that allowed Saddam Hussein to kill thousands of Kurds, cost thousands of Americans their jobs and homes, and embarrass the nation in front of the world.

All of this is not to say I agree in a blanket manner with President Bush. He deserves criticism for his actions in Katrina (or more accurately failure to act), and scrutiny on the powers given by the Patriot and other Acts.

America is at a crossroads. The decisions at the feet of the next President are huge and long-lasting in their impact on every American life. But to blindly pack every problem facing America on the back of one President is to potentially open the door for the next President to fail at various points even more regrettably.

Labels: Iraq War, osama bin laden, President Bill Clinton, President Bush, saddam hussein

What a day yesterday was. 300 off the Dow Jones Index, an attempt by a couple of unions to change the course of the Nevada Caucus and Bob Johnson apologizes to Senator Barack Obama. What could possibly happen next?

Well the financial news is something that I expect every Presidential candidate to comment on. There will be more calls for rebates from Democrats, and Republicans will try to promise to keep the tax cuts put in place by President Bush. None of this will actually have any affect on the markets, because only one of them will have any voice on the matter, but that will happen in 2009. That’s a whole year of pain and actions by the Fed and our current President to try to sway the downfall.

As I’ve stated previously, this is neither a surprise to me, nor is there a quick fix that will resolve it. All the hoopla that the various candidates are sure to spin is just an attempt to get panicky voters to choose them.

I restate what I said previously about the ‘stimulus packages’ that have been mentioned to date.

“An example is say you own a home. You are behind on the heating bill, because of the huge increase in oil prices. You spend the money on the heating bill bringing you even, until next month when you have another high bill to pay. That rebate was a waste.”

Plus several of the leading candidates of both parties have all flipped their positions. Democrats that hated the tax cuts and called them ineffective for months are now introducing their own plans to boost the economy. And Republicans that disliked the tax cuts are now in favor of them.

But I’m sure you will hear a lot more about specific plans before Monday arrives.

Just remember this, no matter what plan is announced oil is still nearly at all-time high levels, many mortgages are still failing and/or at risk of failing – and not all of them are sub-prime. Food prices are increasing as ethanol production is diverting corn and wheat to this less efficient alternative fuel source and with recent laws mandating increased usage on a national level we can expect even higher prices. The financial sector is not done writing-off their losses for making the bad loans, and more money will be coming from overseas to prop them up.

Net net, there is no quick fix and any candidate who wins will need to realize they will be walking into a mess. I would suggest you don’t look at who has the best ‘sounds great’ plan, but who can deal with multiple issues best.

Because the fact that attention is now turning to the economy, which has long been a issue of importance among citizens according to my polls, does not remove the importance of all the other issues America faces. Our next President must deal with a difficult economy, illegal aliens, a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and keeping the nation safe against insane fanatics that want us dead because we exist.

The pundits and candidates may like to address only one popular poll issue but America is more than just one thing. We need to pick the best person for every issue in America, and those that we are not expecting.

You get one vote, make it count.

Labels: aliens, democrat, Dow Jones Index, financial news, Iraq War, Nevada Caucus, President Bush, Republiocan, Senator Barack Obama, U.S. economy

I was speaking with a young former military man today, and the subject of the 2008 election came up. This man is 22, a former Navy Seal, and interested in what will happen to America in the near term. He also has no idea who to vote for.

Sometimes I forget that many people, of all ages, have not been following the Presidential race since 2006 like I and other bloggers have. That’s not because of a lack of interest, or intelligence. It’s because there is so little information out, and so little to get behind. There are plenty of YouTube video clips, charts on the net to chart where each candidate stands, and 30 second soundbites galore. But there is little substance and platforms for the average American to sink their teeth into.

To an extent I hope that my lists of Pros and Cons of Republican and Democratic candidates are helpful. I hope that my letters to several of the candidates (of both political parties) helps to give further insight to what each offers the nation. But even if all that I have written over the past year and almost a half on this has been read by every undecided voter in America I don’t think it is enough. That is because all the candidates are failing America.

They are failing us because they are playing partisan games, one-upmanship and preening like celebrities (with issues) more than attempting to be political leaders. And that benefits none of us.

One example of this failure is in the question given to me by this young man. The question was

“This war has gone too far. Especially since it was started over oil. I’m concerned about that.” – paraphrased but the essential elements of the question.

My answer is simple, and not one politician has ever said this that I am aware of.

Let’s say that the war was done only for oil, which is easily debated and proven incorrect. Why is that bad? Right now, estimates state that there may only be another 40 years or so of oil left in the Middle East. At this time there is not another alternative energy source that works. Not one. Lot’s of theoreticals but they are all only effective on paper.

Given that fact, and there is no debate it is fact, then oil is the only reliable energy source in the near future. America has reserves and access to several major oilfields that have never been tapped. The reason is that we are using all the oil in the Middle East while developing alternatives for the future. If OPEC were to run out of oil, most every nation would be unable to continue to provide for the safety and quality of life of their people virtually overnight. Except for America and a few other nations. That’s because of our use of foreign oil.

Taking a long term view, it is strategically important that we use oil from everyone else as much as possible, to guarantee that when the reserves start to dry up we will still be able to defend our nation, and continue to seek and create improved energy sources.
So, having an ally in the Middle East that provides America cheap oil in large quantities is vital to our long-term survival. It makes sense for us to want to have control over a major oil producer.

In addition, there is the question of money. Many want to point at President Bush and say it’s about him making money. The theory is that only oil companies will make money from Iraq. Those claiming this fail to recall that those same oil companies help fuel the American economy. They are part of the stock market, where tens of millions have invested their retirement funds, based on the thought they will bring in a profit. These companies employ thousands of people. They are paid to find, refine, and transport this fuel. This oil is used by hundreds of businesses that create cars, plastic, tires, perfumes and other products.

Oil companies making more money, means that America makes more money. And for those that might want to “take the profits away from the oil companies and give it to the people,” they are both liars and ill-advised. If the profits are taken from the oil companies, you will not receive a check for your share of that money. In addition, your mutual funds, and the stock market will drop. Jobs will be lost, in dozens of industries. America will be hurt.

It’s true, and all you need to do to see it is to look at the big picture and the long term view.

But politicians won’t say that.

How about tax reform that so many want to have. Several presidential candidates claim they will “remove the IRS” and completely convert the tax code. I feel they are misguided in the worst manner.

Not that I think the IRS is a good thing, or that the tax code is working. But if it were to be removed it would impede the entire nation. Of the roughly 40% of the nation that is employed by the Government let’s say that the IRS, or any department, makes up 5% of all the people employed. Without the IRS they are all out of work.

In addition you lose all the people that do oversight on the IRS, all those that do research on the effects of the tax codes, those investigating the loopholes of taxes, and those that prepare taxes for the average American.

Say good bye to H&R Block and other similar corporations. And with their loss goes the benefit and impact they provide to the stock market. Unemployment skyrockets, and the stocks, mutual funds and retirements of millions plummet.

The big picture, long-term view really takes all the wind out of the sails of a cute popular soundbite. But it’s far more honest. Because the fact is that any department of the Government is incapable of being removed or revised substantially. There are just too many lives, and economic implications tied to it to happen.

What does that mean when evaluating Presidential candidates? That when you look at all the information and comments made you have to take a moment to review what they are really saying. You have to look at the long term effects. And you have to throw out all the feel good fluff soundbites they all make. Because there isn’t a human being alive, ever, that can discuss all the implications of say nuclear weapons in Iran or illegal aliens in 30 seconds.

Labels: American economy, Democratic Party, election 2008, H and R Block, Iraq War, IRS, Middle East, President Bush, Presidential candidates, Republican Party, tax code

Concluded from Pros and Cons of Republican Presidential candidates Part 2...

Mitt Romney

Pros –


• Former Governor
  
• Strong Business Experience
  
• Very Religious
  
• For the Death Penalty
  
• Finish Iraq war
  
• For Privatizing SSI
  
• Waterboarding (Torture ok)
  
• Pro-Education
  
  Cons –
  
  
• Few understand his religion
  
• Flipped Abortion
  
• Flipped gay marriage
  
• Unknown position about minorities
  
• Pro-GPS tracking of convicted criminals for life
  
• Mixed Gun Control
  
• Mixed Immigration policies
  
  
  Fred Thompson
  
  Pros –
  
  
• Former Senator
  
• Anti-abortion
  
• For the Death Penalty
  
• Pro-Education
  
• Anti-Gun Control
  
• Finish Iraq war
  
• Waterboarding (Torture ok)
  
• Reform SSI
  
• No Nukes in Iran
  
• Anti-Flag Burning
  
• Anti-Immigration
  
  Cons –
  
  
• Known for TV/Movie Roles
  
• Mixed on gay marriage
  
• Mixed on Minorities
  

Well there you go. I know I did not include the internet favorite Ron Paul. The fact is that while he may be popular on the net, his views are generally seen as extreme and nutty. He has no real following around the country on any poll. And as for Alan Keyes, where the hell did he come from? Are you kidding?

I hope this helps, because the most important decision in the last 3 decades faces the nation in this next election. In my opinion the Presidential Race of 2008 will determine the direction of the country for the next decade or longer, and most of the things done will be irreversible.

Your vote counts, don’t give it frivolously or cheaply.

Labels: death penalty, Fred Thompson, immigration policies, Iraq War, Mitt Romney, political issues, Presidential candidates, republican candidates, tax policy, waterboarding

Continued from Pros and Cons of Republican Presidential candidates Part 1...

Mike Huckabee

Pros –


• Governor
  
• Anti-abortion
  
• For the Death Penalty
  
• Finish Iraq war
  
• Anti-gay marriage
  
• For Privatizing SSI
  
• Anti-Gun Control
  
• Very Religious
  
• Fair Tax
  
• Pro Education
  
• Decent Minority Rights
  
• Against 3 strikes laws
  
  Cons –
  
  
• Virtually unknown to the general public
  
• Very Religious
  
• Anti-Torture
  
• Ok with Pathway to Citizenship
  
• Fuzzy on Immigration in general
  
  
  Senator John McCain
  
  Pros –
  
  
• For the Death Penalty
  
• Anti-Torture (he has huge conviction and reasons)
  
• Current Senator – Long term position
  
• Military Hero
  
• Anti-gay marriage
  
• Anti-Gun Control
  
• Strongly Finish Iraq war
  
• For Privatizing SSI
  
• Anti-Flag Burning
  
• Pro-Minority Bills
  
• Limit Judges Legislating
  
  Cons –
  
  
• Flipped on Abortion
  
• Mixed on Education
  
• Anti-Torture
  
• Pro-Pathway to Citizenship
  
• Pro-Immigration Reform
  

Continued in part 3...

Labels: death penalty, immigration policies, Iraq War, Mike Huckabee, political issues, Presidential candidates, republican candidates, Senator John McCain, tax policy, waterboarding

Not long ago I created a list of Pros and Cons of the leading Democratic Presidential candidates. To be fair and to see the differences I have complied a Pros and Con list for the leading major Republican candidates.

I do not presume that this list is all-encompassing. I recognize that while I have tried to be neutral, just as I was with the Democrats, I’m sure there are areas where my personal views entered. I do not claim my list is complete or how everyone feels. But I believe it is accurate.

Some issues may fall on both sides, because depending on personal views it is a positive or negative. Most are far more easily categorized. If you disagree, please make a comment and give your reasons why. You may be right, so why not share your thoughts?

You can see some of my source information at On The Issues and 2008 Election ProCon.

Now for the breakdowns (in alphabetical order):

Rudy Giuliani

Pros –


• 9/11
  
• For the Death Penalty
  
• Finish Iraq war
  
• No Nuke Iran
  
• Waterboarding (Torture ok)
  
• Mayor of largest U.S. City
  
• Lower taxes
  
  Cons –
  
  
• Mixed on Gun Control
  
• No International experience
  
• Flipped on gay marriage
  
• Mayor was highest level of public service experience
  
• Relies heavily on 9/11
  
• Flipped on Immigration policies
  
• Horrendous Civil Liberties (Amidou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, ect)
  
• Sold out 42nd Street to corporations
  

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: death penalty, immigration policies, Iraq War, political issues, Presidential candidates, republican candidates, Rudy Giuliani, tax policy, waterboarding

The more I read the results of polls and surveys discussing the Presidential candidates, the more I think that you could prove the sky is purple, or that 9/11 was an inside job. Oh wait; there are some that actually think the former. There goes my point.

