There were several speakers at the Republican National Convention last night besides Vice Presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin. Not all of them have received much attention, due entirely to the powerful speech of the VP.

But they deserve to be heard as much as was Senator Clinton, Former President Bill Clinton, and the other speakers at the DNC last week.

So I now present Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee


Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani


Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee


Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney

Labels: Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Presidential election race 2008, Republican National Convention, RNC, Rudy Giuliani

I write for a lot of blogs. Currently the number is up to about 45 blogs, besides those owned by my M V Consulting, Inc., where my posts can be found at. That says nothing of the blogs where others comment on my posts or quote some portion of what I have said. As such it’s sometimes very difficult to respond to each comment someone makes, though I do try.

It is also difficult for all my readers to see comments made at various blogs on some of the posts I have written. To that end I want to take the time to not only post some of the comments made but to also try to respond to them. And I invite everyone to comment as well, either here or on the blog the comment corresponds to.

Your thoughts are important to me and if you write a comment, I think it deserves to be seen in the least.

The following comments come from Presidential Race Blog, and African American Political Opinion though more comments can be found throughout the web.

Democratic Nomination - Path to where?

with Obama as president candidate for the democrates, i have no confidence. Interestingly, I remember most of obama’s speech as rhetorical and superficial, taken from other speeches which he studied, and repititious of other people’s ideas. The first two instances I looked and listened to him via the television, I got goosebumps from inspiration; in retrospect, i can liken most of his speeches and line of arguments to those i heard in the past. his fever, i think he got from his hypocritic church which he attended the last 20 years. his racism, he also got from there, and the fact that he is half-black and has to depend heavily on the black american community for most of his votes. his elitism, is a reflection of where he came from and where he now is. These are the bumps i get when i listen to him now. i agree with hilary with her claim that she won the majority votes. she has indeed won almost the same amount of votes as obama, and a variety in her combination of voters, some blacks, white, hispanic, etc., etc., I only disappointed that the media did not cover obama with the same amount of scrutiny that they did to hilary, i think the results would have been different if they has done so. I do hope that the general elections will be covered fairly, and obama will not be given the easy path, sheltered for all slips, so that the outcome of the general elections be fair game.
thank you for your space

janet Felix

Janet,

While Senator Obama has used lines from other speeches of politicians (with permission and thus not plagiarism) it’s not a unique action. Most politicians have done this to some degree over the last 20 years or so.

You mention that his former church is hypocritical. How so? You also call them racist, where is the proof?
I’ve spoken a lot about Rev. Wright and the polispeak soundbites used against him. I think it’s an unfair portrayal. But most of his comments and sermons that I have been made aware of are not racist. They are racial, which is not the same, and they do point out issues that exist in America. While some will feel offended or embarrassed by truth it does not change the truth.

As for the church, which was in the forefront of trying to abolish Apartheid, has helped the homeless, has gay and White parishioners, what is wrong about them?

You also make a misstatement. While Senator Obama received a huge vote from Black Democrats, he also had huge numbers of college educated, young, male, and other Democratic voters. If he only received the African American vote, then he would not be the Democratic nominee. Nor would he have won the multiple states where the Black population was barely 10%. You do a disservice in making that claim.

Ultimately Senator Clinton did get a huge number of votes. Much of this came as Senator Obama reeled from the Rev. Wright media blitz. But I still find that Senator Clinton was a deceptive and horrible choice for Democrats (and I made that clear in multiple posts).

The coverage of the Presidential candidates by the media has been overwhelmingly for Democrats. Along with that it has been for Senator Obama. That may lie in the fact that the media is overwhelmingly liberal and he is the most liberal Senator in the Senate. So to hope for even handed coverage seems a waste of time to me.

But there has been enough coverage that your misperceptions should not exist as well. I invite you to read through my blogs and to see what I mean.


Leading Democratic candidates Pros and Cons

The VP choices are the most important ingrediant in this Election. Everyone knows that Obama has a Bulls Eye Target on his Back, and McCain is on Death’s Door. I cannot figure out why none of our TV, Radio, Newsprint, or Magazine Newsies have picked up on this Point?

Steve ONeill

Steve,

I have to say that I disagree with your conclusions. While Senator Obama is no favorite of the KKK or other narrow-minded racist groups, I believe that the Secret Service is far to aware to allow him to be killed. And while Senator McCain is older, he is more fit than most men half his age.

I doubt that either man would die in office, though it is possible. But that is the purpose of the VP and is no different than any other election cycle. The emphasis is not on who they pick but the overall policies they and their VP believe is best for America going forward.

To vote for or against a candidate based on imagined health issues or potential nutcase attacks does not help the nation gain the best President or future. Rather than obsess on the VP pick the best choice for President and the nation will go from there, I think.


What Senator Ted Kennedy endorsing Senator Obama means

THE CLASSIFICATION OF AMERICANS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY MUST END
The Racial and Ethnic classification of Americans is nothing more than institutionalized racism and must be ended. The United States of America has been known as a country of rugged individualism based on individual freedom and liberty. Why has America become a country obsessed with classifying its citizens into different racial and ethnic sub-groups?

The only groups that actively support the continued collection of racial and ethnic data are big government bureaucrats and “racial and ethnic special interest groups” that also happen to receive significant funding from the federal government. These organizations argue that identifying people by race and ethnicity is necessary in order to redress some past injustice and that the federal government must continue to collect and use this information in order to set up special racial and ethnic programs, affirmative action quotas and other set-asides for these groups, some of whom consist of new immigrants, illegal aliens and non-citizens. Nothing can be further from the truth. In a country where we can no longer ask people what religion they are, what their party affiliation is or what their sexual orientation is, why are we still asking them about their racial and ethnic background?

Americans are beginning to realize that racial and ethnic identification is more a matter of personal choice than anything else. In the 2000 Census, seven million American citizens refused to place themselves into a single category by refusing to describe themselves as only white, black, Asian, Latino or any one of the other specific categories listed, because they were of mixed race. Attempts by the government to create a “mixed race” box for the 2000 Census was met with resistance by racial and ethnic special interest groups like the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza, because they feared that a mixed-race box could pose a danger to the justification for their existence. The fuzzier such racial and ethnic categories become, the harder it will be for these racial and ethnic special interest groups and the government to traffic in them. If a mixed-race category were to be added, every brown-skinned person of mixed race registered in this category would shrink the government’s official count of Blacks, Latinos, Asians or American Indians, eventually reducing their political influence and ultimately the amount of money these groups receive from the federal government, which amounts to approximately $185 billion a year.

Through the mandated collection and use of racial and ethnic specific information, more and more of American taxpayers’ hard earned money is being routinely distributed to these racial and ethnic special interest groups at the expense of all other Americans who may or may not be members of these groups. Through executive orders, congressional legislation, affirmative action programs, racial set-asides, quotas and other programs based solely on race and ethnicity, our federal government is playing the key role that pits one racial and ethnic group against another, which could eventually lead to our destruction as a country.

Rather than helping a diverse population become assimilated and united as one nation, the Federal government is doing what the Nazi government of Germany did in the 1930’s and 40’s; creating government supported institutionalized racism by the intentional classification of it’s citizens by race and ethnicity.

With the support of racial and ethnic special interest groups, our federal government seems to view our citizens not just as Americans, but rather as “pawns” in some social science experiment to be classified and separated into different racial or ethnic sub-groups for some unknown purpose. By mandating the classification of Americans into specific racial and ethnic sub-groups, the federal government and the advocates of “diversity” are actually perpetuating institutionalized racism and keeping Americans divided. Maybe the real purpose of collecting this data is to justify the continuing flow of government money to these racial and ethnic special interest groups.

If we want to help poor Americans escape poverty, get better health care, find a job or get a good education, why should it matter what their race or ethnic background is? The answer is: It should not! Americans need to come together as members of one country and remember that we are all individual Americans, regardless of race or ethnic background. Martin Luther King, Jr., inspired a nation when he voiced his dream for a color-blind nation, a nation in which people would be judged by the content of their characters, “not the color of their skin.” The answer to this government encouraged racism is the concept of Liberty with a limited, constitutional government that is devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than the claims of different racial and ethnic special interest groups. Where Liberty is present, individual achievement and competence are rewarded, not people’s skin color or ethnicity.

I will support legislation barring the federal government from the collection of racial and ethnic information about the American people and/or the classification of American citizens by race and ethnicity, including the collection of census information. Exceptions should be made for law enforcement, hospitals and medical research purposes.
I will also support legislation that bans affirmative action programs, racial set-asides, quotas and any other programs that give special preferences based on race and ethnicity.

By:
JOHN W. WALLACE
Candidate for Congress
New York’s 20th Congressional District
http://www.FreedomCandidate.com

John,

I will have to address this in a post of its own. Expect that shortly.


The real power of Senator Obama and Oprah Winfrey

I hope Oprah is prepared to deal with the false adoration she engendered by supporting Barack Obama. He has an agenda that has not yet surfaced,but I predict, if president, she will sorely regret what she put into action by supporting this man, who is all show and no integrity, political experience or skill. We can all canvas and do community organizing. or is she hoping that like most black women, Michelle will run Obama, not the people?

deb hart

DEB
False adoration? All show and no integrity? Black women run their men? You seem to have some major issues and they are poping out all over your comment.

First of all Oprah Winfrey is the major daytime celebrity, and has been for decades now. The adoration she has received is earned by the effort she has put forth. To assume less is to insult what she has accomplished.

While I agree that Senator is not very experienced the rest of your comment rings false. Please point out where he lacks integrity or skill? As a lawyer and community leader I have to believe skill and integrity come to the fore. Yet you dismiss this, why?

Are you sure you know as much as you believe you do about what either Senator Obama or Oprah Winfrey have done?

And as for the last part of your comment, I am offended. You don’t seem to have any clue or perspective there, but you do have what seems to be a racial agenda. You’re right on the edge of stereotyping. I would help you pull your foot out of your mouth except I’m fearful of what else you might say.

Simply put your comments make me believe you have an issue with any successful African American, and I have to wonder how you didn’t notice that I am a Black Puerto Rican. Do you think I am run by a woman, or without skill and integrity, or seeking false adoration? You really need to look at yourself and what you are saying, because it’s real close to bile.


Presidential Candidates Lies: Update

Some of your statements are just looking for technicalities.
I am not supporting any candidate, but am just giving one example to not take up time.

One example:
McCain said that Hillary wants to waive a white flag. You say this is a lie because there is no official army to surrender to. Are you seriously saying that because we aren’t fighting a government recognized army that we can’t “technically” surrender? And that makes one of our candidates a liar?

Some of the facts you pointed out are obviously correct, but looking for every technicality is a waste of time. You will find thousands more if you want. We should be look at flat out lies. Like when a candidate says that he/she is against free trade agreements yet vote for those same agreements and write about the value of free trade in his/her own books.

I hope I don’t sound like I’m going for a specific candidate, because I’m not, but just making a few examples.

Noway

Noway,
Nitpick all you want but the facts are what they are. And I did not claim these are lies, Polifact did (which I noted in the post). And yes a lie is still a lie even if the details are minor.

In fact you cannot surrender to someone that does not have someone to surrender to. If there is no army who do you declare a war against or lose to? And that does make McCain a bit of a liar, or if you prefer misguided in his statements.

I have posted blatant lies, and minor ones as well. This was not the first post I address the issue on. And Polifact has a huge list discussing the degree of truth or lies the candidates have made.

But the issue is this. If there are candidates that continuously lie, big or little, to the American public do you want them in office? Especially if they are making multiple lies that sound really close to the truth so no one notices?

