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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politics is an amazing arena. It’s the only business in America where lies, misperceptions, misspoken statements, and polispeak are valued assets and critical winning strategies. And that’s true of every political party and elected official from local government to the highest office.

I mention this because of a conversation I had with a woman today. She is interested in getting her voice out to the masses for this election. She believes it to be very important, and thus she is also interested in creating a blog. To that end she contacted me and eventually we discussed the Presidential candidates.

Now in this discussion it came out that she prefers Senator Obama over Senator McCain. There’s nothing wrong with that. When I asked her why, the reasons she gave were very telling. The only reason involving Senator Obama was the fact that he would provide change, every other reason in our 2 hour discussion focused on a belief she had on Senator McCain. I feel that much of what she believed is similar to what others believe as well.

While there is nothing wrong with being for any one candidate, the reasons should be well defined. Let me clarify.

These are the reasons she felt McCain was a bad choice. He is too old, he had cancer, he must suffer from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), he is another President Bush, he is a warmonger (my paraphrase), he is non-partisan, he won’t change anything, and he has a temper. This is the summarized version of her reasons why Obama should be President.

Now while Senator McCain is old, it is well known that he is very physically fit. Many pundits and politicians admit that he is in excellent shape for his age, more than many that are decades his junior. And his genetics – as viewed by looking at his mother who is in her 90’s – show a propensity to remain active and mentally intact for another 20 years. Add to that the fact that Presidents have served at his age before.

And by the way, is Senator McCain is senile for calling Sunnis Shiites, then what is Senator Hillary Clinton when she repeatedly comments on barrel rolling planes and sniper fire that never existed? If that is not senility, or a lie what do you call that? As opposed to mixing up the names of 2 groups of people that most Americans can’t tell you the difference between or even spell.

In looking at his cancer, he had a skin cancer that was non-lethal. It was removed. He is currently free of any cancer and has been for years. There is no reason to believe that he would get cancer again, but there are many politicians that have fought cancer and continued to serve in office. There has been Presidents that have suffered ailments during their Presidency and still governed effectively.

But to combine the 2 questions of age and cancer into one solution, that is why there are Vice-Presidents.

As for being a warmonger, that is a harsh inaccurate and politically driven perception (though again I note that she did not call him that - others I've spoken with have). Groups like Moveon.org and Code Pink may feel that such a title may applie to McCain, but then again they felt the same about Senator Clinton and EVERY other politician that has not advocated the immediate retreat from Iraq. It would be far more accurate to say that as a former military officer, a decorated veteran, and a former POW Senator McCain has a far greater appreciation of what it means to fight for our country than most politicians or civilians. Considering that he has a son that has actively served in Iraq recently, he appreciates as much as any parent the fears of an active war. Thus I am left to conclude that if he believes that it is important for America to win if possible, and/or to exit in a manageable manner – and is willing to risk his own son – that he believes such steps are in the nations best interest long-term.

It’s well known that Senator John McCain has a temper. He has had words with many Senators and politicians over his 25 years of political service. Then again so have many Presidents. In fact it is now more publicly acknowledged that President Clinton had a horrible temper. According to Dick Morris, who used to work for President Clinton, he was struck in anger by the President. Since Mr. Morris said this on national cable television and has not been sued or asked to retract his statement I am led to believe it was true. So we have evidence that recent Presidents have tempers, which did not prevent them from their duties.

To go back to the military past of Senator McCain, which Senator Obama has never had a day of, I was told he had to have PTSD. This was a point that was brought up multiple times. The woman I spoke with could not see how anyone that went through what McCain has could not be so afflicted. Yet in 25 years in the Senate there has been no incidence ever reported. Not one politician, of either party, or an aide has ever noted anything that would be likened to PTSD. I wouldn’t say that McCain never has a bad memory, but like many veterans he has lived a productive life without incident. So why is that a fear? PTSD is not like LSD. It doesn’t suddenly crop up one morning with a cup of coffee. There are symptoms and signs. This is what my father dealt with, and as a man that did have PTSD, suffered from Agent Orange, and lost an arm and leg most would never have been able to tell as he worked on his small farm and daily interactions. But when things were bad, there were always signs.