There are daily, weekly and I don’t doubt hourly polls and surveys for every candidate, newspaper and major media outlet. Each and every one of them has something different to say. Which I find remarkable, if they are all asking the same question.

Of course that is the problem. They aren’t asking the same question. They are asking all kinds of things, and then presenting the results as candidate X is leading the race. When stated in that manner you might think that popular support in America, or a particular region, was incredibly high for one candidate of another. That isn’t the case though.

How often have you heard results that said, ‘X% of undecided voters favor candidate Y.’ Sounds simple and straightforward. Except it’s crap. If a voter is undecided it means they are not favoring anyone. They are up for grabs, and at any moment they might change their mind. Better to ask them how many grains of sand you can hold in your hand.

Or how about when you hear

“Overall, 83% of those surveyed said Hillary Clinton was well prepared enough for the job of president. For John Edwards, 29% said he had been spending his time attacking his opponents. For Barack Obama 60% said he has been spending his time explaining what he would do as president and 80% said that Oprah Winfrey’s help made no difference to them.”

This is just a cluster of misleading information.

First note that it starts with the question of who is prepared for being President. The next sentence goes off track to state how John Edwards and Senator Obama spend their time. It then goes further off the original thought by comparing Oprah’s impact. What in the world does that have to do with if John Edwards or Senator Obama are prepared to be Preisent?

You have just been given a subtle and purposeful guide to positively view Senator Clinton. It’s a falicy of logic. It’s a neat trick, comparing apples and oranges.

You are given the positive of the subject they want you to like, a negative about everyone else, and a negative distraction to keep your mind busy about the lack of cohesiveness. At least they are being consistent about how Senator Obama and John Edwards are spending their time. Though I have to wonder how these same people felt Senator Clinton was spending her time?

Here is another question on those results. It’s stated that Senator Obama spent 60% of his time explaining what he would do as President. It’s phrased as a negative in context of the wording. Why is that bad? Would you want to elect a President that you have no idea of what their goals and objectives were? Think about it. Do you want a President that will suddenly take a conservative or liberal stance on say illegal aliens, taxes, the economy, or the war in Iraq?

Of course not. So why is that a negative? I think the better question is what’s the percentage of the other candidates spending their time doing the same thing.

Why is this important? Because if you don’t pay attention it’s the same thing as being lied to. It’s trying to promote an agenda that is hidden. It’s trying to present bias in a platable manner. It’s on par with a scam.

The next Presidential election is vital to this nation. Far too many issues will be decided between 2009- 2013 that will have ramifications for the lives of our children and perhaps grand-children. Some of those consequences will be irreversible. And there are some that are trying to take advantage of the inattentiveness the general populace has for elections and primaries.

I am not saying that the writer of the above quoted post is trying to do this. I would say that the New York Times and many other pundits and major media are. And if you don’t watch the details, you probably won’t like what you get.

Kind of like when the Democrats campaigned on change in 2006. They never stated what would change. People assumed it would be the war in Iraq. It turned out to be giving up on governing the affairs of the nation and seeking near endless meetings and investigations to blame Republicans and the President. Essentially they changed the limited effectiveness of Congress to being a complete waste of taxpayer funds.

When you don’t pay attention to the details, the wool gets pulled over the eyes with ease. But the Presidential election in November 2008 is too valuable. Look for the details and then make a choice. Because once you vote, there are no do-overs.

Labels: Congress, election 2008, Iraq War, John Edwards, presidential election, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama

As the TV One webcast of the Heartland Presidential Forum at 2:30 today approaches, I want to review some of the main issues that I think it will and will not cover. Overall I think that the candidates, of both parties, will seek to avoid a large number of issues most people really care about. Expect a good deal of deflection and moves to tangent issues rather than answering the actual questions posed. I doubt that it will be as obvious as the dramatic and highly covered yes, no, and maybe answer Senator Clinton offered on driver’s licenses for illegal aliens in New York State but I believe they will happen none the less.

First off there are the issues that the candidates will avoid speaking about. The issues are widespread and party specific. For the Democrats there is the fact that for 9 months of this year virtually every candidate vehemently stated that the surge in Iraq could not and would not work. They coupled the disbelief in the surge with they demands for immediate withdrawal of troops.

In the past couple of months, the most liberal pundits, reporters, and politicians have verified that the surge has in fact worked. Iraq is safer and more stable now than since Saddam Hussein was removed. Thus we have seen the debates and the public speeches of the candidates have moved from immediate withdrawal and failure, to a need to withdraw most troops (leaving an unspecified amount of troops for an unspecified amount of time) and failure, to not speaking about the subject at all as much as possible. Kind of funny how that went.

In addition Democratic candidates have moved into the subject of national healthcare as their primary talking point. Though all the plans are not fully explained, and the cost (upwards of 100 billion dollars at the least) has no explanation where it will receive funding from (extra taxes from the rich is the general answer. What is rich is a floating income number ranging from 200,000 at the top and 90,000 near the bottom).

For Republicans the key early issue was again Iraq and supporting the surge (and thus highlighting the Democrats willingness to retreat) and being against terrorism al la 9/11. After several months of each candidate mentioning how strong they are against terrorists they all have shied away from using the single greatest attack on American soil in past 60 years for their political gain (mostly).

The new line of discussion, now that the surge has been shown to be working and President Bush has mandated that surge troops will be slowly phased out of Iraq, has become illegal aliens. Each candidate has claimed they will resolve this issue, though there is no plan stated that will deal with the 12 million plus illegals that are in this nation right now, nor any that will be coming in the future. There are half thoughts of paths to citizenship, documentation, healthcare and deportation but no real plans. And lots of one-upmanship over who is tougher on the subject and who has the best past performance. Oh and there are arguments over who is more devoutly religious, and who can do more to prevent higher taxes. Again no real plans though.

So that is what they were all talking about, and what they want to discuss now. It’s a very short list. And yes I do realize they spoke about other things. But that was/is the focus.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Heartland Presidential Forum, illegal immigration, Iraq War, nationalized healthcare, TV One

Concluded from Pros and Cons of the leading Democratic Presidential Candidates Part 2...

These are a few Pros and Cons of the various candidates that will be appearing on at the Heartland Presidential Forum that will be webcast live by TV One on Saturday.

John Edwards

Pros


• Previously ran for Vice President
  
• Former Senator
  
• Advocate of the poor
  
• Not the psychic of the same name
  
• Native Southerner
  
• Has good looks
  
• Wife has cancer
  Anti-Iraq war (sort of – voted in favor of war)
  
• Pro-abortion
  
  Cons
  
  
• Lost the election as Vice-President
  
• Long-time politician
  
• $400 haircuts
  
• Lawyer (firm made money on questionable circumstances)
  
• Wife has cancer
  
• Not know for a particular strong stance on any issue (except the poor)
  
• Pro-immediate withdrawal from Iraq
  
• Pro-abortion
  
• Anti-school vouchers
  
• A bit of a sensationalist
  

Hopefully this information will be helpful. By no means is this the definitive Pro and Con list. There are several issues I have excluded, and many of the items I have mentioned deserve greater scrutiny. But this is accurate and my opinion. I look forward to hearing yours.

Labels: election 2008, Heartland Presidential Forum, Iraq War, John Edwards, political debate, TV One

**This can also be seen at Presidential Race Blog, where I am a contributing author.**

I was reading through the various blogs about the Presidential candidates, as I do on a daily basis and I found an interesting thing. Everyone is upset about the Presidential candidates of 2008. That’s Democrat, Republican, Independent and whatever else you choose to call yourself.

It’s an accomplishment devoid of cheer.

Republicans are upset that there is no clear candidate that has a good track record dealing with Iraq, the economy, gay issues, healthcare, and immigration. Those are the big issues that seem to dominate the pundits and many blogs (including my own).

Democrats seem to be channeling into the idea that Senator Clinton will be the nominee for the Presidency. The other options are lacking in experience, not strong enough on extreme issues, and/or lack the presentation Sen. Clinton provides.

I can’t say that all of them are the key concerns of average Americans, and definitely not in that order. Living in Binghamton, New York I see a connection to ‘middle’ America that I feel most pundits have ago lost touch with. Most pundits and political parties are far too extreme to really connect with the Average American that I have met and live around today.

The question of race and gender has also taken the pundits by storm. Since day one, the fact that a woman and Black man are actively involved, with strong credentials, got them buzzing on the effect they can have on the election. Average Americans I’ve spoken with don’t really seem to care about that as much though. While there are many that will not vote for a woman or African American, most are more concerned with their jobs, and the safety of their children; whether from terrorist attack or actively fighting against that in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And there is the rub. Americans want to know that the dream still lives. That their kids will have a good life and maybe do better than them. They want to retire with dignity and maybe enjoy the free time they will finally have. They want to feel secure that their jobs will exist tomorrow, and that they can feed the kids and take them to a doctor when they are sick. That’s the big concern.

From what I can tell, the issues are the economy, the war in Iraq, healthcare, and taxes. Within the economy are social entitlements and social security. That’s basically it. To date no one feels that any of the candidates, regardless of political affiliation are really good at all those items.

No one has an answer that deals with Social Security effectively. While no politician will remove it, none know how to fund it. And moving it to a private fund is seen with confusion. So a bulky poorly administrated program continues to wither with no real help in site as baby boomers begin today to start collecting on this rapidly diminishing fund.

Huge anger exists of the entitlement programs that are in effect at this time. Many feel too much is being given away to people who don’t deserve help. Not because the idea of the program is wrong, but that it’s application is. Too many pay too much to allow others to flourish with no intention to benefit the system and public at large. And again politician’s answers seem to imply either the wholesale removal of the programs or expansion to even greater levels. Neither is attractive.

As for the war, Iraq is the focus. Most want their sons and daughters to be safe. No one wants harm to come to any of our Armed Forces. Every person I know respects the commitment made by those standing for our nation. But they want them home and out of the line of fire. At the same time there is a clear understanding that bringing them home with irrational speed, based on extreme emotion of a few and political one-upmanship, will not make them safer once home. Yet politicians are reaching for the extremes of staying and fighting an ideal and religion (which can never be defeated by mere arms alone) or cutting and running with out tail between our legs. Political maneuvering aside that’s the options on the table currently from the candidates. Neither works for most I’ve heard from.

I can go on, but I think the point is made. The election of 2008 is a critical one. The results of this election will have ramifications that will last a decade or more after the fact. We will be taking America in a direction we will not be able to change course from. America will be led down this path by a leader, regardless of party, that seems to be incapable of the issues before them.

Now that does not mean they are incapable of rising to the need of the American people. I hope strongly that whoever wins can do that. It’s what will be required. But considering all candidates to date, I don’t see it.

I see extreme views alienating the core of the nation. I see fractures and inaction because of that. I see America standing still as a gulf stream of events take place around us, pushing us in a direction like a raft on a current without an oar.

But the one thing that may help is one thing. We vote. We pick the best choice, separate of political affiliation, that has the potential to be the leader America needs but does not have going forward.

I don’t know who that candidate is. I will not reveal my choice at this time. That is not the purpose of this blog. The goal is to provide the best information, with as little bias as possible, and to encourage as many as possible to vote. We will only get one chance to pick the direction this country will go in. We get one chance to place an oar in the water at this crucial time. Take that chance.

Labels: Armed Forces, democrat, election 2008, Independent, Iraq War, republican, Social Security

**This can also be seen at Presidential Race Blog, where I am a contributing author.**

As we approach of the primaries and then enter the Presidential race of 2008 in earnest, more Americans are beginning to pay real attention to who the candidates are. It’s given that there have been multiple debates on each political side, and many organizations have made standpoints on issues they believe are essential in their potential nominee. Yet, most Americans have yet to pay any attention.