But if you look through my blogs I do point out major lies candidates make in multiple posts. But I was just adding a few that Polifact had which I had not covered.


Senator Hillary Clinton: Ireland and Sinbad tell the truth

It is easy for those unconnected with Northern Ireland to decry those who even played a small part in the peace process here but every building block played a part and Hillary Clinton’s input was just as key as any other vititors to these shores.David Trimble himself probably played less of a role than the Clintons if truth were known. One didn’t have to sit amongst the peacemakers in negotion in order to bring about the climate that led to peace. Hillary Clinton, through her good offices, played a major role in bringing vadidation to the various womens groups in Northern Ireland and it was pressure from Women that led to the first talks. More importantly the role Hillary played back home, although not mentioned much, was in making it much more difficult for Americans to contribute to the supply of guns to the IRA whether through pressure on the crime elements or on the funds collections. There is a lot more to Hillary Clintons involvement in the peace process than most Americans know about. Just because the first lady didn’t make a big deal of it does not mean that she was not instumental in her role in the process.

Jim

Jim,
I am unconnected to the actual events in Northern Ireland, as are the majority of Americans. But according to the reports I have read, Senator Clinton did nothing but have tea. That does not qualify for bragging rights in my book.

You state she was working with women’s groups in Ireland at the time, which ones? What did she do to help and/or motivate them? I’ve seen nothing documented stating this.

And as for the NRA, it was not Hillary but Bill Clinton, the President, that was taking action. To my knowledge and information the then-First Lady had only one political action during Bill Clinton’s presidency – national healthcare – and it failed miserably. If you can point to anything that helps validate her claims, and refutes the claims of someone that is internationally recognized as having influence, I would be happy to read it.

Until then I will again state that she was using the actions of others to fabricate experience and political clout she does not have.


Rev. Wright, Senator Obama, and the media

I do wish that there were other people who view things the way that you do. There seems to be a rush to find anything on anyone that is degreading. I do hope that Americans have grown to a level that is above the spind-doctors. Thanks for a refreshing thought provoking statment.

George O’Neal

Hannity and Colmes are replaying a March 1, 2007 interview with Rev. Wright. He was incredibly hostile. They have been a topic on talk radio for months while there has been a de facto MSM blackout of Barack’s church. It is interesting that Wright’s views were little discussed while Mitt’s church received intense scrutiny. To borrow a phrase, it has taken a while for the chickens to come home to roost.

John Austin TX


George,
Thank you. I do try.

John,
I will say it again, the religion of a candidate has nothing to do with their ability to be a President.

It was not Mitt Romney’s church that was questioned but the Mormon religion. That was unfair and wrong. It had no reflection on his ability to govern – which his time as Governor proved.

As for Senator Obama’s church, what is wrong with standing up against Apartheid, feeding the homeless and welcoming parishioners of all races and sexual orientation?

What you mean is the questions of his pastor. And I have fully covered my thoughts on that. I invite you to check them out.


Remember those before us

Eddie G. Griffin said...
Written history is always subject to re-write (revision), plus the fact it was never acurate to begin with, written from a bias perspective.

chocolate_matters said...
Hello, just blog hopping and wanted to just have some input into the discourse here. Nice blog by the way.
Exactly what the brother above stated. History is always written from the perspective of the victory and any and everything we read should be scrutinized for its accuracy. As a student of history I have learn to question, question, and question some more everything I read.

Eddie and Chocolate

I agree that history is written from the winners view. And that is why I wanted to remind my readers that there is more to our past as Americans than what is selectively taught. Our nation is a wonderful nation and I would prefer no other even with the problems we obviously have. Yet we must be honest about where we come from and have done.

I think we all agree that more needs to be learned and spoken about to ensure that EVERYONE in the nation benefits from a better future.


Senator Obama to travel to Iraq and Afghanistan

Francis L. Holland Blog said...
He can go anywhere he wants, as long as he doesn't fall for the okey-doke of going with John McCain.

I can't see why John McCain's people and the Republicans are so desperate to get Obama to go with McCain to Iraq, except to create the impression that they are both reasonable people trying to solve a problem together. When the premise of Obama's candidacy is that he is reasonable and McCain is not on Iraq.

I say to Obama, 'Go wherever you want, but leave McCain home.' Birds of a feather flock together.

Francis,

Perhaps Senator John McCain wants Senator Obama to see the places that he has been, and to hear first-hand the chances that have happened. I doubt that Obama had much of a chance to notice anything in the less than 48 hours he spent in Iraq.

The point is that the Democratic Party has consistently promoted the view that Iraq is a lost cause after they voted to go their. They have taken every opportunity to promote a doom and gloom view without paying any attention to changes or improvements. That narrow-visioned view of international events is unwise for a President.

To simply assume that Republicans want to point out that Senator Obama has no international experience belittles his need to be in Iraq. He has no international experience, and he took no time to learn about what is happening in Iraq. Wisdom is knowing your own failures and gaining knowledge from those with more experience than yourself. Then you can make a more educated decision.

Isn’t that what you want from a President? So doesn’t it make sense to go with Senator John McCain who has been to Iraq at least 6 times in as many years?


Senator Clinton Wins – Sorry I Misspoke

The Indypendent said...
Obama’s Race Against Race
By Nicolas Powers
From the April 25, 2008 issue
A black man runs from a howling crowd. If he’s caught he’ll be torn apart. If he reaches sanctuary he’ll be loved. This ritual is the Sacred Lynching. It’s a scene from Olaf Stapledon’s science fiction book, The First and Last Men. Set in the future, humanity has mixed and few people are “white” or “black,” and the ritual is a nostalgic celebration of racism in a post-racial world. It resembles our own supposed post-racial politics, and I see Senator Barack Obama as that last black man on earth trying to outrun our media mob.

TO READ FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.indypendent.org/2008/04/25/obama%e2%80%99s-race-against-race/

Indypendent,
And what does this have to do with Senator Clinton lying about her experience, failure to make a big primary win, and attempting to by votes (again) with a silly promise of giving the public a paltry sum of money that cannot possibly pass Congress?


Is Rev. Wright a reason not to vote for Senator Obama?

Ghost said...
I would have to agree with the writer of this blog in most part since I have heard these types of prophetic sermons throughout my upbringing in a town 90 miles north of Chicago. Yet, I think the bigger issue here should not be about Rev. Wright. Since Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency I have wondered how and when he would attempt to traverse the chasm that is race in this country. What concerns me is that he would be so careless as to allow himself to be forced to have this discussion under duress. Now he has allowed yet another distraction to pull attention away from his message of unity by not addressing the genesis of the symptoms that we manifest today, namely de-facto racism and reverse racism. As far as I am concerned he should have distanced himself from this man long ago, not because he didn't like him but simply because it did not fit with his plan. You cannot expect the general American public to fully support Obama, while he emits such an aura of irresponsibility. He is smarter that this and we all know it. He needs to be concerned about votes and it's time he learned that you cannot pick and choose what you want to be transparent about. I bet in the next 48hrs the Clinton camp will give up their taxes and the history of her time as 1st Lady while the nation is caught up in the racial fervor since it is a more interesting topic. C-ya next time.

RJM said...
No. But I know a many who would find at fault with the statements that were made. Seriously, one thing that gets me was when he talked about our terrorism caused 9/11. It is very true. It was our actions that caused it. The HiJackers didn't just get into a plane and said hey lets blow this up. They were angry. They'll never forget the removal of their land for Israel or the removal of a democratically elected government in Iran for one of Tyranny. How many people know that though? The Clinton's Campaign is riding on the famous American action of inaction. Of thoughtlessness instead of thought. To the Clinton Campaign,her best shot at winning is this for all the voters:
Ignorance is Bliss.

msladydeborah said...
Pastor Wright is not a major factor in whether or not I will continue to support Obama.

I happen to feel very strongly about this whole issue because it is not reflective of his leadership as a minister.

I have been encouraging people to check out his background and to see what his leadership at Trinity UCC has produced.

He did not say anything that cannot be justified. We only need to look at the past to see why he and other people feel this way.

What bothers me the most is the attempt to make it seem as if something wrong is going on because he is the head of a black populated congregation.

This whole action is walking a fine line in terms of rights.

Pastor Wright can say whatever he wants to inside of his church. That is his right and if the members do not like what is being said, then they are the ones who needed to handle the business of that issue.

I also feel that Barack is going to have to deal with race up front now. There is no way around it.

But so are we. And I feel that we are going to have to be a lot more tough on the subject. We are going to have to learn how to deal with what is major and don't sweat what is not.

Labels: democrats, Iraq, Mitt Romney, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, race in America, Rev. Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

I recently received a link that I found interesting. Since there is a bit of time before the March 4th Primaries I thought I’d delve into this a bit. But let me first state that I have nothing against a woman as President. Like any man that may wish to hold the highest office in the nation, my only concern is that it is the best person that receives the Presidency. I must also disclose that I have previously stated that I am locked between Senators McCain and Obama as my choices, which is based on their political profiles only.

This post will be addressing a column by N.O.W. President Kim Gandy. The full post can be found on the N.O.W. site.

To start with I have no doubt that there are women that face sexism in their fields of work. I don’t doubt this because I know that there is still massive and pervasive racial bias in the media, business, and politics with examples of this being displayed nationally everyday. So to say women still face similar difficulties is neither a surprise nor a reach.

But I will say that I think Kim Gandy protests too much on a couple of points, and seeks the election of Senator Clinton more to make a point than her actual qualifications. This is not a fault that is uncommon, as there are many African Americans that vote for Senator Obama for no reason other than the color of his skin. Neither is a reason for the candidates to receive the nomination nor Presidency.

Kim Gandy starts her column stating that Senator Clinton is the object of venom from media, in television and print, and receiving an unfair amount of negative coverage. In part I would say that is correct, as several pundits have made their comments personal and not relevant to Senator Clinton’s qualifications or they unfairly involve the Clinton family. But at the same time some of the coverage is fair and according to national polls taken from 2007 to now reflects the 47% of the nation that dislikes Senator Clinton. In politics, if polls say you are unliked the media will make their tone less favorable, no matter what your sex or color.

As for her 4 common themes used against Senator Clinton:

“First, Clinton is criticized using a gender-based grading system…His behavior shows compassion and warmth, but her similar behavior shows too much emotion and maybe weakness. He knows how to work the system; she is manipulative. He shows a mastery of the subject; she is nit-picky. He thinks through all the options before charting a course; she is calculating. Familiar?”

While I will agree that Senator Clinton has been criticized about her apparel and mannerisms there is more to this. I have mentioned in the past that I have seen posts and articles that have critiqued the colors and clothing that all the candidates wear. I feel that it is perhaps the least effective or useful reason to judge anyone for any position. I admit that several pundits have focused more on Senator Clinton for these reasons. But in a society where multiple organizations run and directly focused on women consistently choose to evaluate and critique the apparel of famous women in all walks of life then that is to be expected. Were there less interest in the clothes worn during red carpet events, as an example, I would agree whole-heartedly. But when there are dozens of television programs and magazines that exists solely to critique women on this basis, to complain when the highest profile woman in America at the moment is placed under that same flimsy microscope is silly. I don’t think it has anything to do with Senator Clintons abilities, but it is a reality that many women (apparently) find important or at least of interest.

As for the emotional outbursts, this is unfair. Several of the Presidential candidates have been singled out for their emotional reactions. Notably there are the numerous comments on Senator McCain. Whether it is commentary on his attempts at joviality (Bomb Iran) or his well known temper, his outbursts are well covered, as are most of the candidates.