Suffice to say that I feel this is an unwarranted and probably politically motivated issue.

I’ll combine the question of whether McCain is another President Bush and whether he is non-partisan. Don’t take my word on this but look back a year and a half. Look back 2 years. Read how the liberal media lauded Senator McCain, and Republican were angry with him, for breaking party lines on various issues. Look at how the media positively covered McCain as the most bi-partisan Republican and as the kind of Republican Democrats could work with. Look at the multiple laws he has passed and tried to pass. Count the number of times McCain was called a moderate, and conservative groups that backed President Bush whole-heartedly were angry with McCain.

The fact is that the main thing that has changed is the media and pundit perception of Senator McCain. What he did has not changed, but the perception has been molded by the media, just in time for people who don’t follow politics daily to just notice.

Last is change. Everyone is speaking about change. Which is just dumb. No matter who is elected change is guaranteed. Neither man is President Bush so change is a fact.

But on one hand we have a candidate without experience (relatively) as compared to one with over 3 decades of service to the nation. Of course I was told that Senator Obama can surround himself with people that have experience and he can make decisions based on their knowledge.

So why is McCain faulted for his experience, and that of those he would have around him, since Senator Obama would be drawing from a pool of politician that are just as embedded in “old” politics as McCain? The only real difference is that McCain has his own experience to balance against the opinions of those around him, and Obama does not.

Now I don’t fault anyone for picking any candidate. I am happy that many are getting involved because I agree that this is an important election. But I want to emphasize something. Picking a candidate based on current soundbites and a set of rules that apply only one way is not picking a candidate that is in the best interest of America.

Check the facts, learn about the candidates for yourself. Look at the vote where Senator Obama voted to raise the taxes of everyone making $31,850 or more (and Senator McCain voted against) and ask if that is rich. Ask why every multi-millionaire and billionaire that advocates higher taxes have never given a single extra dollar to the government than they were required to – in fact a few have preferred to give their money to charities instead. Ask how Senator Obama will pass bi-partisan laws with a record of voting highly partisan and liberal. Ask if you prefer a President that is historically moderate or liberal – with a populace that in all honesty is middle of the road depending on the issue.

If you look for those facts, and ignore the pundits and polispeak; if you ask those questions and come to an answer for yourself, then that is who you should vote for. And it’s when you vote on that basis that America will truly get the best choice for America’s future.

Labels: 2008 election, Code Pink, moveon.org, Polispeak, President Bush, Presidential candidates, PTSD, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, tax increase

**originally posted at Black Entertainment USA**

Today, 40 years after the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and 2 days before my birthday I pause to reflect on what has happened and what could have.

I’ve read a lot on Dr. King in the recent days, far more than what was written during this past Black History Month. And I’m reminded of comments made by Jeff Johnson when I saw him at Ithaca College this year. I consider what Dr. King was moving forward to do at the time he was killed, and how he has been frozen in time. I look at the society of America and of African Americans.

I am a child of the Civil Rights era. I have benefited in numerous ways from the struggles and strife made by those before me. And there are numerous things today that have gone backwards in time or have wasted the efforts made. Those children beyond my generation have no idea of what has changed, and seemingly few have an appreciation that they don’t know things have changed only recently.

If Dr. King had not been killed 40 years ago, do you think there would be a BET today? Perhaps there would be, and a TV One as well – but not the only 2 and not in the manner that we see now on Black Entertainment Television I imagine. I doubt that Bob Johnson would have been the first with a national cable channel, and it would not have been built upon the back of scantily clad Black women gyrating to lyrics promoting drugs and violence.

If Dr. King had lived, he honestly would have diminished in some of his stature – as all great leaders do as they age. Yet his voice would hold more power than all the so called Black leaders of today combined and then some. He would long ago have questioned the infusion of drugs into our communities, the ridiculous face value actions of “Just say no”, and the promotion of money over education values that have integrated into our communities via music videos, video games, and other genres.

If Dr. King had lived, there would be a voice to speak with fanatical Muslim extremists. Perhaps there would never have been a 9/11, nor a war in Kuwait, nor a bombing in Lebanon. And even if these events did happen, there might have been a voice to provide an alternative just a step short of war.