That will soon change as we approach December and the early primaries of 2008 loom on the horizon. If you thought Christmas, Hanukah, or Kwanza were about religion, gifts and family cheer you will be sadly proven incorrect. This year that time will be about immigration, taxes, and the Iraq war.

This can be said with some authority when the advertising numbers are viewed.

“National cable networks sold 301 ad units between January and Sept. 2, 2007. That compares with a mere 19 units sold over a 15-month period during the last presidential cycle, January 2003 to March 2004.”

There is no end in sight. But what do these numbers really mean?

Estimates state that up to, or far more than, $2.7 billion will be spent on political advertising by Election Day in November 2008. That’s a huge number. That’s just swamping television, broadcast radio, and the internet with political ads. I would presume that at 30 seconds a piece the total number of ads, placed back to back, could equate to roughly a week or more of nothing but ads.

That’s a lot of time to say as little as possible and yet gain as many votes as possible. In all honesty, it’s an attempt to blur the facts and coerce the votes on the cheap. Because there is not a scholar on the planet that can summarize the Iraq war, and its ramifications into a 30 second sound bite. Hell, the debate by President Lincoln took hours and that was over 100 years ago, without a war, terrorism, nuclear weapons, illegal immigration, or taxes. If the Presidency was so complicated then that it took hours to justify the worthiness of who is to be elected, how long should it take now?

I realize that the immediacy of the world today does not lend itself to long debates fill with facts and details. I realize that superficial items like the clothing and colors the candidates wear are more easily digested. Still one has to ask, with so much time being devoted to pick candidate A, why is it being split up into multiple 30 second ads. My thought is that we the people are being misled to a degree and the candidates know it.

If any candidate was seriously interested in letting the nation know what they think, they would buy a half-hour block of time, and run that once a month on cable and broadcast television. They would send out transcripts of that discussion with the people, and post it on the internet. They would give definite answers and stand on a platform everyone can understand. And poll numbers would not sway their beliefs.

Think about it. I will use Senator Clinton as an example, but the same actions can be found with all the candidates. We have seen Senator Clinton strongly demand that the nation go to war with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, coincidentally while polls were favoring such action. Not all agreed with the information available for the war, but Sen. Clinton was a staunch advocate. As polls went against the war Senator Clinton came out against the war, at the same time plans were made that she would run for the Presidency. Now in the middle of her campaign, after defending organizations like MoveOn.org and questioning President Bush’s comments on Iran, Senator Clinton has begun to state that she may not take all the troops out of Iraq during her first term and that military strikes against Iran are feasible answers to their nuclear ambitions.

If you only follow the 30 second soundbites of the ads, you will miss these comments and turns in policy. They are minimized and drowned out by her regional and targeted messages. The Senator has distracted attention with ‘thoughts’ about college funds for all the children and denouncement of the plans of her peers. I am not saying her actions are correct or incorrect. I am highlighting the fact that the political ads obscure the actual platform that Senator Clinton, and to varying degrees the other candidates, hold.

We deserve better. We need to pay more attention. The 2008 election is not a MTV video. The lives of all Americans will be changed by the next President. I strongly believe that. So as the attention increases, and the ads fill the airwaves I suggest taking a bit of time to look back and learn the history of these candidates. Compare what they have said in the past with what they say today. Check how and when they changed their positions. It’s one thing to come to a better understanding on an idea, it’s another to just go with the popular opinion for the sake of gaining political power on the emotional cheap.

IF we don’t, you may not like what happens after the election when it’s too late.

Labels: election 2008, Iran, Iraq War, political ads, Presidential race, Senator Clinton

Continued from The Iraq report and politics Part 1...

When Generals state, as many have said from day one, that this will be a long term battle (some even stating it could take up to a decade) all politicians ignored the statements and left the troops ill-equipped for the challenges that have faced them. I believe all the politicians were afraid of telling such a truth to their constituents. To make such a statement would easily open them up to challengers and cost them elections. Rather they all stated, initially, that this could be resolved quickly and with little loss of American life. Obviously they were wrong and the Generals were correct.

This is an interesting question facing the next President and the nation as a whole. This may well be the single most important issue facing America in the next 10 years, definitely the next 5. If we run, we will lose respect as a nation among other nations and fanatical groups across the world. Without a strong resolution, enemies of our nation will simply conclude that the will of America is weak and if they can out-wait the initial onslaught against them the commitment against them will crumble and fade. That is a troubling image to present to the world.

On the other side is the fact that if we stand and fight until we succeed, we will suffer internally as political groups drive a wedge between various factions within the nation. As families lose loved ones, which is an inevitable outcome of warfare, the divisions will grow as will the anger of nations around the world.

The answer is a difficult one. Like most answers, the middle ground is best, but hard to maintain. Since we have not decided to make Iraq a commonwealth, which I feel is the only winning strategy, we must seek the most reasonable outcome. Emphasizing the political aspects may allow elections to go in one direction or another, but such posturing will cause greater damage, in my opinion. I see that right now, all the candidates are posturing for votes as opposed to having their own convictions. The only 2 frontrunners that are perhaps convincingly maintaining their positions without regard to politics are Senator McCain and Obama. Both are somewhat blindsided though, I believe.

So the questions we must ask ourselves, are the presidential candidates taking positions that are the best for the nation, or the best to gain politically? Do we want a President, or any political leader, that cannot adjust their position based on the facts as they are presented? Can we have political leaders that can tell us the truth, and act in the best manner for the nation regardless of the backlash that short-term emotions ultimately evoke?

If we fail in this matter, if we act impulsively and without long-term foresight, we will suffer for perhaps decades. There are many issues involved in the current war, Iran, terrorist groups (not the concept of terrorism) like Al Quida, Israel, America’s prominence in the world, and yes oil too. If we just focus on one item at the exclusion of the others, we will fail to do the best thing. Again I mention best, not right. While I wish we could follow a path that is ideal, the reality is that there is no such path to take in regard to the current situation.

But this is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: al quida, Gen. David H. Petraeus, Iraq War, Senator Barak Obama, Senator John McCain

The question of the day has to be the fact that Gen. David H. Petraeus will be addressing Congress today. That report, being given as I write, has massive political ramification as well the long term effects on our nation. From what I have heard at this time, neither party will be completely pleased with the report I am hearing. But that leads to a bigger problem.

Overall the Republicans want to hear that the war is going well and that the Iraqis are taking over for U.S. troops. Democrats want to hear that the war is as they have long claimed a failed effort. The public though wants to hear that there is a timeframe by which they can expect to have our loved ones home.

The summary has been stated that ‘the surge has been effective, Iraqi forces are slowly making inroads to taking control of their own country, and it may be possible to see the start of a withdrawal in the summer of next year.’ That is a near direct quote from Gen. Petraeus as he has spoken live. In addition troops will be removed from December up to July 2008, to reach pre-surge levels at that time.

So what does this mean? We can expect that several of the Democrats, especially the leading 3 Presidential candidates will not be satisfied. Already Senator Clinton has stated

“There is no military solution,” Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said last night. “That is why I believe we should start bringing our troops home.”

And the other candidates have made similar comments.

On the other side will be the Republicans and their Presidential hopefuls. They have backed the President and the military from day one. Continuing to do so based on this report means that they will be identified for the continued fighting our soldiers will go through. Considering the large numbers of the public that is hoping for the end of this war in a relatively quick manner, this will not bode well for many during upcoming elections.

But why is this political at all? Did this nation learn anything from Korea and Viet Nam? Have we not realized that when politics override, or guide, decisions of an active war and the commanders waging it, that it inevitably leads to the wrong decisions and increased American deaths?

I was speaking with a philosopher (an actively teaching and writing philosopher) friend of mine over the weekend. She mentioned something that I thought was quite important. She seeks the ideal, the conceptual best path, and is upset that America does not try to attain more of that path. I can understand that and in part agree with it. I think much of the nation would also like to follow that path. But such a path is not completely feasible in real world actions.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Demcratic Party, Gen. David H. Petraeus, Iraq War, presidential election, Republican Party, Senator Hillary Clinton, Viet Nam

As we approach the coming report on the surge in Iraq, several candidates vying for their respective parties nod in the primaries are taking another tack in their recent speeches. While this is not a bad thing, a Commander-and–Chief should be able to evaluate changing conditions in any on-going military action and act accordingly; it does cause me to pause.

While some have remained steadfast in their opposition to the war and any actions we take there, others have begun to bend, and on the other side a few are prepared to take advantage of any positive results. It’s not that things have changed as much as it’s the political maneuvering that has opened or closed some doors. That troubles me.

Some feel that President Bush has been too single-minded in his approach to Iraq; others say he has not been strong enough. I think all would say that there have been mistakes made in the execution of every step of the war in Iraq. But do we want to have the next President to be equally as resolute in their opinion of what to do, or flexible in their actions merely for the benefit of polling results?

I don’t question anyone that takes a critical look at the situation and based on the facts changes their mind. Yet, considering that there has not been a report made and that it will not be for several weeks still any changes now are more political in motivation than fact based. Those kinds of changes in position are pandering, to me.

“Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
…
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
…
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
…
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation.” – Senator Clinton October 2002

“If I had been President in October of 2002, I would have never asked for authority to divert our attention from Afghanistan to Iraq, and I certainly would never have started this war.” - Senator Clinton February 2007

“It's working. We're just years too late in our tactics….

Clinton's positive assessment of the troop surge puts her in agreement with some high-ranking military officials and scholars, but in direct opposition to many fellow Democrats.” - Senator Clinton and article comments August 2007

I am singling out Senator Clinton because she may be the most easily tracked of many candidates, but by no means is she alone. As facts and political polls have changed over the years and months, so have the responses from many candidates. Often the current comments conflict with the emotion and strength behind words said previously.

Hollow comments based on political gain are not what is needed in a President, in my opinion. Strong opinions balanced with actual fact and viewed from the vantage of the good of the Nation, are what is needed.

Keep this in mind as we hear the responses from all the candidates about the surge in Iraq, and what we can do next. Keep that in mind when we wait for the plans proposed and what consequences are envisioned with Iraq. Keep it in mind as polls move back and forth and the primaries approach.

Emotion may be powerful, but a vote for the wrong person and the wrong reason has ramifications that lasts decades and affects millions. That will not fade even long after emotion have.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: election 2008, Iraq War, opinion poll, Presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton

I read something that is quite interesting. It deals with the standing of the Democratic Presidential candidates, and the Democratic Party in general. It’s a view that is actually obvious, but no one seems to take on seriously. There is basically one voice among the Democrats, and that voice is far from the center.

From the various positions Democratic candidates have mentioned, like national healthcare and retreat from Iraq, and their actions, like going to the Daily Kos convention while ignoring the DLC convention, we see a picture that runs towards the left. That is an important observation, not because that is a good or bad thing, but rather that it is not what the average American agrees with. The average American is acknowledged to not be severely right or left on the political spectrum, but in the center. There may be an issue that they will go to the left and another that goes right, but the balance is to the center overall.

Given that fact, I have to wonder what will happen after the primaries. Given that the top Republican Presidential candidates are closer to the center than the extreme right, what will Democratic candidates do? It may be fine to be targeting an extreme vocal portion of an individual party to win a primary but that won’t work in a general election. Or will it?

Immigration is a huge issue. Will the Democratic Primary winner that the view of the extreme left, and if they don’t how can they pull back from positions made so far? National healthcare affects millions of Americans, and the extreme left want a more socialized medicine, as espoused by pundits like Michael Moore. Yet average Americans do not want to absorb the cost or usual inefficiencies found in government run programs (I submit the effectiveness of the DMV and Veterans Administration as examples). And the question of an immediate retreat from Iraq, as has been promised my virtually every candidate, matching the desires of the extreme left and similar to the disapproval of the war held in the general populace. Still most military advisors note that such an action will lead to instability that will definitely cause more American military loses of life and eventually attacks on America itself. Can the democratic primary winner back away for an instantaneous retreat the extreme is calling for and still win?