And there are none that I think do not believe that Senator Clinton knows how to use the political system. Consistently Senator Clinton has been shown to use the media and polls to gain attention and political clout without actually doing anything. In looking at Senator Clinton’s record as a Senator, votes on both sides of issues and correlating directly to changes in polling positions exists. Do you recall the “Hot Coffee” scandal? Senator Clinton was prominent in her denouncement of a truly overblown subject, yet she did nothing about it and walked away from the issue immediately after it stopped gaining press attention. It is this kind of use of the media to improve her image that is considered manipulative, and she is not the only Senator to do so. But to call her on that is not a gender based reasoning, it’s just honest.

“In other words, everything Clinton does to win the election -- strategizing, organizing, confronting, comparing and contrasting -- is interpreted as calculating, fake or just plain evil.”

Well that’s not exactly true either. All politicians are calculating to some degree. Whether is campaigning in areas more favorable to their voter base, or picking to campaign in this state over another is politics today. Rudy did it when he picked Florida as his main focus; Mitt Romney did it in Wyoming, and so on. All the candidates calculate what is in their best interest and strategize, organize, compare and contrast to that end. What might be considered fake or evil are actions like promoting a half-conceived idea, like the $5,000 bond for every child in America towards their college education, and dropping it after it has gained her press coverage and positive voter sentiment. Promoting ideas that are infeasible and not having the ability to answer reasonable questions on such a plan is pandering to gain votes, and any candidate that does such needs to be called on it.

“Third, Clinton is presumed to be where she is today because of her husband, Bill.”

To a degree that is a true statement. There is no question that the fame and recognition of President Bill Clinton elevated the political hopes of Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton had no official, and questionable unofficial, political experience prior to Bill Clinton gaining prominent political positions. There is no question that either Clinton has no ties or connection to New York State. Thus her initial claim to fame in that election was that she was the former-First Lady and the headlines in New York City at that time was the fact that Bill Clinton was considering taking an office in Harlem. Often in this election cycle, Bill Clinton has dominated the media coverage, beyond any other spouse of a candidate – and most of the other candidates, because of his former office. This drew media coverage to the Clinton campaign, for good or ill and thus benefited the Senator. While an argument can be made today that Bill Clinton’s status is not the sole reason for Hillary’s current Presidential race, it is undeniably a factor and significant in her ability to be elected initially in New York State. To deny these facts is to deny modern politics and the power of political clout and endorsements in electing any official to office.

“Finally, when all else fails, belittle the voters. Women voters are irrational and biased, and voting only on the basis of gender, the press are happy to intimate (at least about the women who are voting for Hillary), and they not so subtly imply that all voters are stupid and shallow.”

I am unaware of any pundit that has belittled voters. Nor have I heard that women voting for Senator Clinton are “irrational and biased”. That may be my own inability to follow every pundit and talking-head in the media. Any that might have made such a statement is wrong and I agree that such statements are unfair.

“Hillary Clinton and women in general, aren't the only ones subject to gender-based assessments. Barack Obama and John Edwards have also been degraded when the media detect in them "feminine" characteristics or behaviors (like paying attention to your appearance) that supposedly are unbecoming in men.”

It is true that John Edwards in particular was criticized by the media for his notorious $400 haircuts. But this criticism was not about priming himself in some feminine manner. It was the obvious disconnect from his stance about 2 Americas. It seems odd when someone states they care about the poor, and is then seen paying for haircuts that are equivalent to the weekly paycheck of some Americans. And any candidate that wishes to state they are “looking out for the common worker” is at a disadvantage if they lavishly spend money on common grooming. That seems hypocritical and deserving of comment.

“Regarding women and men and politics, we really ought to be past the tree house-years. It's not just those in the public eye who are hurt when the media promote sex stereotypes. Daughters everywhere are hearing the message that a woman can't be as competent and effective a leader as a man.”

Obviously America is not beyond many things. Racism and gender bias are just a few of those things. Since both exist and are promoted on the media daily, it’s no surprise when they appear in politics. African Americans should not be presumed to be poor, violent, drug-addicted felons yet most Black men are. If we cannot get past color, is it s surprise we cannot get past gender on some issues?

Again I will ask, who has said women can’t be effective leaders? There are many women in political office. Nancy Pelosi leads the House. There are many women that lead major corporations, or own them. Oprah Winfrey is perhaps the best known, but she is not singular. Could there be more? Definitely, just as there should be more African American, Hispanics/Latinos and people of color. But to depict the political landscape or the general one at that, as devoid of women in leadership positions across the world is to be blind and instilling gloom and downtrodden view that is inaccurate in my opinion.

The column goes on to then quote several pundits and talking heads that have made various statements. Some are bad, and others depend entirely on the way you wish to perceive them. (I do find it interesting that they are virtually all from organizations that are considered highly liberal and pro-Democrat) One in particular I think is accurate.

“Tucker Carlson, MSNBC's Tucker, Jan. 22, 2008
"It takes a lot of guts for a rich, privileged white lady who is one of the most powerful people in the world to claim that she is a victim of gender discrimination. . . . She hasn't driven her own car in almost 20 years and she's a victim of discrimination? I mean can't we both agree that's just BS?"

There is no question that Senator Clinton is rich. There is equally no question of her political prominence. And from what I have read about her, she has not had to endure the difficulties 90% of Americans combat daily in over 3 decades at least. I’m not sure how much pity I am supposed to feel for Senator Clinton when she has sat on the board of Wal-Mart, a partner of a law firm, indulged in commodities trading, and had the ability to, questionably, influence public policy. My mother and sisters on the other hand have strived against discrimination and they don’t ask for any special recognition for their achievements.

So while Kim Gandy has some points, the real issue boils down simply to is Senator Clinton deserving of being the first female President. Based on her abilities as expressed as her actions in political office (which is limited to her time as a Senator since she held no elected office or political position prior) I would say no.

I would say the same for why I would not support John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and others. It’s not a bias against women to say she is not the best option; it’s just honest in my opinion. That’s the same as saying Jesse Jackson was not the best option for a potential Black President. Nor does it preclude a future candidate that is more worthy attaining the office.

Labels: Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Kim Gandy, Mitt Romney, NOW, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Wal-Mart

So Mitt Romney has left the race for the Republican Presidential nomination. This has virtually ensured the nomination of Senator John McCain. Mike Huckabee is so far back in delegate counts, his rallying to a victory is beyond unlikely. So Super Tuesday has settled one half of the question on who will be running for President of the United States in November.

That just leaves the Democrats. And there it seems will not be an answer anytime soon. While Senator Obama won on states, and is now seen to have basically drawn even on the popular vote, Senator Clinton is slightly ahead on the delegate count. Because both candidates are almost at the half way point, and can likely win several more primaries, neither will give up. This is both interesting and problematic.

The interesting thought is that it shows the similarities of both candidates and the desire of the American populace to overlook the inexperience of both candidates in favor of change in government policy and race or gender. To say that both Obama and Clinton draw many supporters on the clear and singular basis of their respective race and gender is to be foolish. African Americans and women both have strong feelings that a candidate like themselves will be sensitive to and a vehicle to improvements on the daily challenges both experiences.

The problem is that since neither will back down, and should not at this point, and the Republican race is essentially over they will lose potentially months of campaigning for the Presidency directly. In short order McCain will be releasing television ads that will be promoting why he should be President. They will go virtually unchallenged, allowing him to gain momentum across the nation.

One of the real telling moments will not only be Senator McCain getting the official nomination, but his choice of a Vice-Presidential candidate. It’s doubtful that Mitt Romney will get this position. While he is very popular, the issues of raising taxes and his religion would be drags on their campaign. Plus there is the apparently bad blood between both men generated over the race in debates and commercials since 2007.

Mike Huckabee is also not a choice as his highly religious leanings, and desire to re-write the Constitution will alienate many voters. In addition his policies on raising taxes among others are too weak. I feel America is not willing to elect another religious zealot, as President Bush is currently viewed by many, and portrayed by the major media.

So another individual that has gone unspoken may be chosen. There is also a chance that Fred Thompson will re-enter the arena as a V-P choice. His views are very similar to Senator McCain, though he is seen as more conservative, equally as direct, and with stronger fiscal positions. Even if he is not the choice, I expect rumors to this end shortly.

For the Democrats, I feel it is virtually impossible for a Obama – Clinton ticket [or however you wish to view the combination]. There is extremely bad blood, generated by the racial attacks, smear campaigns, and insults made against Senator Obama. While such a combination would be vital to healing the division that has been created in the Democratic Party, it won’t be healed by this illusionary ticket match.

John Edwards is a horrible match as Vice President. So some other individual will be named, with Governor Richardson being a potential choice for either candidate. His appeal to Hispanic/Latino voters would be critical for either candidate. Considering the appeal that Clinton has so far, such a match is essential for Senator Obama and a deathblow if gained by Clinton.

Time is becoming short, and March 4th is approaching shortly. With the pressure of a virtual nomination having been claimed now by Senator McCain, the need to have a Democratic counterpoint is heightened.

Labels: Bill Richardson, Fred Thompson, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama

The results are coming in and the news is troubling. Troubling because deception is taking the lead, that polispeak is gaining strength, that Senator Hillary Clinton has the delegate lead in the Democratic Presidential nomination race. As I stated earlier, I oppose Senator Clinton, and think that only Mestophilese might be a slightly worse choice for America.

What we have seen is that Senator Obama has taken the heart of Democrats. He has won 13 states; most with wins virtually double that of Senator Clinton. There has been landslide voting where Whites, Blacks, women and men have all chosen Obama. Former-President Bill Clinton may have minimized Senator Obama by trying to compare the win in South Carolina to Rev. Jesse Jackson, but the results of Super Tuesday prove that many in America are ready for the true first Black President, and the only honest voice left in the Democratic Party. In my opinion.

But delegates rule in the nomination process. While the popular vote in state after state may be in favor of Senator Obama, the delegate count (and the even more vague Super Delegate count) is in the Clinton camp. Such is the shame.

Utah 56 to 38%, Alabama 56 - 42%, Alaska 72 - 27%, Colorado 67 - 27%, Georgia 68 - 31%, Idaho 80 -17%, and the list goes on. If Senator Hillary Clinton wins it’s not because virtually half the nation thinks she is worth while.

Looking at the Republican race, Senator McCain has prevailed. He has solidified his position and severely beaten Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. While the wins are not as lopsided, not as many states he has been dominant. Already calls for Mitt Romney to drop out of the race are being made and pundits are spinning the polispeak about why.

Will immigration, the southern border, and the economy be more important than religious fervor and a desire to make the Constitution a doctrine more in line with a Huckabee religious point of view? I for one hope not. I am also saddened that the issue of religion was so prominent in holding back the potential of Mitt Romney. While I would not vote for him anyway, the religious beliefs of any candidate should not be a factor for anything. Much like gender and race it is another hurdle that we as Americans must come to terms with for the betterment of the nation.

I ask you this, did your candidate perform as you would have liked? If not is it because you did not vote? If you have not exercised your right to vote, you are not too late. The general election in November is still open to you. You can help make a difference for America. There are still many primaries to go, and then the political conventions. In each and every step your Constitutional Right can be voiced. You can help change America, and thus the world.

Have you not chosen a candidate? There is still time for Primaries, and more importantly the general election. In the last several elections a mere pittance of the American public could have changed the nation. You can be part of that. You don’t have to agree with me, and if you are registered you can make more of an impact than the words I have been writing for over a year. There are few things as powerful as your vote.