If Dr. King had lived unions would be far different than they are now. There would have been a powerful voice questioning America’s involvement in Viet Nam, and questioning how the Government ran the war.

I imagine that television networks and movie studios would have rushed to integrate the big and small screens for fear of boycotts. Today there would not be worlds of imagination segregated to a virtually uniform racial make up of the world. There would not be just 2% of the entertainment industry representing every person of color combined. Spike Lee would not have to be heralded as a unique and groundbreaking director (based on his color), but just a great director among others.

I imagine that the African American middle class would not be a ghost, but a viable and growing community. I imagine that I would not have been able to get through high school with a college preparatory physics class textbook that was 3 years older than me. I imagine that a better alternative to Affirmative Action may have been found.

I would hope that had Dr. King lived, America would have come to terms with the need to apologize for slavery, something that I think still festers in the background causing separation and ill-will. I would hope that America could realize that reparations are part of that contrition and the fact that every American today benefits from the 246 years of work that built the foundations of everything that exists today. I would hope that we all would further realize that another 100+ years of segregation and prejudice were instead built upon the back of slavery with Jim Crow laws and that the cycle of judgment based on skin color needed to be broken.

I believe that as some of these things came to pass the history of the nation, the full history, would be revealed. Men like the Tuskegee Airmen and every other African American that has fought in every war America has ever had would not be new revelations to our children today. That the innovations and inventions that make life modern would be attributed to the Blacks that created them. That no person in America would wish to use a word like the N-word because it had no relevance and its meaning is too vile to repeat.

I believe that there would be no need to be distinguished by skin color when being described as an American. I would not need to be African American or Mexican American and so on. We could simply be Americans, one and all.

I believe that the Tuskegee Experiment would not have lasted until 1972, and that the Government would have been smitten for such actions. That there would not need to be a question of whether the government had made AIDS and brought it into communities of people of color because we could be sure they would never act in such a manner again.

I believe that Dr. King would never have become a politician, but other people of color would have been inspired, supported and welcomed as such. That there would be no place in America that could still herald the fact an African American ran for or was elected to a political office. That the first viable Black Presidential candidate would have ran, and possibly been elected long before the 21st century – 388 years after the first recorded slave was sold, 235 years after creating America, 142 years after abolishing slavery, 85 years after lynchings became a crime, 42 years after Jim Crow and segregation laws were declared illegal, 23 years after the first Black Miss America, 8 years after the first Black Secretary of State, 7 years after the first African American President of an Ivy League College and first Black billionaire, and 1 year after the first Black American (and youngest person) that flew around the world solo [which went virtually unreported].

There are many things I think that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. could have done had he lived, and others that he would have influenced that would have benefited America. But I am left with one other thought.

Why haven’t these things happened even without him?

Labels: African Americans, BET, Black History Month, Civil Rights, Jeff Johnson, Martin Luther King, n-word, Presidential candidates, Reparations for Slavery, Tuskegee Airmen, TV One

I recall stating in recent weeks,

“I have yet to hear any of the sermons of the religious leaders of the churches of Senator McCain, Senator Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, President Bush, or anyone else.”

It was a comment that reflected the fact that the media focus on 30 second soundbites – compiled from 5 – 10 second clips of 5-6 speeches made by Rev. Wright – of polispeak are being used as a tool to deter voters from joining the Senator Obama camp. My conclusion was that the comments were not friendly to Whites and the American Government, but were taken almost completely out of context. The media molded an impression of the words of Rev. Wright, and then extrapolated that impression onto Senator Obama and the entirety of the impetus for this was based in race and prejudice.

But the real stark fact was that the media, that sought out the videos and slips of words of Rev. Wright, made no noticible effort to cover or learn of the comments of the pastors of any other Presidential candidate. There is the bias. If the views and comments of a religious leader is important for one candidate, then it must be important for all of them. Yet only the African American pastor and candidate have fallen into this skewed interrogation.

That is until I found this information recently.

It seems that Senator Hillary Clinton’s former pastors have had a few things to say. Now you may wonder why they have made comment and what they had to say – as well as the reason why the major media threw a wet blanket on these relevant and newsworthy comments.