There are many issues and many views for each. I do not question which is right or wrong. I merely wonder that if presidential candidates have aligned themselves with extreme views of their respective parties, can they still serve the more centrist general populace in a manner they will approve of. I have to wonder that if extreme views are held today, and more centrist views are stated after the primaries, what position will a presidential candidate actually pursue after being elected.

Maybe it’s me but I wonder which points of view will be the ones affecting the nation and our lives for the next 4 years?

Labels: Democratic Party, election 2008, immigration policies, Iraq War, national healthcare, presidential candidate, republican

President Theodore Roosevelt. The name evokes an image of a powerful President, and the growth of America as a serious world power. This one titular President made perhaps the most famous of Presidential quotes, “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.” [Actually an African proverb that he co-opted]

It is because of the image and actions of this President that Presidential candidates of both parties use his words to try to puff-up their own images. Virtually every candidate has done it, each in reference to goals they wish to promote. And in my opinion, none of them deserve or embody the legacy of the 26th President. Let me be clear.

Many candidates want to use or paraphrase the famous quote cited above, to improve their stature when speaking on issues like the Iraq war, terrorism, Afghanistan and America’s role in the world. It would be impressive if any of them actually had a solid plan for those issues. But as politics have become more MTV driven, in that there is little substance but lots of motion giving the impression something is happening, the soundbites are as close as any candidate gets to being a strong leader of our military.

Many candidates want to quote and refer to the strides President Roosevelt made against corporate corruption, implying they too can help improve the economy and preserve the 401k’s and retirement funds of the nation. Yet the plans stated to date, including taking corporate profits for redistribution or expanding/creating government programs, seem to go against that fiscal responsibility. Again the bluster fails to reach the pinnacles of the quotes and image.

Theodore Roosevelt was an important President. He was the first to have a Black man as a dinner guest in the White House. That was in 1901. Current candidates cannot compete with that, given. But they also seem incapable of doing anything comparable. Some would roll over in the face of political pressure found in polls on standing on this issue or that. Others are adamant in following only one course without a concept of what repercussions may be the result.

I don’t mind that the various candidates want to look like more of a leader than the other. I just wish one actually was more of a leader than the others. Quotes from those that have done things are never equal to those pretending to be of equal importance.

President Roosevelt had served in the military, ran state government, ran the Navy, a polymath, an author, an explorer, head of his political party, and was a boxing enthusiast. Most of the candidates today can barely stand in the shadow of his experience, before he ever became Vice-President or President. As such they should never try to use his limelight to make themselves shine. It just reminds us of how far less they offer in a time we need so much more.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Afghanistan War, Iraq War, President Roosevelt, presidential candidate, terrorism, Theodore Roosevelt

Continued from Comments on the National Intelligence Estimate Part 1...

But that would ignore the benefits I received. Beyond the improved health and fitness that was an immediate result were the less obvious benefits. My self-discipline was heightened and has helped me every day since graduating the Island. My attention to detail has allowed me to perform my work more efficiently. I have greater self-confidence thus helping me succeed in careers I never thought I would take on, like becoming a successful stockbroker, or working overseas in import-export in Moscow. My determination to excel has lead to me building a business that now comprises several divisions.

Such are the benefits of actions that happened 20 years ago, that an outside observer at the time would imply were negatives.

Such is a similar point made by Senator Bond.

“Your news analysis asks, “Are we safer?” The answer is emphatically yes. Our efforts to combat terrorism worldwide have prevented Al Qaeda from attacking the United States since Sept. 11, 2001, and have disrupted known terrorist plots to carry out further attacks on American soil.”

In any path there are hardships and loss. The goal, if worthwhile, is always difficult to attain in the simplest description. But when politics are used to incite emotion, and to interpret results the results will never be the best.

The war on terror has worked. The fact that we have not lost thousands of lived of average citizens proves that. 300 million Americans sleep safer today because of the efforts of our Armed Forces. That is a fact proven not in some flashy ad, or neat accounting numbers, but in the least glamorous ability of waking up and going to work routinely.

Could there have been better decisions? Yes. Could the Iraq and Pakistani governments be more helpful and effective? Absolutely. Is there a danger to the average citizen if we quickly retreat from Iraq?

“It [the NIE] makes clear that the threat from Al Qaeda in Iraq is not just to Iraqis — it’s to the U.S. homeland as well.”

Forget the politics. Don’t think of who will be the next President. The current issue is what we are doing now, and how that will affect us in the future. Rushing headlong into a situation is not an answer. Acting on emotion, whipped up because of one political preference or another, is foolhardy. And in my opinion any that would promote action without thought of consequences is foolhardy, even if they might think their action beneficial.

Without delving for implication, the NIE states there is good and bad in regard to our actions in Iraq. The best course of action is the planning and implementing of actions that improve the bad and continue the good. It may not be good for a soundbite, but it is good for the nation. Partisan politics are a great thing, in peacetime. Effective plans of action are best now.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: al quida, Iraq War, National Intelligence Estimate, New York Times, Senator Kit Bond

Well here is something that has me wondering. The Presidential candidates and other noted political figures have all made statements about the nuclear program in Iran. Let me correct myself, several of the candidates, not all. But the fact that any have commented is interesting.


This occurred at the press conference hosted by The Israel Project (TIP). The goal is stated as increased sanctions and pressure to cause Iran to end their nuclear efforts. Which is a pretty strong stance for several candidates, especially when the efforts to retreat from Iraq are considered.

This is important to think about because Iraq is directly connected to this. The connection is that Iran is helping to create instability in Iraq. Because of that the foreign policy of the next President may dictate how the Middle East will be over the next decade.

Consider this. If America retreats from Iraq, and pressures Iran with sanctions, Iran must try to absorb parts of Iraq (or effectively control them) to avoid the economic pain. At the same time, Iran can use the disenfranchised to bolster anti-American sentiment – promoting terrorists that would seek to attack Americans world-wide. On top of that, there is no guarantee that Iran would stop its nuclear ambitions.

That is scary, terrorists with nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, if America stays in Iraq and continues to fight Iran will still continue to support instability in the region. Not as much as without a U.S. presence, but still all the same. The economic pressure cannot be offset (or is minimized) by gaining access to Iraq. Fewer terrorists can be trained and any continued efforts of nuclear weapons can have the added fear of a pre-emptive strike by American forces. The cost of all this is American soldier lives. Not tens of thousands, but thousands per year.

Neither situation is foolproof. Nor will either make the U.S. public happy. It will cost American lives either way. And the Middle East will continue to be in turmoil for a decade at least.

Which effort is best? Which outcome is most likely? There is no answer. There is also no answer on what plan is the best from ANY of the Presidential candidates. One of the candidates must come up with a plan and let us know what is going on. Obviously any plan will not satisfy the whole of America. But a plan is better than none at all. I think everyone will agree on that.

So the question is, to prevent/persuade/deter Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, what do we do in Iraq?

Labels: election 2008, Iran, Iraq War, nuclear weapons, presidential candidate, terrorism, The Israel Project

This is turning out to be quite the Presidential race. With this early start we the public have been given the opportunity to delve deeper than ever before about each of the candidates. The news media have taken time to make sure we know exactly what is going on.

So far we have heard hard hitting news on hairstyles, best television episodes, and suntans at the beach. We have been reminded of how many times a candidate has been in drag, who is quitting smoking, and who won’t win at American Idol.

The depth of what we know is massive.

Yet who can tell me what exact plan each, or any candidate has to exit Iraq (or to stay there)? What coverage has been heard of exactly who will pay for national healthcare, or how the pharmaceutical industry will remain motivated to seek out new drugs to cure diseases plaguing our aging populace? Where did the Presidential candidates outline their planned efforts to manage the economy?

I can tell you how much the various homes of the candidates cost, how much money they have raised on the internet or by corporate donors, and how much of a carbon footprint their private jets leave.

But what do we know about HR 180 IH? Has one candidate even mentioned it? For that matter, how many things that affect the daily lives of Americans have actually been mentioned by the candidates? I don’t mean the recent (they all started talking about the environment about 1 month ago, just as it got more attention in the news media) hot topic, I mean how schools will be improved. How about transportation to get you to work, or infrastructure that will get cheaper, higher quality cell phone service to those in Middle America where it doesn’t exist. What about ensuring that terrorists are assuaged from entering the nation from our northern border that never gets discussed.

With all this extra time, to find out so many details, why don’t we have actual answers? Why is it that we have plenty of pat, rote, 30 second soundbites that are virtually the same along party lines for each candidate?

"If HIV/AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country."

Nice line. Really pumps up people. Of course it was only mentioned to a specific target group, and does not answer what to do about the problem. Why do the candidates, with all this extra time, not mention a plan to resolve these issues. The above quote could have been made to the public, in one of the various interviews or via the internet (like on YouTube), so that Primetime America could hear that HIV/AIDS is still killing people in THIS nation. A plan could be outlined saying that X dollars could be spent to organize a governmental directive to lower the number of new cases by year 200X. That nothing less than reducing the 1.3 million cases known in this nation to 1 million in 2 years was a goal. That protecting the nation from diseases like this is why we need national healthcare.

Any one of the candidates could have said that. None have. None have said anything effectively. So why all the extra time.

If the Presidential race is only about who was divorced, who got cheated on, who looks good, or who can rattle off the most effective 30 seconds of fluff, WE have the wrong candidates. If the election is about the improvement of the nation, backed up with plans and goals, then we will have a better America.

Don’t you think so?

Labels: AIDS, american idol, HIV, HR 180 IH, Iraq War, national healthcare, presidential election

Concluded from Discussing retreat or fighting in Iraq Part 2...

There is no simple solution to this situation. Blame covers virtually ever member of Congress and the Executive branch. The reasons for enacting this war, no matter how questionable today, have been supported by more than the majority of Congress up until the 2nd quarter of 2006. Even until the end of April 2007 the general consensus has been in support.

Partisan bickering has not resolved any of the issues involved. No effective plan has been offered as a counter to the existing one. No plan currently includes the probable outcomes 2 years or more down the road.

Anger at various officials has overshadowed the actual events ongoing. If President Bush were to be replaced by ANYONE at this moment, there still would be no better plan in place than what exists at this moment. In fact there would be less of a plan in place (based on the exact plans declared by virtually all the candidates to date) thus promoting chaos.

Emotion must be removed, as well as partisan election games, to reach an effective middle road. Extremes are ineffective and costly. Lack of planning is terrifying. We are America, better can be done.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Afghanistan War, Congress, Iraq War, presidential candidate, terrorist attack

Continued from Discussing retreat or fighting in Iraq Part 1...

Looking at the other side of this issue, we see those that wish to fight until all opposition is removed. Such an action requires the building of a colony or commonwealth. It would involved the complete takeover by the United States. Iraq would cease to be independent and fighting would continue for about 2 generations. This plan would require that America rebuild the entire nation. A new infrastructure, buildings, economy and education system would need to be created. Military bases would have to be installed. The cost to America would be enormous, with any return on the investments there not being seen for 5 years to a decade.

An immediate problem would be the response by moderate and liberal nations in the world. France as an example would likely be outraged by ‘actions in America that harkens back to imperialist empire-building.’ During the first 10 years at least there would be constant attacks on Iraq, with several nations (notably Iran) claiming that this was an attack on Islam. The loss of soldiers would increase roughly 10-fold over the first 10 years.

Given history, it would be expected that assimilation would begin after the generation raised with improved facilities (hospitals, schools, running water, ect) reached the age of 25, and began families of their own. By the second generation internal support of America would be high and the improved quality of life would draw more moderate individuals from neighboring countries. Stateside, there would be fewer attacks but they would be more severe, as the emphasis would be on destabilizing Iraq. Liberals in America would be enraged, and strong divisions in both political parties would emerge. Taxes would increase to offset the investment in Iraq, but economic returns would improve roughly 7-12 years after the start of this program.

As neither of these extremes is attractive, or viable, what alternative exists? There is no plan offered currently other than that of continued fighting. The current plan requires Iraq to stabilize it’s government, which is not happening. The near civil war in Iraq will likely take about a decade to resolve, with continued U.S. support. Current strategies will continue the slow loss of American soldiers and high cost of fighting. Within 2 years taxes will have to be increased to cover the cost. The strain on the economy will be increased, and corporations will seek to gouge business in Iraq to make up for the risk and protracted cost.