Be patriotic. Support the troops, show your love of the nation, and be involved in how your life will be affected over the next 4 years and far beyond. Be a part of providing a future for your children and grand children that is better than today.

Vote!

Labels: Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Super Tuesday results

**The I Love America That's Why I vote! campaign is not partisan. No matter who you choose, the important thing is to have your voice heard with your vote. Register today.**

The number of people that have come out to vote today has been remarkable among the Democrats. Not nearly so for Republicans, but the voice of America is being heard. And that voice is matching what my polls have long said, in one manner.

In my poll which has run from 2007 until today, there has been an overwhelming outcry for Senator Barack Obama [seen on Black Entertainment USA]. 51% of all votes have chosen Senator Obama, and the next closest choice lags far behind. Senator Clinton is the 2nd choice in my poll, but trails Senator Obama 2:1. In terms of the Republican candidates, Senator John McCain dominates all other challengers by more than 3:1. In comparing the top 3 no Presidential is more favored than Senator Obama.

And in Super Tuesday voting we saw that this is a trend in the nation. Out of the 21 states that voted today clear statements were made, though the issue of delegates is less so. 61% of the states voted in favor of Senator Obama, on the Democratic race. Looking at the voting percentages, 52% of the Democrats picked Senator Obama. If this were the actual Presidential Race, the news would now be that the popular vote was won by Obama. But that news would be singed by the fact that the delegate voting has gone to Clinton.

I think nothing would be more devastating to the nation than to have the public pick one candidate, and the electoral college deciding that someone else won. After the highly debated and problematic 2000 and 2004 elections clarity in the voice of America is needed. The only way I know that this can not be a factor is to have the voice of America, your voice, clearly stated. That means voting.

Register for the vote. Not because I am important, or you like my writing. Vote, not because I am successful or that I am asking you to. Vote because your life, and those of your loved ones will be directly affected by the outcome. Your vote could be the difference between how the war in Iraq is resolved, which direction taxes go, whether illegal aliens will gain or lose their position in America, and the quality of life of your children and grand-children. These are all things that only you will be able to affect, and you would do so via your Constitutional Right.

That Right is something that many in the world envy and die for. That Right is coveted by the candidates. And you hold that power. But it’s an impotent power if you don’t register and vote.

Here are the results, as of 2 am. If there is any result you disagree with, there is only one answer. Vote for someone and change the answers you see.

Alabama Democratic Vote Republican Vote
56% - Obama 41% - Huckabee
42% - Clinton 37% - McCain

Alaska 74% - Obama
26% - Clinton

Arizona 50 % - Clinton 47% - McCain
41% - Obama 34% - Romney

Arkansas 69% - Clinton 61% - Huckabee
27% - Obama 20% - McCain

California 54% - Clinton 44% - McCain
34% - Obama 26% - Romney

Colorado 67% - Obama 59% - Romney
32% - Clinton 19% - McCain

Connecticut 51% - Obama 52% - McCain
47% - Clinton 33% - Romney

Delaware 53% - Obama 45% - McCain
42% - Clinton 33% - Romney

Georgia 66% - Obama 34% - Huckabee
31% - Clinton 32% - McCain

Idaho 80% - Obama
17% - Clinton

Illinois 64% - Obama 47% - McCain
33% - Clinton 25% - Romney

Kansas 74% - Obama
26% - Clinton

Massachusetts 56% - Clinton 51% - Romney
41% - Obama 41% - McCain

Minnesota 67% - Obama 42% - Romney
32% - Clinton 22% - McCain

Missouri 49% - Obama
48% - Clinton

Montana 38% - Romney
25% - Paul

New Jersey 54% - Clinton 55% - McCain
44% - Obama 28% - Romney


New York 57% - Clinton 51% - McCain
40% - Obama 26% - Romney

North Dakota 61% - Obama 36% - Romeny
37% - Clinton 23% - McCain

Oklahoma 55% - Clinton
31% - Obama

Tennessee 54% - Clinton 34% - Huckabee
41% - Obama 31% - McCain

Utah 57% - Obama 90% - Romney
39% - Clinton 5% - McCain

West Virginia 52% - Huckabee
47% - Romney

Labels: democrat, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, republican, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, Super Tuesday, That's why I vote, voter registration

**While this post includes personal thoughts of my political views, M V Consulting, Inc and it's I Love America That's Why I Vote! campaign is not partisan. Your vote is your Constitutional Right and it matters. No matter who you chose, make a choice. Register to vote and make a difference.**

It has been over a year in the making, and while there may not be fanfare I imagine some may have been waiting for this list. It is not an endorsement yet but it is one step away.

The following candidates are all people I would not vote for and reasons why. In almost no particular order.

Ron Paul – Extremist and I do not agree with his retreat oriented, isolationist plans dealing with Iraq. I do respect his desire to get his message out and his ability to gather some 4% of vote made in Primaries so far.

Alan Keyes – Deserves even less comment than Ron Paul.

Rudy Giuliani – While he may have been America’s Mayor on 9/11 and there after, I am among many New Yorkers that recall his tenure as Mayor before that horrendous day. He was not well liked among many. His social policies were massive steps backwards, especially his encouragement and protection of police action that resulted in death and torture of African Americans. Suffice to say his one word Presidential campaign failed and I’m glad.

Fred Thompson – I actually liked his direct manner. His concerns for the nation are real. He had decent fiscal plans, and a focus on protecting America from abroad and at the borders. Sadly he didn’t get seriously involved in campaigning until far too late in the game.

Mike Huckabee – I do not agree with his mix of religion and politics. I respect his belief, but it has no place in government; least of all a refashioning of the Constitution based on his religious ideals. He has raised taxes, and under his governorship there were several bad decisions made like the pardon of a killer. It may not have been his sole decision, but as the head of that state it’s his responsibility and he needed to stand up and take the hit rather than try to deflect it. Leaders accept responsibility for all the actions that happen, good and bad.

Dennis Kucinich – I respect that he, like Ron Paul, was able to stay in the race as long as he did. I really respected that he is the only candidate to speak at a public debate and talk about an apology for slavery, and reparations. None have had the balls to even open their mouths or raise their hands on the subject. But he had no real strength of message beyond this. More importantly, since virtually all the Democrats believe the same things, he did not have the charisma t get farther than he did.

John Edwards – Where do I start. I feel that he is a hypocrite. He talks of how bad the rich are, yet he is one of them. He worked at a firm that made money taking advantage of the poor and minorities. His haircuts cost $400. His regular income neighbors hate him. He already was part of a losing equation for the Presidency. He has never once donated money to the government, yet he feels that taxes should be higher than they are for the rich. He has flipped on several issues. He is an advocate of retreat. And it just goes on and on. And his wife’s illness is a distraction were he to somehow win the election.

Most of the Democratic and Republican field not mentioned – Never had a chance, and never had any real plans worthy of considering. Their weaknesses are multiple and would take far too long to discuss.

That whittles the field down to 4.

Mitt Romney – Because he also raised taxes. He has made the most flips of virtually all the candidates. Because while he barely discusses his faith (that few understand and many negative are rumored about) he has mentioned that it would be part of his decision making process. Because he has pandered to the ultra-religious. Because he is a Mormon and that makes him unelectable in a nation that is almost as obsessed about religion as it is race. Because he has been so negative in so many ads. He is no Ronald Regan, though he tries to portray himself as such.

Hilary Clinton – The worst for last. She is the worst candidate of all the choices. I would gladly vote for and elect anyone except for her. It has nothing to do with her gender, which she has used as a weapon and shield. There are several women I would be happy to vote for, they just haven’t run. But Hillary has massive issues.

I have followed her tenure as a Senator, and found no action that has improved the lives of New Yorkers – her adopted state – though she made many campaign promises that have not been completed. I have looked at her votes and seen a pattern of her flipping her votes, both in favor and against virtually the same issue. I have listened to her speak for years, speaking polispeak on the most popular buzz issues and then moving on to the next. Remember her anger over the Grand Theft Auto “Hot Coffee” issue? What about the negative portrayal of Blacks, and degradation of women in that game and the series? Not a word. And ultimately what did she do about it? Nothing except grab headlines and let it go.

Hillary Clinton has actively avoided providing the public with her real thoughts. She polispoke her was through the issue of illegal aliens on national television resulting in her saying yes, no and maybe in all of 2 minutes. Then she proceeded to take multiple sides on the issue for 2 weeks until it no longer was an issue. That’s an example of hiding from the public.

She has lied in saying she has 35 years of political experience. She does not having first served the public as a Senator for New York. She has little if any business experience. She shares a position with John Edwards in that she thinks the rich should pay more taxes, and has never voluntarily paid a dime more than what was required.

She has actively engaged in smear campaigns, using fear and racism in place of serious political debate. And she wasn’t honest enough to say this herself, using staff and virtual staff members to make the comments for her. And do not forget that she was among a handful of those in Congress to vote in favor of MoveOn.org when it viciously attacked our military.

She cannot campaign on her own, using former President Bill Clinton as a shield and weapon. He is no mere spouse; he is a former President and can generate attention beyond anything any of the spouses of other candidates could ever do. And many believe that his policies are hers, which is unknown. They assume that he will be involved in running the nation, which is not possible depending on the degree. And they forget that it was President Bill Clinton that allowed Osama Bin Laden to become the instigator of the worst attack of American citizens, on or off American soil, ever.

She has offered bribes, in the form of potential campaign promises, to buy votes. Do you recall the ill formed and ineffective plan to give every child in America $5,000 for college? I do and I recall that all the questions about this ‘plan’ went unanswered before she dropped the idea and moved onto the next attention grabbing comment.

As I mentioned her gender is a shield. When it’s useful she had ‘nearly’ cried to engender the women’s vote. She has calculated when a laugh may make her seem more humane, and avoid actual answers. She has claimed that the men in the race are unfair due to her gender, and then turned around and campaigned on the fact she is a woman. She has made false claims of her record at Wal-Mart.

She has taken money from active fugitives of the law, and actively tried not to return that money. She has denied money from Wal-Mart, who she now decries as a terrible business, but she takes 4x as much money from its executives and related personnel quietly.

She has multiple scandals and rumors of improprieties that follow her and her former-President husband. She self-aggrandizes her importance during her husband’s tenure, and assumes some of his few achievements as her own. She has refused to allow proof of her political activities to be released to the public until 2013.

There is no candidate neither less Presidential, nor more power hungry than Senator Hillary Clinton. Anyone who so wishes to rise to the highest office in the nation, but refuses to reveal their motivations and intentions is dangerous to the nation. Every candidate is more worthy of the office than her. Every candidate will benefit women, African Americans, minorities, illegal aliens, homeland defense, and the war on terror more than Senator Hillary Clinton. Anything I can do to prevent her from winning is worthwhile.

I have documented many of the actions that I mention above in multiple posts [at www.mvass.com and www.presidentialraceblog.com] since 2005. I’ve not made up anything; these are facts of what she has done. My interpretation of the reasons why could be debated, but I cannot see how anyone looking at the facts could claim she deserves to serve in any public office.

But who is left?

Senators Obama and McCain. I believe this will also be the choice in the election in November. Honestly both are good choices and may be very good for the nation. At this moment I endorse neither. But I will endorse one of them soon.

Labels: Bill Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, election 2008, Fred Thompson, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Presidential race, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama

The Republican Florida results are final, and Senator John McCain has won. This was not an overwhelming win. It was not a landslide by any means. But it does confirm several indications, and may well be a precursor to the events of Super Tuesday.