By the way, Senator Hillary Clinton has not been a member of any church for 16 years. That matches the time that she has been out of the White House. Thus there is no current pastor to listen to for her, nor is there a church for her to leave as she stated in this quote

“He would not have been my pastor," Clinton told a gathering of the campaign press corps, repeating a line she used earlier in the day on a Pittsburgh radio program. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.” – Speaking about the video clips of Rev. Wright used by the media.

So for the religious that think Senator Clinton reflects their faith or is setting a morale stance, keep the facts in mind.

But of the pastors she did have while her husband was President and watched every Sunday have made comments.

Dean Snyder, senior minister at the Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington D.C. - which the Clintons attended while in the White House – stated,

“The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize.”

Reverend Edward Matthews, who opposed both Iraq wars, supports same-sex marriage, opposes the death penalty, and has been a passionate critic of American foreign policy, served as pastor of First United Methodist from 1990 to 1998. The Clinton’s attended his church for the last 2 years prior to entering the White House. First United Methodist remains the only church of which Mrs. Clinton is a member.

He also attended prayer meetings at the White House while they were there. In addition to that he campaigned with Senator Clinton prior to the Iowa Caucus, and made a video testimonial for her. And he has said that at one time he even shared the views of Rev. Wright.

Rev. Matthews has actually heard a sermon of Rev. Wright. His comment on that was,

“If you are very close-minded, you would have gotten up and walked out of that. But I appreciated what he was saying." Rev. Matthews said. "I wouldn't have said it that way. I wouldn't have been so animated.”

As for whether she would leave his church because Senator Clinton disagreed with Rev. Matthew’s position on same-sex marriage, the death penalty, the Iraq War, or supporting Isreal he stated,

“She's disagreed with me on several things, but she remained a member of the church. We've remained close friends”

So it would seem that those preachers that can be identified as knowing Senator Clinton have made themselves clear. They support and defend Rev. Wright. To varying degrees they agree with him. They, in degrees, disagree with Senator Clinton’s political views. And she has not disavowed any of their comments in the past or present.

Thus I have to ask where is the major media coverage of this? Where is the controversy of the comments that Rev. Matthews made about America during the Viet Nam war? Comments that would have been viewed as strongly as those of Rev. Wright today. Where are the questions about how these pastors affected the politics of the Clinton’s?

Where is the investigation into the comments of Senator McCain’s pastor?

I am left with a single thought. This is all polispeak, meant to obfuscate the reasons to nominate Senator Obama, and assured to be brought up if he gets the nomination. It is racism under the guise of religion – 2 areas that are mostly taboo to question unless you are African American it seems.

There is nothing that justifies the manner and degree to which Rev. Wright has come under fire. Nor is there a reasoning, beyond that which I have mentioned, to attribute those misquoted, out of context, 2 – 3 word video snippets to the politics and character of Senator Obama. Thus anyone that would alter their voting due to all of this should also alter their voting for Senator Clinton, and perhaps Senator McCain. In effect none of the religious leaders for any of the candidates, as can be ascertained, are above reproach or question.

This is well disguised racism and prejudice. America should not have their votes determined by such paltry, disgusting, and meager reasons.

Vote for the nominee you believe in. Vote for the President you think is best for America. Vote because it is your Right, and far too many have died and bled for that Right. But don’t vote because someone, other than the candidates in question, spoke 3 words that by themselves sound uncomfortable to you.

Labels: Freedom of religion, news media, political bias, Presidential candidates, presidential election, religion in politics, Reverend Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

This is part of the I Love America That’s Why I Vote! campaign.

For those wondering exactly how popular the Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates have been so far, I found something that makes it very clear. At a glance you will be able to see exactly who won a state primary or caucus and what percentage of the voters.

I hope that this tool will help encourage those that have not yet had the chance to be involved to get out to the Primaries. Especially in Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island on March 4th.

For those that have voted already, I hope that you stay involved in the election process. Whether your candidate or some other winds up as the nominee for President of America, your vote counts. The more each and every American is involved, the better the future for America becomes. I truly believe that.