Without U.S. support, actual civil war will occur, with Iran and several other nations supporting various groups in the fighting. The Middle East will have higher tensions, oil prices will go up. Hundreds of thousands will die. Likely an autocratic if not theocratic government will be formed and tens of thousand will be jailed in response to having aided the U.S. efforts or those of other groups. The children that lost family, as well as grown adults will be convinced that America was the cause of the current ills, and that they are worse than the subjugation of Saddam Hussein and the Baath party. Within 7 years, recruits to Al Quida and similar groups will triple to a 5-fold increase. Within 2 years of a gradual loss of U.S. support, without a strong central government, America will have a major attack, with several minor attacks similar to those that have occurred in England happening before and after the main attack.

Continued in Part 3...

Labels: Afghanistan War, Congress, Iraq War, presidential candidate, terrorist attack

Not long ago there was a battle in the Congress to bring troops fighting in Iraq back to America. This was lead by the Democratic party, based in part on the results of the 2006 mid-term elections where Democrats ran on the platform of change in Iraq policy. The Democrats failed to force the President to withdraw immediately, the only concession being the establishment of a timeline where the status of the new surge policy would be evaluated in September 2007.

Today there is renewed efforts to bring the troops back home. While the initial push for this same policy was a partisan effort, largely, 5 months ago this new effort is more bi-partisan. Some are stating they are unwilling to wait to learn the results of the strategic change, and are demanding the troops return. Without regard to political affiliation this is a serious issue with ramifications that will affect America for decades. As such some need to pause and evaluate what we are doing, and attempting to do.

Looking at the extremist views, in particular on the left, there is a call to leave Iraq immediately. Those that have this view seek to turn and run from Iraq. Semantics aside, that is what immediate withdrawal means. Let’s consider the implications of such an action. I will guarantee that upon news of an immediate withdrawal several things will happen. The first is that the news will be broadcast over Al Jazira (an Arabic equivalent of CNN or other cable news networks). Many of the most extreme militant groups in the Middle East watch this program regularly, and would learn of this act immediately. Within hours news of this would reach Afghanistan and Iraq, or more particularly those who are fighting American troops. EVERY nation in the world would see this as a loss for America, and in the Middle East anti-American groups would be dancing in the streets.

Within days of that news, attacks on American troops would increase. That is not a guess, it’s basic military strategy. The opponent is turning their back to flee, which means any aggressive action will have greater effect. The higher level of direct attacks, plus the demoralizing effect on American troops (no one likes to lose a fight, and as a nation that is the strongest in the world, losing to a few small groups is a smack in the face) would be devastating. Any student of military strategy will tell you that attacking retreating forces will cause them to have greater casualties, and confusion. Of course that does not include the fact that opponents of America will rally to Iraq, being in on the winning side is either a matter of self-preservation in a post-war country or a bragging point.

Going beyond the immediate increase of enemy forces, increased attacks, and the change in morale is the question of what happens stateside. Sleeper cells in the United States would be emboldened. New cells will seek to enter the nation. Within 6 months, several attacks will occur in several major cities. This is not random speculation but highly probable actions determined from the stated goals of militants that we are currently fighting, military strategies, and the rush of new recruits to organizations that will claim they cause America to ‘cower in fear and run away’. Looking across the world, and throughout history this always happens to nations that flee a fight of this nature.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Afghanistan War, Congress, Iraq War, presidential candidate

With half the over, and pundits as well as candidates crowing about how much money they raised, I have prepared to release the current results of my poll on who might win the 2008 Presidential election. Before I mention who is leading my informal poll I want to bring up something far more important. It’s not the question of how much money is coming to each of the candidates from the healthcare lobby (which is substantial – Senator Clinton leads on that) or other corporate donations. It’s not how the candidates have used the internet to gain funds from the general public (which even with the record breaking numbers raised by Senator Obama pale to the lobbyist and corporate donation). I’m not even looking at how pundits are so focused on the issue of money raised they discount anyone who has not raised enough money (like Mr. John Edwards and Senator McCain). No, the issue is that while every candidate has a website, roughly 42% of the public can’t find answers about the issues.

According to a iCrossing study, 42% is the number of people searching for information on issues and candidates only to find nothing is there. This includes websites for the candidates themselves. You might say well if those Americans that are say 45+ are looking they are not as familiar with the internet and computers, so it might be a mistake on their part. If you did say that yoou are wrong. The emphasis of those looking online for information are between thwe ages of 18 – 35.

Forty-seven percent of those who go online for information about candidates and issues use search engines to conduct their research, equal to the 46 percent who do not.

Of potential voters who are looking for election information online, 61 percent of 18 to 24 year olds and 55 percent of 25 to 34 year olds seek answers on user-driven content sites such as blogs, YouTube and Wikipedia.

Issue- oriented searches dominate over explorations of candidates' voting and personal histories by a margin of nearly two to one; yet nearly all candidates rank poorly for issue-based search visibility.

I want to emphasize that last part, nearly all candidates rank poorly for issue-based search visibility. Why is it so difficult to find answers about issues on a Presidential candidate’s website? They want to tell you how friendly, joe-average, just like you, they are, but they won’t speak clearly and definitively about say national healthcare. Or what is their exist strategy for Iraq, or what happens after we are gone. Information gets fuzzy about social security, or providing an education to ALL the children of the nation. Not even a straight answer on what they want to do about illegal immigration.

Let me be clear, I’m not saying that they have a soundbite; I’m talking about a plan. A beginning, middle and end. A structured outline that anyone who can read can understand or at least follow. You can easily learn why Mr. John Edwards paid $400 for a haircut, or that Senator Obama quit smoking, or how many times Mr. Rudy Giuliani has appeared in drag. But do you care? Is any of that more important to making sure that when you go to sleep at night, or your loved ones go to work, that you won’t have to fear a terrorist attack? How does the information they give compare to whether they can ensure that the American dream of your children living a better life than yours will be a reality?

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: immigration policies, Iraq War, Mitt Romney, presidential candidate, presidential election, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

Here is something annoying. You have not heard a single Presidential candidate speak about this. I don’t recall any news media coverage of this. Were it not for the efforts of Mr. Don Cheadle, and several other prominent actors, and the humanitarian award he received I might not have heard about this. Not that there was any significant attention made about Mr. Cheadle getting the award or why.

The point is that the United States government has reacted pitifully in regard to Darfur. So far 3 sessions of Congress have been discussing this and still nothing has been done. And here is the proof. On January 4th Representative Lee introduced HR 180 IH. If you wonder what that means it’s the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 (Introduced in House). So far any attempt at accountability has gone out the window.

As of my writing this now, as Congress prepares to go on July 4th celebration seven months after introducing this bill the best thing that can be said is that it only took 3 months for a subcommittee meeting on this. In virtually seven months there has been no movement on this bill since March 20th. Perhaps if the members of Congress were in danger of losing loved ones there might be more action on the matter.

Now some of you may be saying, ‘Hold on, we don’t need to start another war.’ Others may be saying, ‘What is HR 180 IH?’

The answer to the first is that the bill doesn’t require the United States to put a single solider anywhere they aren’t already. The answer to the second is

“To require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan, to prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies, and for other purposes.”

Basically this bill cuts off money that goes to support what the 108th Congress

“declares that the atrocities unfolding in the Darfur region of Sudan, are genocide.”

That was almost 3 years ago to the day. How many have died since that time do you think? The GENOCIDE was unfolding according to Congress, it still exists, and we barely hear anything about it.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell told Congress there was a genocide, President Bush told the U.N. that there as a genocide, yet only 4 states have passed laws requiring that no company doing business with the Sudan can do business with their state. Odds are it’s not your state. I can guarantee that it’s not New York State, home of Wall Street, and where the big six brokerage houses invest millions of dollars in mutual funds that could be doing business with [thus supporting] the Sudan and genocide.

I bet that 99% of those reading this now, that have a pension or mutual fund, have no idea what that mutual fund is invested in. I would bet that 99.5% have no idea what businesses might be supporting the Sudan government. Yet I am sure that, of those over 30 [which is maybe 50% of my readers] everyone was for and supported the bans against South Africa and Apartheid back in 1986.

To my knowledge, virtually every member of Congress is old enough to have at least heard about the 1986 bans. They have no excuse.

Of the 24 colleges mentioned in this bill there is not one that I am aware of that is a Black college. That could be simply an oversite of Representative Lee, or that they are doing matters separate of this bill. But I recall that back in ’86, there was more than one black college that was invested in South Africa.

Perhaps Congress can sleep at night without doing more than speaking about this terrible situation. Perhaps they have more to do in preparing their particular candidate for the 2008 election, or raising funds for that candidate. Perhaps every candidate for President right now can’t spend any time to come up with a 30 second soundbite for Darfur, as there isn’t enough time after explaining the resolution to Iraq, taxes, terrorism, social security, and why they are so great and warm people. Each of those points explained in 30 second soundbites. Perhaps the moderators of the debates are too overwhelmed with questions on when America will be out of Iraq, that question can be and has been asked in each debate maybe 20 different ways, to find one on Darfur.

I know that I was too busy writing to 6 blogs, and growing my company to stop and get into this issue. But at some point you have to stop and say, I can do more.

Well here I am doing more. I’ve raised the bar. Now you know. What will you do? Will you get in touch with you Congressional representative and ask them what they did over the 4th of July while people died and a simple resolution sat on the congressional floor? Will you take a moment to read HR 180 IH, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: African American, Colin Powell, Congress, Darfur, Don Cheadle, genocide, HR 180 IH, Iraq War

Continued from Presidential Candidates and national healthcare Part 1...

I found a portion of a report on how much money ALL the Presidential candidates have received from healthcare industry contributions. While I’m glad I found the report via a blog post by Sister Joyous Whip of Enlightenment, I must also mention that this post does not contain the full news release. Shane on you for not getting the whole story out there. The full news release can be seen on Yahoo News. What both sites show is the following,

“…candidates have accepted more than $3.7 million in campaign contributions this year from healthcare industry sources, with more than 45% of it going to just two candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney…”

That might or might not sound like a lot of money, until you look back over time. Adding all 18 Presidential candidates together we find that

“Presidential candidates total an aggregate $12.8 million since 1989 -- with 29% of that total donated just in the first quarter of 2007 alone.”

So far this year alone

“Clinton topped the recipient list with $868,722, 23% of all the healthcare money donated to candidates this year. Romney was a close second at $833,385, 22% of the total dollars. The other frontrunners followed. Sen. Barack Obama, with $574,268, 15%; Sen. John McCain, $423,751, 11%; former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, $408,822, also 11%; and former Sen. John Edwards, $222,950, 6%.”

So the question must be asked, how impartial are the candidates when it comes to the question of national healthcare. It’s not a question of one party or another being more inclined to work on this issue. It’s not a question of if this is a good idea. Virtually anyone will concede that the likelihood is that some form of national healthcare will happen. But having an effective plan that is run better than the usual manner government agencies are run, is critical for it to work.

Do you think this is why so few sent representatives to the Accountability Coalition event? Is this why no Presidential candidate of either party will respond to my letters? Is this why we get soundbites and partial answers to a question that many in the nation want, and will affect everyone in the nation at some point?

The issues that are involved with the 2008 election are far too great and long-term in reach to be taken lightly. From terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy, and many other issues we deserve answers that go into depth. Then we can make a decision that is the best for the nation as a whole.

Copy the questions at M V Consulting, add your own, and send them to your favorite Presidential candidate. Let’s get the answers and get what the nation needs.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Accountability Coalition, Iraq War, M V Consulting, Mitt Romney, presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

Continued from Some spin about the Presidential candidates Part 1...

But why is Senator Clinton so polarizing? What makes this one candidate so despised on one side and loved on the other? Is it the anger some have over the war in Iraq? Is it the actions of President Bush that is the real motivation, masking the actions of Senator Clinton?