As I had expected, Rudy Giuliani is done. His support will be going to Senator McCain after his unsurprising 3rd place finish with just 15% of the vote. His emphasis on 9/11 and his targeting of New Yorkers has proven to fail to ignite the hearts of Republican primary voters. Personally, considering his at best mixed social issues policies during his time as New York City Mayor, I’m glad.

Mike Huckabee seems to be completely out of steam now. While he may stay on until after Super Tuesday on Feb 5th when the polls close, his chance of winning the nomination only exceeds that of Ron Paul. His lack of strength and highly religious stance may be a factor among the super religious, but for an America of multiple faiths he fails to gain ground. I’m surprised he is still in this race after his 4th place ‘win’ in Florida, but in a week I predict he will be out as well. I expect his supporters to go to Senator John McCain as well.

Senator John McCain, I expect, will have a battler on his hands and will ultimately gain the Republican nomination. His long record of service for the nation, his commitment to our troops in the face of a lack of popularity and a wave of those willing to turn and run are keys to his appeal. He is well respected, and as much as Republicans may be considering the economy at this moment – due to recent events – there are other issues that are primary in this election.

Thus I expect Mitt Romney to get close but ultimately lose. I do not expect him to get the Vice-Presidential nod, nor will Huckabee and Giuliani. There are too many reasons not to pick Mitt Romney, and sadly his religion is among them. That is not my opinion, but what I gather from the exit polls and comments across the net. There are some things in America we are not yet ready for, it would appear.

Ron Paul will get the attention he deserves in my mind, this sentence.

If I am correct, and senator McCain moves on to gain the Republican nomination the question that comes next is who will the Democrats pick? Then comes who will be his Vice-President?

In terms of the Democratic race, I expect a bitter fight. Slurs based on race are not done yet I expect, and with each win for Senator Obama I expect more. The Clinton campaign will fight tooth and nail for the win. They have already bent several pledges and rules, and provoked legal action when things have not gone their way. I expect more to come.

Who will ultimately win? It’s too hard to say. But if Senator Clinton does win, I expect a landslide victory. I will say that now, but I won’t go further at this time.

The Republican race is all but done. The Democrats are in trench warfare. The chances of an Obama-Clinton ticket (or vice versa) is non-existent. The Republican VP is anyone’s guess.

After a year of preparation, the real battle for the Presidency of 2008 is about to start. In the spirit of the Olympic Games, Let the games begin!

Labels: Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain, Senator Obama

It’s Saturday, and you are planning to go out. But the primaries in Nevada and South Carolina are ongoing. What do you do?

Many forgo the Nevada Caucus, and weather plays a part in the South Carolina Republican Primary. Such is the nature of Commitments and polling for a Presidential Race.

So what have we seen today? In Nevada there was a big win for Mitt Romney, who needed the boost though it is suspect. I say that because of the proximity and number of Mormons that propped up his Caucus numbers. Still it’s a win. For the Democrats, Senator Clinton took the prize. Not that this win was without controversy. Cries of manipulation, from both the Obama and Clinton camps were claimed. And yet another dirty tactic of calls emphasizing the Muslim nature of Senator Barack Hussein Obama’s name.

Did the brouhaha over the place of the Nevada Caucuses for the Democrats play a factor? Can Senator Clinton continue to win on the heels of single women voters? Why has Oprah Winfrey become so silent of late in her support of Obama, and does that play into the response of women voters?

They are all big questions. To some degree they are all factors. And it is clear that the Democratic race will likely hinge on South Carolina, and the ability of Americans to either look past the tan of Senator Obama or focus directly on it as some supporters of Senator Clinton would wish.

What about South Carolina for the Republicans? Well I must be honest; I can’t see Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thomson staying in the race. Neither has done well in any vote to date. Often both candidates have place behind massive longshot and internet favorite Ron Paul [at least I mentioned him].

Even as I write this, Fred Thompson is making a speech (while early polls show him with a 3rd or 4th place position – a win is not possible) that sounds ominously like a preparation to surrender and to shift his support to another candidate. I would expect that when he does give up he will back Senator McCain. They are most inline with each others policies.

I am surprised as Thompson was leading in South Carolina at one point. He spent a huge amount of time there. And his performance in the South Carolina Debate was the most vibrant of virtually any in this race that he has participated in. I imagine that had he shown that fire earlier, and entered the race sooner, things would probably be different. I think Mike Huckabee would be in his position under those circumstances.

The likely winner will be Senator McCain. Already it’s known that the Marines at Paris Island have voted strongly for McCain, as have several other districts. Will it be close? Yes, but a win all the same.

I do find it amazing that religion has been such a critical factor in the Republican race. And for the Democrats it’s race itself. The most emotional and least important aspects of the candidates are the ones deciding who is winning. It is only the basis of religion that continues to carry Mike Huckabee, and drag Mitt Romney (though he is leading in the delegate count). And it is only the single women voters that are maintaining the lead of Senator Clinton. That and the constant subtle and indirect attacks on the religion and race of Senator Obama.

I have even heard another troubling fact. That Black women won’t vote for Senator Obama because they fear that if he wins the nomination, and/or the Presidency, because they believe he will be killed. That reasoning reminds me of a famous, funny, skit by Eddie Murphy back in the 80’s. While it’s probably true, it still shouldn’t be a reason to not vote for him.

But voting for reasons that have no impact on America, or rather the functioning of America is apparent. The racial polarizing is no mistake. It’s an obvious and effective plan to ensure that Americans remember that Senator Obama is Black first, has a suspicious sounding name second, and is not White 3rd.

Mike Huckabee is nearly preaching the need to change the Constitution to a more Christian document. Mitt Romney is trying to avoid the question of what a Mormon is.

Honestly they are all pitiful events. They belittle the Presidential race, and the office they all wish to attain. Personally I don’t want a President that is a religious fanatic (of any religion) nor elected because the population is predominantly one gender over another. Neither reason ensures the greatest good for America. Fear of a darker skin color is just a repugnant reasoning to not elect anyone as well [in fact, it's just repugnant].

The more I follow this election, the more I am being insulted and repulsed by many of the choices before us. But I promised not to give away my choice for the nominations until after the Primaries. Guaranteed I’ll have my personal choice and reasons.

But even with that, what we each choose is as valid as what we do. Our votes speak loudly, and should be heard. Get out and vote. And hopefully we will be able to have a choice between 2 great directions that improve America, versus the choice of the lesser of evils that has plagued many elections over the last 2 decades.

Labels: Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Mormon, Nevada Caucus, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, South Carolina

So we have another primary over and the results of Michigan are upon us. The Republican race is obviously split in multiple directions with no clear advantage to any one candidate.So far we have Mike Huckabee, Senatoir John McCain and now Mitt Romney each with a win (actually Wyoming was the equivalent of Michigan for the Democrats and Mitt Romney won that as well). In fact there are still 2 more candidates (not Ron Paul) that are looking to gain a win before the Super Tuesday finale. Potentially it could be a 5 way race, and that would be unprecidented as far as I know.

On the Democratic side there is less and more in the results. While Senator Clinton did win, the race was hardly in existance. 2 of the major candidates were not available as a choice, half the number of delagates are possible and everyone knew it. Making the win even less worthwhile is the fact of how big a win Senator Clinton received.

In a race against virtually no one and Dennis Kucinich, the number are roughly 56%, 39% and 4% respectively. That’s a big deal. 39% of democratic voters came out just so they could vote against Senator Clinton and no other reason. That says nothing about how many democrats just didn’t bother to vote in a one-sided pointless race.

Perhaps it’s me but I have to believe that when people come out just to be against you knowing they have no benefit in the action, there is a huge amount of distrust anger and dislike out there. The Clinton camp will spin this as they will, but they can’t avoid the facts of the numbers that with no challenge she still can’t get a sweep.

That says nothing of African Americans. With the recent racial attacks directed from the Clinton camp, and even more personal attacks, the results from Michigan show that nearly 70% are against Senator Hillary Clinton. But that polarization goes the other way too, giving Senator Clinton 43% of Whites vs 22% for Senator Obama.

In fact all the racial tensions have done one thing,

“We of the South have never recognized the right of the negro to govern white men, and we never will," he said. "We have never believed him to be equal to the white man…” - Sen. Benjamin Tillman in South Carolina, 1900.

That quote was in reference to justifying lynching, but I see it applying. Race is being brought to the forefront and the question being stated, somewhat subtly, is if America is willing to have a Black President. The reason why not is contained in the last part of the quote from Sen. Tillman, and a lingering belief that is held against African American men even today in my opinion.

“and we will not submit to his gratifying his lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him."

Gender has long been an issue in the race for the Democratic nomination, used to the advantage of Senator Clinton. Now the fact of race has been put out there, and in every instance it has been used as a weapon to attack Senator Obama.

What happens in Nevada is yet another question. The fact that where the primary is going to be held is an issue. It seems because Senator Obama got the largest union there, decisions made months ago are now at issue. Again it seems a Clinton attack on Senator Obama.

But what will happen in the Republican race? No idea. There is no consensus and no consensus on why. But there are a couple of probable outcomes. Ron Paul has no chance, no matter what his die hard legions on the internet believe. Rudy Giuliani has made a very risky gamble targeting Florida, the retirement haven of many New Yorkers, because he may well be flying in the face of a massive stampede of support for candidates other than himself. Add to that the fact that many natives of New York City did not like his tenure as Mayor, and now being in Florida has not improved their opinion.

Fred Thompson is equally in danger. While slightly better situated in South Carolina, and having made a few strong showings in recent debates, his chances are better than Rudy Giuliani and that has been proven in ever vote to date.

Ultimately, the vicious and brutal nature of the Democratic race is where I am really interested. I have stated I was fearful of the negative use of race against Senator Obama. I have noted that the attacks of Senator Clinton late in 2007 show a desire to inflict whatever damage necessary to win.

I just have to ask the Democrats out there, do you truly want a candidate and potential President that is willing to use whatever manipulation, gender bias, and smears necessary to win?

Labels: Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

Continued from South Carolina primary debates on Fox News and the potential winner Part 1...

A bit later in the evening the discussion went to the issue of change. It’s a popular polispeak term, which is used now by both parties without signifying anything of importance. That was highlighted best by Rudy Giuliani when he stated

I paraphrase – “Change is not enough. We must go 1 step further and ask what kind of change. When we speak about change on education, taxes, socialized medicine we need to ask is that change good or bad?”

Of course throughout the debate Giuliani reflected on his 9/11 experience and how it gave him an edge the others did not possess. To which McCain responded once that he has been involved in every security issue that has occurred in the past 20 years, in addition to having served and fought in wars for this notion. His time as a P.O.W. in the Hanoi Hilton was unmentioned but obvious.

At the end of the debate the issue was illegal immigration. While every Republican candidate believes in throwing out the 2 million criminal (beyond being in the nation illegally) immigrants, and strong borders (actually just the southern border – to my annoyance no one speaks about the troubled and dangerous northern border with Canada) McCain had no answer on what to do about the 10 million illegal immigrants in the nation now.

Mitt Romney believes we should look at each case though all 10 million must return to their home nations before being allowed back in the nation.

Thompson stated that we need to ensure that employers are responsible in their hiring and that they are penalized for getting illegals. He also advocates the end of sanctuary cities, threatening to end their discretionary federal funding if they maintain their status. This he believes will not only force illegal immigrants out of the nation and prevent future generations from coming.