If you have not registered to vote, please go to I Love America That’s Why I Vote! and see the information for registering from anywhere in the nation.

Labels: Democratic Party, Ohio Primary, Presidential candidates, Presidential election race 2008, Republican Party, Texas Primary, That's why I vote, voter registration

**This is part of the I Love America That's Why I Vote! campaign. It's long but worth it.**

Back in November 2007, amid the huge number of Presidential candidates and the multiple debates I found the need to decipher all the polispeak and misinformation that was being bandied about. In the process I found a site PolitiFact that verified many of the issues that I was questioning.

I presented many of the outright lies that candidates of both parties had made. [In the post The lies Presidential candidates say, and the facts that prove it] Now with far fewer candidates, and more critical decisions being made by the remaining Primaries and Caucuses I feel it’s time to revisit and identify the current back of outright untruths, misstatements and polispeak intended to obscure the best candidates for America.

In alphabetical order I present the 3 remaining candidates of significance:

Senator Hillary Clinton - http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/

“I was fighting against those (Republican) ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.”

Besides the fact that the Clinton’s may have accepted contributions from this same individual, and definitely had taken photographs with him (as found after this statement) there is this…

“Clinton’s claim is Barely True. Obama, by his own admission, did some, albeit very little, legal work that helped Rezko’s company obtain properties that would later be neglected. But the allegations that Rezko was a slumlord did not arise, at least not publicly, until years after Obama performed that work.”

“

---

"In her short time in the United States Senate, the senator from New York, Senator Clinton, got $500-million worth of pork barrel projects. My friends, that kind of thing is going to stop," McCain said.

Get ready because Senator McCain only got it partially right.

“Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that tracks congressional spending, has identified about $2.2-billion in Clinton projects in her seven years in the Senate.”

---

“The Bush administration sends mixed messages,” Clinton said during the Democratic debate in Las Vegas. “They want to recruit and retain these young people to serve our country and then they have the Pentagon trying to take away the signing bonuses when a soldier gets wounded and ends up in the hospital, something that I’m working with a Republican senator to try to make sure never can happen again.”

Sounds vital and horrendous. But the facts are

Defense Department policy is clear: Bonuses already paid should not be recouped if “injury or illness of the service member was not the result of the service member’s misconduct.”

The Army contends Fox’s was an isolated case. In fact, when it set up a hotline for pay problems, it received just two calls on that issue.

So are we talking about legislation to fix a problem that may have affected just three people? As it relates to wounded soldiers having to return portions of paid bonuses, perhaps. And certainly a lot of politicians made a lot of political hay about that…
So while Clinton highlights a legitimate issue — paying future installments of enlistment bonuses even after wounded veterans have been discharged — her wording is somewhat misleading, suggesting wounded veterans are being forced to return bonus money. There is little evidence to suggest that happened to more than a couple veterans, and the Army admitted its mistake.

Also misleading is her suggestion that there was some kind of Bush administration effort to deny future bonus payments promised to wounded vets…”

---

“You’ve changed positions within three years on ... a range of issues that you put forth when you ran for the Senate,” Clinton said. “You said you would vote against the Patriot Act, then you came to the Senate, you voted for it.”

Careful where you point that finger.

“A closer examination reveals that while Clinton’s charge is technically correct, Obama went further than she did in trying to expand civil rights guarantees and give Democrats more chances to change the law…

Clinton, in contrast, joined 14 fellow Democrats and all of the Senate’s 55 Republicans in voting to shut off debate and proceed to a final vote on the compromise…

Once Obama’s faction lost the bid to keep the debate going, he voted for the compromise. The final tally was 95-4. Clinton was also among those senators voting yes…”

---

“Well, actually, Tim, the (National) Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves. There's about 20-million pieces of paper there and they are moving, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that. Now, all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care, those are already available.”

Are they really?

“Clinton must be misinformed. It’s true that many of the documents from the unsuccessful health care effort that Sen. Clinton helmed are available, but there are several gaps in the record, such as her calendar and internal memos….

Also missing from the records are any correspondence on health care between her and former President Clinton.”