Negative ads are bad. 30 second soundbite answers do no justice to the populace as we seek serious answers to serious questions affecting current and future generations. But to gloss over the failure in American politics as being a one-sided group of events is to be either naïve or ignorant of the truth.

Both parties have corporate backers spending millions on promoting one candidate or another. All the backers will obviously want some kind of consideration for the winning candidate. All the candidates have weaknesses. Several have serious character flaws, and many have flipped positions that bring their real political standpoints into question.

I don’t mind that everyone is interested in this Presidential race. It’s an important one. It will affect this country and the world at large for decades. But to look at it in a myopic view is ridiculous to me. I have yet to see a candidate that is not taking large funds from corporations and ultra-rich individuals that have a specific agenda. Not one of the candidates has been explicit in their positions on critical issues.

By that I mean, while several have stated in no uncertain terms that they will remove our troops from Iraq, they have not mentioned how this will be done nor what they will do to ensure that future aggressors will be prevented from creating a base once we are gone. While several candidates have said they will seek to create a national healthcare system, none have mentioned how this will be funded, how pharmaceutical companies will be motivated to create new drugs, nor what will prevent this system from being run like the Post Office, VA, or the DMV [the inefficiencies of each are too vast to go into detail about].

These are just a few of the issues that need to be discussed. Until there are clear answers, picking on either party or candidate is useless and worse distracting.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Democratic Party, Iraq War, national healthcare, presidential candidate, Republican Party, Senator Hillary Clinton

I am so annoyed. And I think everyone in America should be as well. At least those that use the internet and blogging. We are all being used in a terrible way, and I have to comment on it.

I have posted several of my letters to various presidential candidates from both parties, that have been sent since December 2006. I’ve mentioned that to this moment none have replied. I’ve even reported on how I have been ignored by my state senator, and received unsolicited mass mails, but not a single response. And I am not alone.

Thousands if not millions have been contacted, enticed and solicited via email and the internet for one Presidential candidate or another from both political parties. I have no problem with that. I have not committed funds or an endorsement, personally or with my corporation, for any party or Presidential hopeful. But neither I nor the general public have received anything in exchange for these requests of support other than a couple of soundbites. Our vote is not that cheap.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy, immigration, homeland security, education, abortion and many other issues cannot be answered in 90 second bits. There is not a single intelligent person on the planet that can answer fully and honestly any of those issues in that time frame. It can’t be done. Yet both political parties hope that we will accept just that in selecting who will run for President in 2008. Even the selected meetings, chosen to highlight and benefit the various candidates, are structured to provide soundbites for the evening news, cable news, and bloggers. That just doesn’t cut the mustard.

Why is this being done? Why does it cost so much to run for President? Because it has become more MTV driven than ever before. Debates are no longer about substance, but about who appears more Presidential. It’s not what is being said, but what gets quoted. And at the same time fewer people follow the debates and coverage than ever before. As a matter of fact, my informal questioning has brought me to the conclusion that fewer people today even know what the Republican and Democratic parties stand for.

Drop the hot button question of how long we will be in Iraq, and tell me what the parties want? Does the American public want to end the war now or win and leave? What preparations are planned for the repercussions of either decision? What’s actually best for the nation and why? What can or will any of the candidates do to improve healthcare or education in the inner cities? What does it mean to be a mainstream Democrat or Republican? Most people I as these questions haven’t the slightest idea, but they know one party or another is better for the nation. Almost invariably I get quoted a soundbite or commercial for one person or another, without any clue as to what context that soundbite applies to. We are being bought cheaply.

I think this is enough. We deserve better answers and more of them. If hiring bloggers with ranks similar to mine are good enough to solicit the public, then mine is good enough to give a response to. And it’s good enough to inform you the public. I’m not just picking at the Presidential candidates I’ve sent letters to, but also the political parties I sent a letter to [on March 30, 2007 – to info@nygop.org and nysdems@nysdems.org ]. I will post the letters that I sent out to the Democratic and Republican parties.

I am left with a question, why do the candidates and their respective parties seem afraid to give any response? Why don’t they want to answer direct and important questions? Why do they not want to be responsible to the people they wish to govern?

So I ask you this, read the letters I have sent. Look for the candidate of your choice, and send them a copy of my letter (via email, link, social bookmark, or printed mail as you chose) and ask them why they can’t respond. Ask them why some of the things that will impact you and your children only deserve a 90 second incomplete answer. Ask why a soundbite is worth your financial support or more importantly your vote.

If you earned a promotion, raise, commission, higher grade or whatever and you were given an incomplete 30 or 90 second response, you would ask for a better response. So am I, with your help.

I look forward to your responses.
This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Afghanistan War, Democratic Party, Iraq War, presidential candidate, presidential election, Republican Party

This is an unaltered copy of a letter sent to Mr. Rudy Giuliani. Any response made will be posted, unaltered, when recieved.

To see other letters sent to Presidential candidates, visit M V Consulting, Inc.

April 5, 2007

Mr. Giuliani,

I am writing you in regard to your current attempt to gain the Republican nomination for the race for President of the United States in 2008. I am a native New Yorker and lived in the city during your time as Mayor of that city. I am also President of M V Consulting, Inc., a non-partisan corporation that has not contributed to any politician or political group, which maintains several internet businesses including blogs. I add that I have not contributed to any politician or party, nor have any of my sites advocated any individual or party in regard to the upcoming Presidential election.

I say all of this because I would like to ask you some questions on why you feel you should be President of the United States. It is my goal to post your response, as well as this letter, unaltered on my blogs for my readers to evaluate. I feel that the 2008 election is a critical point for the United States and its future. As such I believe it is important for as wide an audience of the public as possible to be informed in their voting choices. In addition I feel it important that I inform you that no changes to any response you provide will be made.

I add that I have already sent a similar letter to several other candidates of both parties. If you wish to review the letters that were sent previously, and where any response you make will be placed, please go to:

www.blackentertainmentblog.com
www.mvass.com
www.vassconsult.com/politics/election2008.html

I thank you in advance for your co-operation in answering these questions for my readers and myself.

For many Americans the first time you came to national attention was after the attacks of September 11. What many may not realize is that you started your political career as a Democrat. What led you to change your political affiliation? What changed in your political ideology that caused this move?

Many may not recall that in 1989 you ran for Mayor of New York City and lost to Mr. David Dinkins. What did you attribute to this loss and what did you learn from it?

During your time as Mayor of New York City you implemented several programs that had mixed results. One of those actions was the renovation of the West 42nd street area. Many native New Yorkers feel that the area was sold out to major corporations, in particular Disney, and the soul of the area was lost as well as multiple mom-and-pop business owners. To those detractors, what would you say were your reasons and what benefits were gained by the average New Yorker?

Another matter that was received in a mixed manner was your choice of police commissioner and the law enforcement policies during your term of office. During your time as Mayor, Mr. Amidou Diallo and Mr. Patrick Dorismond were murdered by police officers in a disturbing manner and Mr. Abner Louima was tortured by police officers which was then attempted to be covered up. These policies and your defense of the police department created a significant atmosphere of anger and cries of racism among the African American, Hispanic/Latino and other minority groups in the city; that was not covered significantly across the nation. For those African American and minority voters in the nation, what are your views on law enforcement? Where do you stand on Affirmative Action and other reforms that address racial inequality?

Considering the strong stance against organized crime and for law enforcement, as seen from your actions mentioned above and in your work as a U.S. Attorney, what stance do you believe America should take under your potential leadership towards countries such as Iran, and towards terrorist groups such as Al Quida?

Considering the record number of drop-outs that are African American, and the problems in education nationally in general, what efforts would you emphasize to improve the situation?

Of late there has been a great deal of discussion regarding a national healthcare program. Are you in favor of such a program and if so how would you fund this program? One of the arguments against such a program involves the question of whether the quality of healthcare could be maintained, and what motivation or incentive would pharmaceutical companies have to continue to research new medicines. What are your thoughts on this?

A current focus point of debate is the War in Iraq. Many Americans are upset about the status of the war, and others seek to retreat from this engagement entirely. Repercussions from any decision in this matter are probable to have ramifications for some time in the future of this nation. Where do you stand on this debate? What path do you intend to follow if you are elected? What do you see as potential outcomes of your proposed actions in the next 5 years?

It is well known that you are a cancer survivor. The health of the future President of the nation is a concern for many Americans. To that end I ask what your current health status is. In addition, I would never wish cancer on anyone, but if your cancer were to return and you had been elected President how do you believe you will react? Based on your experience initially, how do you feel this could affect you actions and responsibilities as President?

In recent media interviews you mentioned that your wife could be involved in non-policy meetings, if you are elected. Many may have heard this comment and the flurry of comments about it. Not as many may have heard your subsequent explanation on this matter. Could you explain that for my readers?

I want to thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I look forward to your response. I again mention that this letter and any response will be posted without any alteration.

Sincerely,
Michael Vass

President - M V Consulting, Inc.
Author - Black Entertainment USA and Vass
vass@vassconsult.com
718-344-6921

Labels: African American, education, Iraq War, New York City, presidential candidate, presidential election, republican, Rudy Giuliani, universal healthcare

Continued from part 1...

If someone says “so and so just said you sleep with animals” and you hit so and so, it doesn’t matter that what you were told wasn’t true or only partially true. You will be in a fight all the same. I it’s known that you stop fighting once you get a bloody nose, I’d expect you will get hit in the nose. If you do stop fighting because your nose starts to bleed, it doesn’t mean the other person is going to stop fighting, in fact I’d expect them to kick your arse now that you stopped resisting. Every kid in elementary schoolyards understands that.

I try to understand the conspiracists that feel Americans staged the 9/11 attack on other Americans. I am lost at how anyone could agree with this. I am befuddled. Where is the logic in it? What is the gain? Is there anything of worth for America in Afghanistan? Did we need to kill Americans to attack Iraq? Didn’t we fight a war previously without any attacks on our soil?

I wonder how anyone can claim that EVERY Jewish person was out of the Towers and away from the area. I personally know for a fact that several I know where there and injured. I am told from friends of Jewish persons being part of those that died. I wonder how anyone could know the religion of every person that didn’t show up for work that day, or everyone that died to be able to make such a claim. I wonder how many Black Americans, Hispanic Americans and Whites and other minorities didn’t make it to the Towers that day. What are the percentages? If more women didn’t show up to work for the attack does that mean that N.O.W. organized the attacks? If that sounds ludicrous (which I feel it is) how is any other group of Americans more credible?

If it were Jewish Americans what could they gain? America already supports Israel. The Twin Towers were not owned by any Jewish corporations or persons at that time to my knowledge. If the profit were shared among Jews the payout from the insurance is worthless unless a handful of people were involved. If it were a handful, why would they need to kill thousands just to get a minor amount of money? Wouldn’t it have been easier to simply use hijacked planes that were empty and attack in the middle of the night?

Of course all Americans have a right to think whatever they wish. They have the freedom to make any movie, or help distribute any movie, they wish and can afford. But where is the logic in this theory? Where is the gain? And what consequence is likely? Wouldn’t EVERY enemy America use such a film to denounce the war in Afghanistan and Iraq? Wouldn’t EVERY militant Muslim group point to such a film to gain recruits and funds? Wouldn’t every terrorist use such propaganda to incite attacks against Americans everywhere in the world?

And I have to consider how different the actions of liberals today are from the actions of liberals during Viet Nam. How much support is shown by retreating from the fight now? How much respect is given to those that VOLUNTEERED to fight in IRAQ? How much confidence are we inspiring as congressmen and women seek to enact restrictions that would prevent soldiers from protecting themselves [part of the recent bill passed by 218 congressmen and women requires that there must be a 15 day prior notice to Congress before any troops can be moved into Iraq. Thus is troops need support from the air, they would need to wait 15 days to get a C130 in with supplies. This is a fact not a supposition. Read page 72 of the bill.] I wonder how long it will be before ultra-liberals call the troops baby-killers as they did to those that returned from Viet Nam.