Paul felt we should enforce the law and stop subsidizing the illegals with free healthcare and education for their kids. He also wants to get the troops back from Iraq and watch our borders.

Huckabee can best be summed up in that he believes the immigrants will go home on their own. He also mentioned his 9 point plan which involves a 120 day period, which he did not elaborate on further.

And when Giuliani was asked if he would allow mayors and governors to act in the same manner with respect to illegal immigrants as he did in New York (specifically the police not asking about immigration status). He refused to answer the question and instead defended his reasoning that the illegals helped to lower crime by reporting it. He also mentioned (which I agree with) that it was better to have the 70,000 kids in school rather than in the streets.

Overall I will say that Fred Thompson won the debate. He was strong and the only person with plans for each issue consistently. He really stood out from the group, and had solid challenges to the other candidates, many of which that went without response.

Ron Paul was ineffective. He had a couple of interesting points, and one or 2 quotable thoughts. But overall he really came off weak and less of an oddball compared to many debates I have heard him in previously.

Keep an eye on John McCain though. I really think he was solid and consistent even though he did not win tonight.

If I had to guess I would expect the South Carolina Republican primary to go in this manner:

John McCain wins
Fred Thompson a strong second
Mitt Romney third
Mike Huckabee fourth
Ron Paul might get a couple of percentage point but definitely dead last

Labels: election 2008, Fox News, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, political debate, Presidential candidates, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain, South Carolina

I’m watching the Republican Presidential debate, in South Carolina on Fox News tonight, and a few very important issues are coming up.

Of course the debate started with the question of the economy. Is there going to be a recession (or as Ron Paul stated it’s an ongoing recession with real estate in a depression) and how long will it last? Will cutting taxes help the average American? Do we need to cut government spending?

All of these are important issues. And I would say that yes a recession is probable. No it’s not a bad thing, though it won’t feel good in the short term. Housing is not in a depression (with all due respect to Ron Paul), rate cuts by themselves are not enough, and keeping the Bush tax cuts prevents a de facto tax increase to the American public. Those are my thoughts, though some of the candidates agree.

One of the bigger moments I think that will be talked about a lot is the challenge made by Fred Thompson to Mike Huckabee on his record. The points made, including Huckabee being pro-immigration, and anti-school vouchers among other things, went unchallenged by Huckabee. He deflected the answers and mentioned his 94 tax cuts and work on education. Honestly Fred Thompson won that point and the crowd knew it.

Another big point was the question by the moderator, Tim Russert, to Ron Paul. Paul was asked if he would ask the 9/11 truthers that support Paul to stop their claims. Ron Paul stated he does not endorse the truthers, or their ideas. He refused to ask them to stop advocating it on his behalf though.

When the question of Pakistan came up Fred Thompson had a great reason why we need to be involved. Because Pakistan is a nation with nuclear weapons, and is Islamic. We need to know who has control of those weapons in our own national interest.

On a similar response, asked to Ron Paul later in the evening about electability,

I paraphrase – “Let me see if I can get this straight. We borrow 10 Billion from China, to give it to Musharef (who overthrew a democratic government) who is hiding terrorists, and then get into a war to bring democracy to Iraq? How aren’t Republicans interested? Why couldn’t asking about that make me unelectable?”

John McCain made a good point, when challenged by Ron Paul as I recall, that having a presence in Iraq is

“A question of presence, not casualties.”

He correctly mentioned that we have troops in Germany since WWII, and in South Korea, and even Kuwait. That is not the same as having fighting troops, so a long term plan with troops in Iraq is not a bad thing or a plan without end.

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: election 2008, Fox News, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, political debate, Presidential candidates, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain, South Carolina

Well the announcements are out. With the vote counted Senator McCain has been declared the winner having garnered 37% of the New Hampshire vote vs. the 32% for second place Mitt Romney. It’s a solid win and recovery for Senator McCain, who was considered all but lifeless back in the summer of 2007.

On the other side of the political map I must mention my disappointment that Senator Obama took second place with 36% of the votes in New Hampshire. It was not the crushing win that was expected by the polls and pundits. And it was my own fault to have paid attention to them.

The earliest indications seemed to reflect the votes made at midnight. And for the Republican race it did indeed stay accurate. Not nearly so much for the Democrats.

What made the difference? That is a question that every baffled pundit and talking head is asking. It’s a question that the Clinton campaign is trying to figure out as I write this. Earlier in the day they had all but given up New Hampshire, and were preparing for a complete loss. They even had planned to pull out the big guns, the campaign staff of President Bill Clinton, and let the former President attack Senator Obama at will. And they even threw in a bit of sour grapes whining inbetween.

But the most common answer has been that when Senator Clinton nearly broke down in tears she motivated the public. In other words, a woman crying won the vote. Wow. That is really impressive for a candidate. A real reason to believe that as a President we can feel secure with this individual.

I might have a different opinion if there was substance behind this win in the Clinton camp. But there wasn’t. There was no change in positions. No change in policy. No sudden declaration. Just emotions.

Not that the win was impressive at 3%. But it does bring back the calls of inevitability that pundits had claimed since 2007. Now comes the real Clinton machine, full throttle.

If you think you have heard the last on questions of being Black and President, the references of ties to radical Islam, that he was some kind of drug pusher, then you have never witnessed a Clinton campaign in action. And I expect there to be leaks of even more, especially the question of whether an African American can win an election vs a White man.

Such is the nature of politics these days. Such is the nature of the Clinton campaign. Not because I’m making this up, but because that is what they did all 2007. And that’s when Senator Clinton though she had the election locked up.

But Michigan is another day. Romney may finally get his first place win. Mike Huckabee may get another boost. Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson may appear from the ether. Or Senator McCain will extend his comeback win.

For Democrats, the question is will Senator Hillary Clinton gain favor? Will actual tears turn the tide? Will she be able to explain when she actually did spend 35 years in public office? I mean she stated she found her voice now, after her own self-proclaimed aforementioned experience. I just would like to see when that was since she was working in a law firm when President Bill Clinton was Governor. And she was First Lady for 8 years.

Perhaps I will be more interested in her ability in Michigan and South Carolina if between now and then she can answer those tiny little details, among a few others.

But John Edwards seems to have done his swan song. And the only real competition appears to be Senator Obama. Only time will tell.

Labels: Fred Thompson, John Edwards, Michigan primary, Mitt Romney, New Hampshire, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

So we continue to hear that Senator Obama is leading the Democratic candidates as the nomination for the Presidential election draws near. The further the day goes, the more we are hearing that the initial results from the midnight voting are proving more accurate.

Record turnouts, bolstered by unseasonably warm weather, are trending in favor of the candidate that 1 year ago was considered a joke, and a minor distraction to the inevitable nomination of Senator Clinton. Well the pundits were wrong, and 1 year later reports are surfacing that the Clinton campaign is grasping for the political advisors that were critical for the elections of President Bill Clinton.

On the Republican side, there is a less clear view. Senator John McCain entered New Hampshire with a strong lead, but Mitt Romney and his huge television ad spending are whitling away at that lead. Independants, the majority of New Hampshire voters, are the most critical factor. The beliefs are that independents will trend towards Obama, though many will also favor McCain.

Even with a solid win by Senator McCain, the final result is not nearly as clear as with the Democratic race. This is an odd election year indeed. Normally the fractioning seen in the Republican race has been something more akin to Democrats. It is very possible that the Republican candidate will be unknown well into, and possibly after the Super Tuesday vote in February. Effectively Mitt Romney, Senator McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson all have the ability to pull off first place wins, with 2nd or 3rd place finishes in multiple states before February.

All of this is causing turmoil in campaigns dubbed inevitable by media pundits in 2007. Senator Clinton has had a very public emotional breakdown, which many felt was a critical blow against her. In the campaign for Senator Clinton it is rumored that key individuals responsible for President Clinton are going to get involved, as I mentioned above. This is currently being denied, and if true seems to kill the concept of change promoted by the campaign. The addition of these figures indicates a return to the era of the 90’s, which in many ways has no place in the 21st century.

One thing that is beginning to creep into the pundits conversation is one thing that gives me pause though. Since the win by Senator Obama in Iowa, I have heard more about the racial breakdown of the various races than I have in all my life. Not just the racial make-up of South Carolina, where the African American vote is critical, but about New Hampshire where Blacks are easily outnumbered.

This is a negative, and it’s a subtle and backhanded way of bringing race forefront in the election. The real question being asked is will White Americans vote for a Black President? Had Senator Clinton been in the lead, I’m sure the question of women voters would be investigated, but the degree to which it would be questioned is unknown. But the big question after a solid and dramatic win by Senator Barack Obama will undoubtedly be the one I have asked.

Few will come out and say it. Most will hide the question in words like electability, or likeability. Polispeak for Black. Polispeak for is America still so racist as to refuse a popular, educated, qualified, and enigmatic candidate solely on the basis of the color of his skin? Polispeak for the question, Can America give up the stereotypes that have been built and relied upon for centuries?

If America can do that, and I believe that regardless of the eventual outcome we are moving to that day anyway, then what will happen? Because this would be more than just a Presidential candidate. It would signify a cultural change in America that has never occurred before. It would imply and justify an equality that any candidate, bereft of polispeak, would admit does not exist today.

No matter what, New Hampshire will have a demonstrative effect on the candidates of both parties. The implications are far reaching and only now being addressed by pundits across the media. Only now are some Americans realizing the implications. What will that result be?

However this continues to go, I must restate, your vote counts. Do not give it away cheaply. Don’t base it solely on the gender, religion, or color of the candidates. That is the least of all reasons to pick a candidate. Pick whomever you feel is best for America. Because that vote, and only that, will benefit the entire nation.

Labels: African American, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, New Hampshire, Polispeak, presidential election, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Clinton, Senator John McCain, South Carolina, Super Tuesday

Well the Iowa caucus is here, and the Presidential candidates are in a flurry of action. Whether it is accusations of dirty tricks, readjustment of expectations or candidates running from town to town, there is no loss of activity in these first few days of 2008.

So far there have been quite a few dirty tricks ongoing. It seems that some caucus goers are being told the wrong addresses to go to. This underhanded act is being blamed on the Romney campaign, and they are denying any involvement in such acts. So the question is if some will get to the right places, if Romney supporters are doing this, or if another party is doing this blaming it on Romney and benefiting from all the confusion generated.

Don’t think that it’s just Republicans with issues. On the Democratic side we already are hearing that the Clinton camp is ratcheting down expectations. A win seems further away as the hours tick down than ever before. Now calls for a second place win being a victory are being announced. According to some sources Iowa is a race between Senator Obama and John Edwards.

Then there are the candidates that are trying something different. There is Senator Dennis Kucinich who has said that his supporters should make Senator Obama their second choice. Effectively I see this as a direct endorsement of Senator Obama, and a realization by Kucinich that he has no chance of winning the nomination. Perhaps this is one down and a stronger momentum for another Democratic Presidential hopeful.

For those unfamiliar with the Iowa caucus, here is a very quick summary of what happens. Essentially a group of Iowans gather at a specific location. There are separate tables that represent various candidates. The caucus-goers gather at the various tables that represent the candidates they support or would like to know about. Debate and questions occur, and people either stay or go. A tally is taken and any candidate that has less than 15% of the Iowan there is out. Those supporters then have a choice, leave or go to a candidate of their second choice. The process goes on until there is a winner.

While I have seen reports that state 2/3 of Iowans are registered to vote, only a mere 100,000 are expected to be involved in picking the winning candidate. Often the fact that a particular candidates table having better food or coffee can help sway the vote, it has been suggested. Imagine that. The better cappuccino maker will get the win. And you thought the kid working the machine in Starbucks has no power.