---

“So that 2005 energy bill was a big step backwards on the path to clean, renewable energy,” said Clinton. “That’s why I voted against it. That’s why I’m standing for the proposition — let’s take away the giveaways that were given to gas and oil, put them to work on solar and wind and geothermal and biofuels and all of the rest that we need for a new energy future.”

Backwards?

“While the Energy Policy Act of 2005 did give the oil and gas industry tax breaks and incentives to boost production, the law also mandated 7.5-billion gallons of ethanol and other biofuels to be blended into gasoline by 2012 — the largest such mandate ever enacted and one widely credited with sparking an ethanol plant construction boom across the Midwest. The law also funneled hundreds of millions of dollars toward biomass research and the production of biofuels derived from the leaves, stems and stalks of a plant rather than corn kernels used to make ethanol.”

---

Senator John McCain - http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/john-mccain/

“John McCain has attacked Hillary Clinton, saying she wants to “wave the white flag of surrender” in Iraq. He said it again in response to a question about Iraq at the Jan. 24, 2008, Republican debate in Boca Raton.”

Perhaps a bit overzealous

“McCain is right that Clinton is setting a time frame to start withdrawing troops, and that does imply giving up and waving a metaphorical white flag. Saying there is no military solution as she does could be seen as a form of surrender. But technically, there is no ruling army to surrender to, which is really what a white flag means. Clinton just wants the troops to come home.”

---

“Congress just passed another huge, pork-filled spending bill. The Democrats allowed less than a day to read all 3,400 pages and stuffed it with nearly 10,000 earmarks costing about $10-billion dollars,” McCain said in remarks delivered to the Americans for Prosperity Michigan summit in a Detroit suburb.”

Wasteful spending yes. Just Democrats or the correct amount?

“The gist of his charge is true about spending, but his numbers are off and it's misleading to suggest all the parochial spending is being done by Democrats. When we add it up, we get Half-True.”

---

"Our tax code is so complicated it extracts $140 billion in extra tax preparation costs every year - one thousand dollars for every American family. It’s offensive that six out of every ten taxpayers have to pay someone else just to figure out how to pay the government."

True but the numbers aren’t what you think

“A 2005 study by the Tax Foundation puts the value at closer to $111-billion. That would put the per-family cost at about $822.

But this is worth noting: The dollar figure for spending on tax preparation is a calculation of the value of the time people spend working on their taxes, which the Tax Foundation put at about $39 an hour, not how much they pay to tax pros. That’s not clear in McCain’s statement.”

---

"The failings in our civil service are encouraged by a system that makes it very difficult to fire someone even for gross misconduct."

Pretty accurate there

“…McCain wisely faults not an individual but a "system." That puts him on pretty solid ground, where even a study by the federal government had difficulty finding supervisors who had attempted to take action against poorly performing employees.”

---

Senator Barack Obama - http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/

“They've never paid more for gas at the pump."

Not true, even looking at the past

“We might have been inclined to cut Obama some slack for speaking in general terms about the price of gas, but he is still wrong when you look at historical levels. If you adjust for inflation, the current national price is still 41 cents below the peak of $3.39 per gallon, set in March 1981.”

---

“They don’t want political talk. I’ll just give you one example. Sen. Clinton and I were debating and she was asked about the bankruptcy law that she voted for in 2001. . . . During the debate she said, you know, ‘I voted for it, but I hoped it wouldn’t pass.’ That was a quote on live TV. That kind of talk, I think it makes people not trust government.”

Close but it’s not accurate

“Here’s what Clinton said: “Sure I do, but it never became law, as you know. It got tied up. It was a bill that had some things I agreed with and other things I didn’t agree with, and I was happy that it never became law. I opposed the 2005 bill as well.”

---

"If we went back to the obesity rates that existed in 1980, that would save the Medicare system a trillion dollars."

Health nuts must have loved this. Too bad it’s a made up number.

“We tracked down one of the authors of the study the CDC cited: Eric Finkelstein, a health economist with the research group RTI International who has studied the issue extensively and written several papers on the topic. Finkelstein said obesity accounts for excess health spending of about $90-billion a year. About half of that — about $45-billion — is billed to Medicare and Medicaid together.