These are things I wonder and see. What about you?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Afghanistan War, Congress, Iraq War, Twin Towers, Viet Nam

So I’m sitting back and I start to wonder. I wonder about a lot of things when I have a free moment. I like to look at the logic of things and follow them to their logical most probable outcome. Perhaps it could (and has) be called mental masturbation. Tell me what you think of my musings.

I think about global warming. I wonder what was the temperature of the world in 1492, or 500, or 1776, or even 1865. There is no answer, though there are several guesses by very intelligent people that refuse to say “I don’t know.” I wonder how many people were alive in the world at those times. I’m quite sure there were less than what is in the world today. Half a billion? 2 billion? Who knows. But if the number is set at say 1 billion in 1492, just to have a fixed number, I wonder how much more CO2 has been created by human beings breathing and living as we grew to the estimated 6+ billion today.

I wonder how much CO2 will magically disappear if every source of fossil fuels were ended today. How might food get transported around the world, or homes heated, or lights for the darkness without the fuel? I question if CO2 levels will continue to rise when the world hits 7 billion people breathing and living.

I ponder the fact that if weather is cyclic for the planet, nothing we do will change the weather. I ponder how much of an effect the moon is having on weather patterns as it continues to slowly escape the orbit of the earth.

I have to consider whether or not the removal of every soldier in Iraq will stabilize that nation. I have to believe that anyone that can make a strategy to play any video game, from Resident Evil to The Sims, should be able to understand that if there is an absolute date set for the retreat of our troops, any enemies to our nation would just wait till that day to take serious action in that power vacuum. I consider the thought that if we retreat every child, brother, sister, mother, father and other person that has lost someone in this war will be an easy recruit for anyone blaming their loss and any other ills in Iraq on the retreating U.S. troops. I consider the reaction of every anti-American nation on the day the last solider leaves and Al Quida and other groups claim they forced America to run away from them; similar in the way Hamas has claimed they beat Israel in their recent conflict. I come to a conclusion that while the soldiers sent home will be safe from fighting a war away from home, this will only be temporary as some group or nation takes the retreat as a sign of cowardice and weakness and attacks the nation. I conclude that a citizen will be a larger target when traveling away from home as fear of reaction is lessened, and the thought of long-term action is minimized. I am lead to believe that this was the reason, at least in part, why the Twin Towers were attacked in the first place. Because the nation lacked the resolve to finish a fight.

I have to stop and consider that there is no direct connection between the 9/11 attack and the start of the war in Iraq. I understand that that point is moot though, as we are fighting in Iraq. It may not have been the war we should have fought, but it is the war we are fighting. And it will be a fight that will influence future terrorist attacks here at home and abroad in the future. Arguments about the start of the war are useless in resolving the war itself. Seems obvious.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Afghanistan War, global warming, Iraq War, Twin Towers

Have you read the comments by William Arkin? Published by the Washington Post on January 30, 2007, Arkin blathers on with one of the most insulting displays I have seen in quite some time. His comments are disrespectful, ignorant, disloyal, and incendiary. It is comments like this that give me concern both in the next election and the future of this nation.

The words of this individual are crass and smug. Perhaps he thought that only he and his friends could understand his words and their barely implied meanings. Perhaps he felt that those of us that are, or were, in the Armed Forces could not understand his insults. If that was the case he is sorely mistaken.

When he states in his article, “I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army” he either thinks he is being witty or we the readers are not. By making this statement he has implied that he is not for those who are in the military expressing their ideas. He would not have to make the emphasis if that were the case, nor would he exclude the Marines, Coast Guard, Air Force and Navy as well as the related reserves. From this alone he makes his position absolutely clear, and it is far from one of tolerance.

He later goes on to say that soldiers should be grateful that the public “still offer their support to them, and their respect.” He then purports that the American public should not support or respect the Armed Forces because, “through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.”

Perhaps Arkin was never taught a lesson I learned long ago from my father, a Viet Nam Marine, that respect is something that is earned. The entire American military has earned the respect of the citizens in the Revolution, War of 1812, Korea, Viet Nam, World War I and II, Gulf War, and now in Iraq and Afghanistan (it seems that the latter was completely forgotten about) among multiple other engagements around the world. Our Armed Forces have earned respect around the world for protecting the values and goals of our nation, and for defending the Constitution and Amendments that allow Arkin to make such comments. Were this another nation, perhaps like Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) or North Korea or Venezuela, Arkin would have the local secret police drop by and shoot him dead without repercussion or perhaps poison him with radioactive isotopes to keep him silent.

In addition, the Armed Forces are not pillaging rapists Arkin asserts. To my knowledge there has been one such occurrence of the accusations he mentioned, not the hundreds or more he barely implies. In the years of war we have currently gone through, with hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, there have barely been any incidents that do not express the efforts and actions to improve the lives of the Iraqi and Afghan people. For a purported ‘military analyst’ (that has never served in the military) located in Washington, D.C. I would expect he might have read that, or seen it on the news.

As for, “But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon,” perhaps Arkin failed to hear of the recent protest (where Mr. Tim Robbins and others were at) where protesters did spit on a serviceman [as reported on Fox News]. Perhaps Arkin is unaware of the violent protests at universities by students that have caused the cancellation of Career Days there. In both cases it is violence against the Armed Forces, reminiscent of what was done to our soldiers returning from Viet Nam. In addition even one ‘baby killer’ comment or epithet is far too much in my opinion. Were it not for these men and women, doing a job no one wants to have done and guided by the Commander-and-Chief for the benefit of the whole nation, there would be no such thing as Freedom of Speech.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Armed Forces, Fox News, Hanoi Jane, Iraq War, Viet Nam, Washington Post, William Arkin

There have been several interesting things ongoing currently with the various candidates. As we see that Democrats are trying to push a defunding of the war in Iraq, which I feel would signal our defeat to our enemies and a lack of resolve, there is also comments from various figures on what might be forth-coming if they are elected.

Senator Clinton has made several statements recently that give me pause. Prior to January 2007 the senator was a staunch supporter of the war (while most of the popularity was still mostly divided I noticed) and is now against. Not only against the plan made by the President, but is seeking to limit the President’s plan. Yet Senator Clinton has no alternate plan to offer. In addition the senator has been speaking about holding conversations to understand our enemies. It is the senator’s opinion, as I understand it, that a dialogue is the key to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, or nations supporting terrorists that wish to attack us for being rich, free and powerful. I would equate that conversation with speaking to the local school bully when he asks for your money. Anyone watching would not be surprised when the bully decides to pummel you for wasting his time.

But Senator Clinton has some thoughts [note that she has not declared any concrete plans or opinions – though to be fair nor has her opponents] on domestic issues as well. The senator has stated, and has been recorded publicly, that she would ‘take the revenues’ from oil companies to use for alternative energy research. I’m sure that will help the stock market, and make all socialists quite happy. Does that mean the next step would be taking the revenues or profits from pharmaceutical companies to pay for a national healthcare system? Then maybe nationalizing entertainment companies so that specific types of movies or television channels exist? Where might this process end?

Lastly Senator Clinton stated that if the war is continuing in January 2009, and she were elected President, she will end the war (“You have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will.”). Well I’m sure Iran, Osama bin Laden, Al Quida, and any other group that opposes the U.S. will pray for her election. It guarantees their victory in Iraq and long-term. To make such a blanket statement without qualification only emboldens the enemy to continue to fight since they have an unequivocal timeframe that removes any opposition. Not quite the words from a Commander-and-Chief seeking the best result for the nation. But in this case at least I’m glad it isn’t a declared plan. [By the way, I note Senator Clinton has also insulted President Bush by saying he has no power over the war but Congress does, unless she is the President at the time. Quite rude.]

There will be more on other candidates shortly. I will also mention my thoughts of former New York City Mayor Mr. Ruddy Gulliani, especially while I lived in the city with him as Mayor.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: democrat, Iraq War, nuclear weapons, osama bin laden, presidential election, Senator Hillary Clinton

Continued from part 1

...

Moving on, Senator Webb makes an interesting statement. Senator Webb discusses how his father, his sons, and he were all military men. The Senator served in the Marines during Viet Nam. I respect the service that he and his family have given this nation. The Senator may well have served with my own father. I or others in my family may have served with his children. That has nothing to do with what the President has decided. His patriotic decisions are not in question, nor those of his family. It added no value to his later statements. I say that with respect, as I do respect those decisions.

But the Senator goes on to mention how the American people had leaders that made wise, informed decisions. That our past leaders placed our troops in harm’s way after careful consideration. I have to ask how this is different than what President Bush has done? And I must ask Senator Webb where that trust was during the Viet Nam war, when the liberals of the nation wanted to cut support of the troops and had daily protests, and called our returning soldiers ‘baby killers.’ Perhaps Senator Webb never encountered the massive attacks against our troops and our leader then, but I know for a fact too many others did. How is the position of the Democratic Party today different than the beginnings of what happened during the Viet Nam War? And where is the trust for our leader today?

The Senator further draws on the action in Korea. How that war was ended ‘positively’ as an example of what to do today. Perhaps I view this differently, but what some viewed as a draw then is a huge loss some 50 years later, today. We left Korea, a stalemate. We never finished the war; we had a cease fire and have been there since. Korea is divided into a north and south, there is a huge DMZ, manned by tens of thousands of troops, mines and strategic missiles. How much has that cost our economy? Added to that fact is that North Korea has never stopped preparing to continue to finish the war with America. That has lead to the nuclear weapon test and potential nuclear arsenal, in a nation that hates us and will support anyone that would fight us. This is the positive reaction that Senator Webb referred to as ‘positive’ and seems to state we should emulate.

Senator Webb stated that diplomacy should guide our actions in Iraq, that we should move out soldiers off the streets, but we should not rush to leave. Yet there has been rampant talk by Democrats to cut funding (which I feel is not supporting the troops) and/or to cap the number of troops, and to create a timetable that has our troops home in a year. All of that before the President even mentioned his new plan. That is not trust in our leader. That is not supporting troops. That is leaving, that is what I call running away.

Continued in part 3...

Labels: Democratic Party, Iraq War, Senator Webb, State of the Union

I have been listening for months now and I have a question. Since shortly before the mid-term elections of 2006, there has been a cry to ‘have a political solution’ to the war in Iraq. There have been calls to end the war because it has been going on for too long. There needs to be a ‘change’ in our policy. And so on.

I want to consider each of these demands. The first I have to question is the political solution. Can anyone mention to me a single war, or even a conflict, that has ended solely via politics? Seriously, just name one. The American revolution, The French revolution, The American Civil War, Viet Nam, Korea, WWI, WWII, The Six Day War, the IRA vs. Britain, and everything else. None have ended due to political action. In each it was the actual fighting of troops that caused the cessation of combat.

As I recall, in each battle there has come a point where one side realized the futility of continuing aggression and then engaged in talks. It is not the political talks that ended the conflict, just the observation that the most probable outcome of continued action would yield no further positive results. Thus one side loses and another wins, the spoils of war being divided accordingly.

In the Civil War it meant the surrender of the South. In Viet Nam, regrettably, it meant the creation of Southern Viet Nam and huge numbers of troops being constantly stationed there. With the IRA, as I understand it, it has lead to Britain making concessions; In the Six Day War Israel gained new lands. It is the way wars go. Perhaps the only case where I think there might have been a viable political cessation to fighting was with Mahatma Gandhi. Like all things there is an exception, and Gandhi was an exceptional man. Considering all the conflicts of all sizes in the history of man, I believe he is the only exception.

So all the calls to have a ‘political solution’ are just a PC, soundbite friendly way of saying ‘we give up, you win.’ At least that is what I think, and I suspect it is what those who would want us to lose are thinking as well. Oh, and by the way, what EXACTLY is a political solution? Has anyone asked what that means? Is there an example that anyone has or can point to of a political solution that has worked, or even existed?