Seriously though.

With cold weather, voter apathy, barely any leads in polling, and no clear direction for the various political parties I’m not surprised that pundits are confused. In the past few months lesser known candidates have surged ahead from what pundits had projected in early 2007.

Last year at this same time Senator Obama was considered a joke by pundits, today he stands even odds to win Iowa. Senator McCain, who had been considered an early favorite, has fallen in polls and now resurging. Ron Paul has claimed more attention from the internet, and wildly off-of-center views, than anyone could have guessed. Mike Huckabee has appeared from nowhere, battling Mitt Romney more on who is more religious than anything else. Oh, and Rudy Giuliani has completely avoided the fray. He has gone to New Hampshire and will let Iowans do what they do.

I have long said I will be neutral, and I tell you it’s never been a harder choice than now to live up to that decision. I have preferences in which I would like to see win each race. And once it’s all said and done I will let you know my thoughts and why.

Until then, remember that your vote counts immensely. You will choose the direction of America, and your vote is worth more than hot coffee on a cold night or the similarity of race, gender and/or religion of a candidate.

Iowa has the reins today, but America picks a President this year. Let’s make the best choice we can.

Labels: Dennis Kucinich, Iowa Caucus, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama

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

Having just heard the speech by Mitt Romney I want to share my early thoughts. I think that this was an impotant speech, and there will be no end of pundits discussion of what worked and failed in the speech. But from a comman man’s point of view, I have to say that it was a good speech.

I have no doubt in the conviction of the words spoken by Mitt Romney. They came across in a heart-felt manner. And I believe there was a hint of annoyance at times as well. I too share that annoyance, because in the 21st century, with 231 years of existence, America should not have a need for such a speech.

I have to wonder, as I did early in the speech, if Senator Barack Obama needs to make a speech about his race, or Senator Clinton needs to make one about being a woman. Sounds absurd on the onset, but where is the difference? In essence there is no difference unless an individual seeks to find a way to segregate and divide Presidential candidates on a basis that ignores character, intelligence, ability and experience.

Mitt Romney stated [I am writing this before the full speech is available so forgive me if I misquote]

“As President I will need the prayers of all the faiths of this nation.”

The fact is that any President needs this. We are a diverse naton, and no President has ever, nor ever will, represent everyone in the nation. Nor should they. We don’t need candidates that are willing to deny what they are, or give platitudes in an effort to gain cheap votes. And do not misunderstand, seeking votes on the basis of gender, race, religion or other categorizing factor is a vote that is sold cheaply and unwisely.

There is no question that in this nation there are many faiths, and peoples from across the planet. That is a strength of this nation. The basis that we all live and believe that our freedoms are the single most important fact of our lives. It is the driving force of why everyone in the world wants to live here or have their nation emulate facets of our own.

But the fact that this speech needed to be made worries me. It implies that there are some, a great many of them, that cannot accept the freedoms far too many have died and bled to maintain. It means that some would rather stick to prejudiced ideals and huddle in the dark rather than take steps forward to ensure the greatest good for the nation.

I am not making an endorsement, but I am highlighting a thought. Does it truly matter what the race, gender, religion or ancestry of an individual if they are the best choice to lead our nation in prosperity, peace (as much as possible), and freedom? Could anyone honestly say that they would give up any of those things to gain a superficial comfort in having a cookie-cutter incompetent lead them? If so that is perhaps one of the most un-American things I’ve ever heard.

The next President of the United States, and those to follow like those that preceeded them, is not a Man. They are not a religion, race or anything else. They are the embodiment of the nation, and when we pick them properly, the highest ideals that are the foundation of our land. It is this embodiment of the people, and service to them in seeking the greatest good, that is what the President is. To select a President for any other reason, to have a President that serves any other purpose, not only diminishes the nation but in fact harms our ability to continue.

Mitt Romney’s speech reminded me of these facts. He crystalized the fact that the election is not about Democrats vs. Republicans, or men vs. women, or White vs. Black. It’s not about whom a person gives faith to, or chooses not to. This election, like all elections in America, is about serving the will of the people and the betterment of our lives and world.

Perhaps that sentiment will pervade as pundits and major news organizations ponder over every letter and syllable. Perhaps the various candidates will reflect on this as they prepare for the next speech or debate. Perhaps the American citizens will take to heart this thought as they discuss this among friends, debate at primaries, and vote in the general election.

The faith of the citizens of this nation, in our nation and each other, is pre-emminent for each of us and all of us to continue to be free.

If we lose sight of that, we lose sight of America.

Labels: democrats, election 2008, Freedom of religion, Mitt Romney, presidential candidate, religious persecution, republicans

I find it interesting that recent polls in Iowa show that Mitt Romney is slipping a bit to Mike Huckabee. Now you might have thought that such a drop could be attributed to the accusations made by the Rudy Giuliani campaign about Romney’s record on taxes and healthcare while Governor of Massachusetts.

“Romney passed a mandate and tax hike-laden health care plan in Massachusetts which Hillary Clinton's own legislative director said was just like Hillarycare.” - Giuliani spokeswoman Katie Levinson

But that isn’t the reason. It isn’t even close. It’s been stated, and quoted by Fox News at ~7am, that the loss in standing is because of Mitt Romney’s religion. That’s what’s bothering Iowans. Can you believe it?

Of the questions and issues that could be asked of a Presidential candidate, this is the one that is bothering people? Not resolving the millions of illegal aliens in the nation, or the dependence on foreign oil, or ensuring our children will get better educations. It’s that they don’t trust the way he prays.

I find that insulting. It’s as petty to me as saying “I won’t vote for John Edwards because he pays too much for his haircuts,” or even more accurately “I won’t vote for Senator Obama because he is Black.”

I think when you think of it in terms of the second quote the ignorance of the situation becomes more apparent. Because if Edwards started moving up in polls because Iowans questioned the race of the candidates, or gender for that matter, there would be an uproar. Cries of bias and ignorance would run through all the major newspapers and media. Pundits would be amazed that such closed-mindedness still exist in America.

I hope there is any reason other than the one stated above. Because as we get closer to the actual primaries, the real feelings are starting to show. More people are paying attention now after a virtual year of speeches and debates. And if there is a reason for Mike Huckabee the absolute least is religion.

Iowans should be better than that. America must be better than that. And I shudder to think of where the nation will go if we fail to be.

If you are in Iowa, I want to hear what you have to say. Is it true, and if so why?

**I write about the Presidential Race for TV One and Presidential Race Blog as well as here.**

Labels: Fox News, Mike Huchabee, Mitt Romney, religion in politics, republican candidates, Rudy Giuliani, TV One

In a little less than 6 weeks America will decide which candidates will be running for the Presidency of the United States. This next election will be perhaps the most critical for America in decades. Definitely for those Americans that have grown up with the internet, cell phones, and cable television this is the most definitive moment in American government they have ever witnessed.

Because of that TV One will be presenting a live webcast of the Heartland Presidential Forum from Iowa. This debate will likely be the last held prior to the primary voting that will follow shortly in January 2008. The debate will be taking place on December 1st 2007 at 2:30pm. Expectations are that 5000 citizens will be at the forum, and some will be able to directly ask the candidates questions about their plans and goals for America.

Also in conjunction with this Forum and webcast, TV One has gathered several bloggers that will discuss the various aspects of the political landscape leading up to the debate, and who will blog during the live debate as well. This will be a chance for you to be directly aware of what the candidates have to say about the issues you care about; and to be able to hear the thoughts of other average Americans about the answers given.

I am proud to say that I have been selected as one of the bloggers to be involved with TV One and the Heartland Presidential Forum webcast.

To that end I want to take a moment and review a bit about the many issues I have been blogging about since the beginning of the year in regard to the 2008 election. Long time readers to my site will be familiar with much of this, while newer visitors may find information that they may have missed.

I started the year by sending out letters to several of the Presidential candidates. Those candidates were in both the Democratic and Republican parties. In those letters I asked each candidate several questions that were prevalent in the minds of many people, and continue to be today.

Examples of some of the questions are

“Lastly, what is your position on the various laws and actions that are in place or proposed to impede illegal aliens from entering this nation from our southern border only? Do you agree or disagree with the thought that more should be done to protect our largely unwatched northern borders, especially since there has been evidence of how dangerous this lack of attention has been. – To Senator Hillary Clinton, Dec. 16, 2006”

“In recent weeks a great deal has been made of Representative Ellison’s informal swearing in using the Quran. As an individual of the Mormon faith, if you were to be elected President, would you use The Book Of Mormon to be sworn in on? (Please excuse my ignorance about your faith but I believe that is your religious text) Do you feel that your religious background would have any affect on your performance if elected President? Would it have any affect in dealing with dignitaries and governments that hold a different religion, and if so what? What place do you feel religion has for any elected official, if any? – To Mitt Romney, Jan. 10, 2007”

“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? – To Senator Barack Obama, Jan. 22, 2007”

“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? – To Rudy Giuliani, April 5, 2007”

Other questions and letters can be found at my corporate website in the Presidential candidates section, or via search at any of my blogs.

I have also been running a poll tracking the opinion of average Americans on who should be the next President of America. [The exact question is - If the election was held today who would you vote for? – The list of candidates does not include Fred Thompson who entered the race far later than any other candidate.] As of this post Senator Barack Obama leads with 52% of respondents. Senator Hillary Clinton trails behind in second with 22%, followed by Senator John McCain in a distant 3rd (9%). These can be found on the poll on the sidebar of all my sites. Feel free to place your vote as well, I will update this the day of the TV One Heartland Presidential Forum webcast and the following Monday.

So to sum up the introduction, I try to be neutral in my questions and views of the Presidential race at this time. While we as a nation are trying to decide which candidates of either party are the best choices for the nation to choose between, I feel it’s most important for me to raise questions about what we need to know from any candidate. This next election is far too important. And I’m glad to say that TV One agrees.

Expect more everyday, and if I can several times a day, until the debate. And check back during or after the debate. Hopefully together we will be able to find the best choices for America, because anything less diminishes us all.

Labels: election 2008, Heartland Presidential Forum, Iowa, Mitt Romney, political debate, presidential cantidates, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, TV One

Here is something that is a nice diversion from the constant bickering otherwise known as the Presidential primary debates. As the nation is coming closer to the actual primaries, and the 2008 election, odds are being placed on who could potentially be the next President.

Some of the bets placed are obscure, others are downright stupid. A few just have to be a joke. You can see all the odds at Superbook.com. [I must give credit for finding this to Mialka Bonadonna] There are a couple of good ones on the Presidential race.

One of my favorites is Arnold Schwarzenegger at 250-1 as opposed to Rev. Al Sharpton at 500-1. Remarkably Rev. Jesse Jackson is at 200-1. Mind you none of them are actually in the race, so it makes their odds even more ridiculous. Could you imagine how messed up the nation would be with any of them?

On a more interesting, and slightly more realistic, realm are the odds for Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Respectively they are 50 and 30-1. Not too bad considering they aren’t running either, they are both Black, and one being a woman. That makes them pretty popular, more than I had imagined.

Thankfully the odds for the actual frontrunners of each party are rather decent. Even Sen. McCain, John Edwards, and Mitt Romney show signs of being pretty decent.

Of course, the current favorites found at my informal poll [it does not include Fred Thompson who was not running at the beginning of the year] shows Sen. Barack Obama with a huge lead on everyone, including Sen. Clinton. Judge that as you will.

Still time to get your bets in if you are so inclined. Don’t forget to share your bet with us here. Nothing like being able to point out your predictive skills in black and white after the election.

Labels: Al Sharpton, Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice, election 2008, Mitt Romney, political debate, Presidential candidates, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

As the next election edges closer, I find it interesting all the commentary being made about the various Presidential candidates. Comments are coming out not only questioning the political positions of the candidates but also on various aspects of their person.

In this one site I found, there is a very subjective evaluation of IQ’s being stated. How the values were computed, even as a guesstimate, is very unclear. What you might notice immediately is that every Democrat is given a higher IQ than every Republican mentioned. That seems quite unbalanced and inaccurate.

For the Democrats out there, don’t get too happy. Senator Obama is described as a pushover, Senator Clinton is

Whatever Hillary is, she is a loner, likely very cold and power hungry. More than a liberal, she seems like a true power-hungry communist.

It’s slightly better for some of the Republican candidates. Mitt Romney is called a fiscal conservative (though it seems implied his religion and campaign lose the 2008 election). Rudy Giuliani is more Bush than President Bush

He would eventually expand federal powers beyond Bush and that very idea alone will pull all support from the right-wingers.

Perhaps most glaring is the IQ given to Fred Thompson, and the accusation that he is lazy (which I am unaware of). This one conclusion seems to be the most biased to me. It may be just my interpretation but Fred Thompson seems to be given the lowest IQ and called lazy due to his Southern roots and mannerisms. Conversely Senator Clinton is given the highest IQ and called cold due to her association with New York and the North. [Has everyone forgotten she is as Southern as Fred Thompson, and her roots are strongly tied to Arkansas, the same as her husband former-President Bill?]

Infer what you will but with this kind of insults flying through the net I have to wonder what the protests will be like in 3 years after the Presidential election?

Labels: election 2008, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Clinton

I love the way politicians pick on a subject they know they can get attention with, all the while knowing that it’s complete hogwash. I’ll take the recent confrontation the Senator Clinton faced from John Edwards and Senator Obama. It was the near-famous refusal of Senator Clinton to give up lobbyist funding that did it. Didn’t the other candidates feel smug.

Of course, none of the others are getting nearly as much money from lobbyists so they might be a bit more willing since it levels the playing field a bit. Not that any of the Presidential candidates will give up the funds they have received unilaterally. Now that would make a statement and force others to follow their move. But bold groundbreaking political actions are not for this Presidential race.

Don’t be fooled. The question about lobbyist money is self-serving. If you are not getting the majority of it, you want to no one else to keep any. It makes it easier to be competitive. And don’t think that any of the candidates desire to let the public know where their money is coming from.

So far only Senator Obama provides an easy reference to where his bundled contributions are coming from. Bundled money would be, as an example, funds raised by Oprah Winfrey at her upcoming dinner party that is $2300 minimum to enter, if you were invited.

Let me correct myself, Senator Clinton did make it clear as well, 3 months ago on a blog by a lesser staffer, stuffed in the 4th paragraph, without other notice or fanfare. That is about as clear as pea soup.

Some may think this is the norm for Presidential candidates, but the fact is that President Bush, in 2004 made it somewhat easy (and far moreso than what is available today) on where his money was coming from and thus forced other candidates to be almost as clear. As maligned as President Bush may be these days, none of the current candidates match his actions. That seems to say a lot about how serious these candidates are, don’t you think?

And this does not even touch on the money received by candidates from special interest groups, which I spoke about before. Not surprisingly Senator Clinton and Mitt Romney lead in this arena, at least with healthcare.

So the Daily Kos may have cheered, the soundbites may sound great, but there is no substance behind any of it that I can find. Smoke and mirrors are not only for magicians, politicians use them well too. Sadly, I don’t find it entertaining.

Do you?

Labels: daily kos, Mitt Romney, Oprah Winfrey, presidential candidate, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

Continued from The slippery slope of religion in America today Part 1...

America is becoming more divided these days. The divisions that have existed since the birth of this nation, based on race have never healed. Adding to that infected wound is now religion and the infection is enflamed. Yet this nation was equally based on the freedom of religion as well as that of individuals. If this is not resolved it will tear us all apart. That is my fear.

Forty years ago, even 15 years ago there was no question of religion in the election of the President of the nation. There was some question for President John F. Kennedy but it was hardly the degree of debate that we see posed to Mr. Romney, or hinted at Senator Obama.

How long before we re-enact the missteps of history? How long before this religion or that one feels so persecuted, in America, that they lash out? I’m not talking about fanatics who are so blinded as to act out in actions that violate their own belief systems. How long before we see divisions between those that believe and those that do not, those that believe in God by this name and not that.

Today the anger has been directed at Muslims, because of the fanatics that committed 9/11 and wish to do more. Tomorrow it could be the atheists, or Jews or Lutherans. Religious intolerance is like the boulder on a hill, next to impossible to stop once it starts rolling. That is what I fear.

We are doomed to repeat the lessons of History if we do not learn from them. That is a quote, though I forget from whom. They are true words. Millions, perhaps billions over the existence of Mankind have yet to learn. We seem to be sliding, forgetting that for all the technology, the ability to learn, we can follow those same footsteps as well.

Every religion believes it is wrong to kill. Every religion believes we should love one another. Every religion believes God made everyone. Yet we cannot live side by side. This isn’t about blame, there is more than enough for every side and religion. It’s about what we can do to not see the atrocities and suffering that has happened so many times before.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Mitt Romney, Muslim religion, President John F. Kennedy

Everyone is a prisoner of his own experiences. No one can eliminate prejudices - just recognize them.
Edward R. Murrow

Muslims pray before getting on a plane and the passengers get them removed. A man at Pace University, angry that a movie was not going to be shown because of Muslim requests, takes a Koran from a common area and flushes it down a toilet, twice. A University in the Mid-west decides to install 2 foot basins to allow Muslim students the ability to wash their feet, using taxpayer funds to do so.

You may have heard of these stories. Generally you have only heard a piece of the story, possibly presented from one side or another. I will not pretend to be able to explain both sides of the arguments involved with these issues, nor will I claim one view is better than another. I will state that they are all related in that they are part of the growing religious divisions found in America today.

It doesn’t matter whether you think that a person praying, in a manner and language unlike the usual televised religious ceremonies constantly on airwaves for the past 4 decades at least, is a concern. Nor does it matter that the foot basins could be paid for by others than the state government. What is important to me is that it brings to light the fear of a religion that is not the most populous in America today. That is a dangerous situation, and will be deadly if not addressed.

Religion has been responsible for more deaths than any other factor in human history. Not food, or shelter, or even greed. The existence or not of an omnipotent being/entity that has this or that name inflames more people than there are raindrops in the sky during a thunderstorm. The Romans vs. Christians, Egypt vs. the Hebrews in Ancient times, The Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades and that’s just the European – Mediterranean area. Throughout time this has gone on and on. And today it is even worse.

Palestinians vs. Israel, Al Quida, Iran vs. Iraq (1980’s), Sunni vs. Shiite, the Holocaust, David Koresh vs. the U.S. Government, Jim Jones and so on. There is no end. I truly doubt that there ever will be an end to it. But how is that connected to the earlier statements?

The more fear is used to explain or punish or repress any group of people the less free all the people are. Listen to the anger that is expressed when news reporters discuss many cases that involve Muslims. Hear those that had (and have) fears of Senator Obama based on his name alone. Remember the outrage that resulted from Representative Ellison swearing into Congress with the Koran. See the distrust placed on Mr. Mitt Romney as a Mormon. None of that is healthy.

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: Mitt Romney, Muslim religion, religious tolerance, Rep. Virgil Goode

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

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

As part of my ongoing series of letters to known and potential candidates for the Presidency I add this letter to Mr. Mitt Romney. Previous letters have been sent to Mr. John Edwards and Senator Clinton.


January 10, 2007
Mr. Romney,

I am aware of your recent declaration to enter the race for the Presidency of the United States. I maintain several blogs (www.mvass.com is most relevant) as well as being a citizen, a former member of the military, and a small business owner. For these reasons I wish to ask you some questions about why you believe you should be President. It is my intention to also post this letter, and any response from you, verbatim on at least one of my blog sites. I have previously sent a similar letter to Senator Clinton and Mr. John Edwards. I plan on sending a similar letter to several candidates for President, as time and their declarations allow.

I am not familiar with your positions or your actions as Governor of Massachusetts. Given this lack of knowledge can you tell me what you have done for your former constituents, especially those of Latino/Hispanic and African American heritage, that has improved their lives.

In regard to your position on healthcare, I have read that you believe in universal care – at least on a state level. Given this I would like to know, how would you fund a federal universal healthcare plan? What would you do to motivate innovation and the quality of care that currently exists in the current profit motivated system? If the healthcare is universal, does it also mean that illegal aliens are entitled and if so where would the funds for those individuals come from?

In regard to education, I see that in 2002 you were in favor of school vouchers and the reform of underperforming institutions, how effective have you been in MA? Considering that nation-wide there has been a huge increase in African American dropout rates, what would you do to improve those numbers? Based on your reported desire to abolish the Department of Education (2002), what would you have to replace it and how would it function?

It appears in what I have read, that you have a very strong stance on punishment for convicted criminals. I would like to know, do you agree with the death penalty? Since you believe in mandatory sentences, and increasing sentencing, how would you correct the imbalance that exists in the justice system currently? To clarify my point, African Americans, and to a slightly lesser degree Latino/Hispanics, are routinely given stiffer penalties and sentences than White Americans for the same crimes. This is even more evident in sentences that are for life or the death penalty. What initiatives would you take to ensure a more even-handed approach?

In recent weeks a great deal has been made of Representative Ellison’s informal swearing in using the Quran. As an individual of the Mormon faith, if you were to be elected President, would you use The Book Of Mormon to be sworn in on? (Please excuse my ignorance about your faith but I believe that is your religious text) Do you feel that your religious background would have any affect on your performance if elected President? Would it have any affect in dealing with dignitaries and governments that hold a different religion, and if so what? What place do you feel religion has for any elected official, if any?

For some time now politicians have said that they are for ‘family values’. I have heard this stated by politicians and candidates of every party. How do you exactly define family values? How do you plan to promote those values, if you were elected? And what recourse or alternative would be available to those Americans who have values separate of yours?

It appears that your views on abortion and gay rights have changed over the years. What has prompted your change of view? What is your exact position on these issues today?

Consider that America has taken on a war against the ideal of terrorism, and terrorists, in addition to being engaged in an active war in Iraq and maintaining troops in Afghanistan. Given this do you feel that your lack in being a member of the Armed Forces is a benefit, detractor, or of no concern? How do you come to this conclusion? What are your plans to protect America, as Commander-and-Chief?

Currently there have been many soundbites used by politicians of every party in discussing every platform and idea. In each question I have asked I hope for full and complete answers. I would rather an extremely long and complex answer that details exactly your plans and goals, rather than a short answer that details and explains nothing. I feel strongly about the use of snippets of information to almost convey an actual position. I feel that the recent win by democrats in the mid-term elections were due to this use of soundbites. How do you feel about this?

I thank your for your time to review this letter. I, and my readers, look forward your responses.

Sincerely,

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

*I have used an email found at http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/ , but am unaware if this will reach Mr. Romney. I have also used the email found at info@mittromney.com .

** At this time there has been no response from any individual I have sent a letter to previously.

Labels: African American, illegal aliens, Mitt Romney, Mormon religion, presidential election