As for those that believe a war is like a video game or a sporting match, wake up. There are no preset timeframes. There are no rules, no overtime. It takes as long as it takes. WWI was never expected to last 4 years. As I recall there was fighting still going on in isolated areas in 1947. The Civil War was expected to be over in 1 year maximum. And so on. There is no way to determine how long anyone is willing to fight for their home, religion, or beliefs. The Afghan rebels fought the Soviet Union for over a decade, if I recall correctly. War is not a game, nor can it be calculated on a checklist like a football match. It sucks, but that is the facts. To assume otherwise is to invite defeat.

Most important I must ask those who have cried for a change, what is the change. It’s easy to say ‘do something different,’ but what is that different thing? Nuking the largest cities in Iraq would be a change. Taking the country over and declaring our status as a colonizing empire is a change. Running away in defeat is a change. Instituting isolationist policies is a change. Are any of these the options we want as a nation? Are any of these the option that is being proposed by those politicians heralding the need to do ‘something’ different? It’s nice to say change; it is a far cry different to actually state what should be done differently.

Imagine a corporation selling widgets. The shareholders and a few of the Board of Directors want a change because sales have slowed; profits are not quite what they were. A new CEO is hired, drops the sale of widgets and starts selling children’s books. The scale of economies plummets, the cost of new equipment skyrockets, marketing budgets balloon, and sales are non-existent as the customer base is abandoned. Shareholders are enraged. The CEO holds a conference and says, “You wanted change, I gave you that. You never said what you wanted changed so I had to improvise. Don’t complain now that it’s not what you wanted, you should have been clear.”

I think my point is clear.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Iraq War, Mahatma Ghandi, mid-term elections

This is an exact copy of a letter sent to Senator Obama. Any response will be posted unaltered.

January 22, 2007
Dear Senator Obama,

I am contacting you today as part of an ongoing series of letters that I am sending to many of those that are planning to run for President of the United States. To date I have written letters to Senator Clinton, Mr. John Edwards, and Mr. Mitt Romney.

I am the author/writer of several blog sites including Black Entertainment USA (www.blackentertainmentblog.com). My letter to you, as well as any response from you will be posted on these sites without alteration.

Senator Obama I am aware that you are a junior Senator, having served 2 years at this time, representing Illinois. As I am from New York I am not familiar with the platforms you were elected for. What was the main issue that you campaigned on, and what progress have you made in attaining that? What laws have you helped to pass, or prevented from passing, that have directly benefited your constituents and African Americans in general?

As a fellow African American I’m sure you are aware that there are several issues that are of great impact to the Black community. One of the most important may be the issue of education. What have you done to improve the number of African Americans that finish high school and/or seek higher education? If you were to be elected President, what plan would you follow that will improve the education system in America?

In terms of your own education I ask a question that has recently been in the news. It has been stated that during the 4 years in Jakarta you had attended a Madrasa. I wonder if you feel this has any influence on the education you received, or more importantly do you believe that having lived and studied overseas provided you any benefit that your peers may not have had?

It has also been stated that you are a smoker. If this is true do you believe that has any effect on your views on healthcare? In addition how do you feel about the current trend to leave businesses without a choice and disallow smoking? Do you believe that the smoking ban is fair to businesses, and does it make sense to have a ban while also allowing adult citizens to purchase cigarettes?

As a lawyer that worked on civil rights issues, what do you believe you can do, or are doing currently, to improve the rights of African Americans and Latino/Hispanic Americans or any other people of color in this nation? What do you feel is the largest obstacle and what plan do you have to remove it?

In terms of national healthcare, do you agree with the push for a national healthcare system? If you do how would you have this program funded? What would you do to motivate institutions and individuals to seek out new innovations with the profit motive removed? How would you ensure that a national program would not function in the same manner most feel other government institutions do, such as the education system (which most feel is a failure)?

What role, if any, do you feel religion plays in the government? Do you believe that the fact you have never served in the Armed Forces would have any effect on your ability to perform as Commander-and-Chief?

Speaking of the Armed Forces, at this time there is a general feeling that the war in Iraq is going badly. President Bush has just announced a plan that would elevate the number of troops serving in Iraq. The democratic party is generally opposed to this plan. What exact alternative would you implement in place of this current plan, and what plan would you establish to ensure the safety of Americans if Iraq becomes more unstable (thus promoting terrorist attacks on America)?

Do you feel that the fact you have little experience in the Senate, or with dealing with international politics, is a hindrance to your ability to act as President and if not why?

Recently there has been a growing apprehension among some in the nation about the number of immigrant that are allowed into the nation for non-European nations (as per Rep. Goode). How do you feel about this? Also there is a strong debate on what to do about the large numbers of illegal immigrants. What plan do you have to deal with this issue?

I thank you for taking the time to read and to respond to this letter. As I stated earlier this will be posted on several sites, particularly Black Entertainment USA (at the address noted above).

Sincerely,

Michael Vass
President – M V Consulting, Inc.
Author – Black Entertainment USA and Vass
info@blackentertainmentblog.com

Labels: African American, Armed Forces, black entertainment blog, Civil Rights, Iraq War, presidential election, Senator Barak Obama

I find things quite interesting lately. Recently the new democratic led Congress has been making a lot of noise ahead of President Bush’s new Iraq strategy. Before the President has even announced word one we see that there are calls to defund the soldiers in Iraq. This I feel is insane.

First the President should be allowed to unveil his new plan without the shrieks of doom and prevention that now fill the air. All that this is doing is provide the enemies of the troops with renewed vigor and impetus. This is so wrong to undercut the President and to show a face of America as being confused and cowardly. I don’t see how these calls to cut and run can be seen any other way. But let me not get ahead of myself.

It is interesting to see that the democrats that were elected to change the policy in Iraq are moving on that mandate. I think that if the current cry to run away with out tail between our legs was conveyed to the public in general there would not have been as many elected. I do not feel that when citizens voted for the change that was never defined they expected these kinds of results. But this is what happens when people run on, and vote for, soundbite politics. Ill-defined policies are later realized in a manner that does not reflect the general consensus, and voter can only blame themselves for this.

I for one must say that I do not agree with anyone that states that they support the troops, but actively debate about removing the funding that directly supports the troops and/or additional troops which directly provide manpower support. Unless I miss understand the word, support, to remove or block either item does not provide for or maintain [as defined by thefreedictionary.com] nor keep from weakening or failing the troops in Iraq. So unless the democrats have found a new meaning for the word support, they have lied to the public and engaged in soundbite rhetoric I feel, which I hate.

I do not question that Iraq needs to be addressed in a new manner. There needs to be changes. No one wants to see our soldiers killed. Everyone would prefer to see our sons and daughters, nieces and nephews, and friends home and safe. But that is not how the world is today. Protectionist and Isolationist polices have never worked in the past and they definitely will not work in the future. Wars take time and there is no timetable that can handily let you know when it’s all over. This is not some kind of athletic competition with a rulebook and a clock counting down to when we are done. To act as if this is now overtime is to admit defeat before we have finished what we started. The repercussion of that failure to complete is far longer lasting and far more deadly.

I am reminded of something that my Senior Drill Instructor Sgt. Williams mentioned when in boot camp. As I recall he said, “Your moms want you to be treated nice. They are afraid of you getting hurt. But the fact is the more you sweat the less you will bleed. Moms of America will get you killed. But I’m not going to let that happen. So boys, prepare to get wild crazy and exotic.” It may have been boot camp but I think you get the point.

And if we don’t follow this simple mantra, the troops will not be supported. They will come home to cheers. Cheers from mothers and fathers and friends across the nation. Even louder will be cheers from the militant factions seeking to control Iraq. Cheers from the Al Quida’s and Iran. Cheers from everyone that will fight to fracture the nation into smaller territories controlled by radicals of various temperaments. Then those cheers will turn into tears. Tears from Americans when the winners that hate our nation come to attack us. Tears from the children who have grown up in a war torn country, fed anti-American rants, firmly believing that every drop of food they didn’t get, the electricity they didn’t have, the education they couldn’t received, the family they lost to civil wars, every wrong in their world stemmed from America. That will be all the motivation they need to attack America and its citizens everywhere in the world.

Think I’m bleak? A tad bit over the top? We didn’t win in Korea, and they are still ready to fight us 50 years later – now with nuclear weapons. We lost in Viet Nam, for many of the same reasons we are about to see now I think, and that cost our troops, divided our nation, and left scars across the world. Most Americans had never heard of a Shiite or a Sunni, yet we learned the words after we lost thousands of lives in one day. If you think that not getting Iraq stable, leaving while it’s still weak and troubled, will not be a problem far worse than what we have seen so far, I think you haven’t thought it all through.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: democrat, Iraq War, nuclear weapons, soundbite politics, supporting troops

So the Democrats have won the mid-term elections. Yea for them. Now what? I mean this seriously. What exactly is the Democratic platform on Iraq. No longer can the statement “we need a change” be the answer. The fact is we need a detailed description of what that change is. And it will be the Democratic Party that must be held accountable for what they define as needed change.

If taxes go back up in the next 2 years, don’t be surprised. If we exit Iraq and a massive civil war breaks out, leading to Iran and fanatical religious groups taking over sections of that country, don’t be surprised. If due to the above Iraq ceases to exist, oil prices rise dramatically and the Middle East becomes even more unstable, well you know.

I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be a re-evaluation in our current plans. I am saying that walking away with things unsettled because the political advantage was to do that, is not the best plan. I do believe that various fanatical groups find comfort in the current push by Democrats to hide at home [my opinion of the ‘plan’ implied by many of the winners of the elections]. It may be an over-simplification, or perhaps a misstatement of the goals; but based on the lack of an actual platform it’s hard not to make assumptions.

I also will ask something of both parties. What are you doing for Black Americans? In the last several Presidential Administrations I’ve seen nothing. I’ve heard about so called reforms in welfare, yet I haven’t seen a change in the families supported solely by the program. I’m not talking about those who need help temporarily, I mean the grandmother, mother, and kids all living on welfare for the last decade (or more). Fathers and sons are in this too there are just less fathers, living with their kids, for this to apply to. Where is the inner city improvements in education? I’m not talking about making a stupid list of things for kids to rote memorize, I mean actual improvements in class size, age of books, retaining creative programs [football is a gym activity not a creative program. I mean art, music and such] and reducing the number of kids dropping out.

Looking forward, what are we going to do about our soldiers that come home and become veterans? Assuming that within the next year our troops are home (most of them) they need to be re-integrated into society and retrained to join the work force. And where will we get the new military forces we will need if we are out of Iraq (maybe Afghanistan too) in the next year and the region isn’t stable? The people will be in turmoil and such instability fuels fanatics and those nations that hate us. And that means attacks on America.

I would also remind people that the markets may soon be hit. If the minimum wage is increased, lay-offs and slower hiring will ensue. Unemployment will go up. Why? It’s economics that should be apparent from high school classes; small businesses can’t afford the increase. Yes those living on minimum wages will have more money, there will just be fewer of them for a while. Net result in my opinion is that unemployment will increase, as will welfare, and the economy will slow as fewer people will be spending the extra cash. That is no gain for many, at least for 3 years after the increase. Oh, did I leave out that there will be fewer small businesses, some closed due to the increase and others unable to start because the increase creates a ceiling of minimum cost that they can’t cross.

In addition it seems that there is a desire to remove the tax cuts currently in place, so expect higher taxes. That doesn’t help spending and thus slow the economy and increase small business closings. And the healthcare move to lower drug costs. [I kind of agree with this, on generally needed life-saving drugs. Beyond that, if you want a cost cut on Viagra or an allergy medication you are out of your mind, in my opinion.] Of course that means pharmaceutical profits are down, and a slow down in new drug research to try to balance the lower profits so shareholders will be happy. So a major sector of the market will be hit.

Overall the economy may not improve, if all the initiatives wanted by Democrats are passed. And the nation will not be safer, I think, if we cut and run as many are hinting at. Hinting because they want to look strong on security, yet many wouldn’t stand up and say any plan before the elections. I see nothing that will keep African American kids in school, or give them a job if they leave. I see no plan that will remove the ease of letting the Democrats take care of Black Americans, with welfare and such programs, in the potentially difficult time ahead.

So the Democratic Party won the House, and may hold sway in the Senate. Yea for them.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: black americans, democrat, Iraq War, mid-term elections