Medicare's share of obesity spending therefore is between $20-billion and $25-billion. If obesity rates rolled back to 1980s levels, Medicare spending would be about half that, or about $12-billion a year.”

---

I would list more items, but in general the candidates have, of late, been accurate in many of the comments they have made. Or at least accurate to some degree.

As noted via PolitiFact (check it out for yourself), the 3 candidates have a total of 15 outright lies and 31 barely or half true statements between them. The actual breakdown is as follows:

• Clinton – 3 outright lies, 13 barely or half true statements
  


• McCain – 5 outright lies, 10 barely or half true statements
  


• Obama – 7 outright lies, 8 barely or half true statements
  

Not too bad as politicians go, and perhaps as good as we can expect. Sad as that sounds. But now you know. Keep it in mind as you go to the Primaries. Think about it as you decide who you wish to have as President of the United States.

But no matter which you choose, make a choice. Decide who the best choice for America is and use your Constitutional Right to get that person elected. Your vote matters. Use it.

Labels: Polispeak, PolitiFact, Presidential candidates, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama

For those that might have noticed that my poll covering who you my readers believe should be President is down, it’s because I have replaced it with several other polls, including those found at the I love America That’s Why I Vote! campaign.

The final numbers of this poll were quite revealing. Running from 2007 until February 2008 the poll covered virtually ever major candidate in the Republican and Democratic Parties – with the exception of Fred Thompson and Ron Paul. The results are as follows:

Senator Barack Obama – 51%
Senator Hillary Clinton – 21%
Senator John McCain – 16%
Rudy Guiliani – 4%
Mitt Romney – 3%
Senator Joe Biden – 3%
John Edwards – 2%
Mike Huckabee – 1%
Representative Tom Tancredo – 1%

All others – 0%

I find it interesting that this poll consistently stated that Senator Obama lead all other candidates since the 3rd quarter of 2007, and doubled the votes of Senator Clinton from December 2007 on.

When I asked the sex of those who took the poll the results broke down as follows:

Total Men – 49%
Total Women – 51%

In terms of ages

18 – 35 were 42%
35 – 66+ were 58%

Now some might question if race was a factor in the results of the poll. I can state that while the poll did not ask the race of respondents, the general data for my blogs is that I have more African Americans viewing my blogs, but have no lack of readers of all races. Comparative to general internet averages I receive a standard average percentage of Whites and Hispanic/Latinos with a roughly 25% underweighting of Asians, and a 75% overweighting of African Americans.

Based on that I presume that the poll results, while skewed somewhat to the opinion of African Americans, is a fair approximation of the nation. Respondents were not asked about party affiliation, as I feel that is unimportant to who people would vote for.

If you are wondering about the other questions in the poll (which are non-political) the results can be seen below:

90% liked the look of the site to some degree
10% disliked it to some degree

93% found navigating through the sites somewhat to very easy
7% found navigation difficult

69% enjoyed my poetry section
31% did not

87% had visited the online store and found the products (t-shirts, mouse pads, mugs, sweatshirts, journals ect.) interesting at least
13% had visited the online store and found the products unappealing

I always enjoy hearing the comments of you my readers about the various aspects of the site. Even though the poll has changed it’s focus to target the up-coming election (if you have not registered yet you still can, just go to the I Love America That’s Why I Vote! campaign for National government registration information), you can still contact me about your thoughts on the look of the site and/or the products in the online store.

You can email me at info@vassconsult.com

I look forward to your responses on the current polls, which I will announce periodically, and please remember to get out and let your voice be heard. Vote!

Labels: election 2008, M V Consulting, opinion poll, Presidential candidates, That's why I vote

Well the Clinton political machine seems to have finally got in a pissing match they could not win. Polispeak aside, the endorsement by Senator Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy clan is a massive action. The entire Democratic nomination race may have taken a new direction that no one expected.

The power of the Kennedy family is without question in American politics. They stretch from New England to California. They include Congressmen, Senators, and the Guvernator. Their supporters range in age from the pre-baby boomers to the first time voters that are a force in this election. The name of the family alone has more political clout than most candidates have had.

According to some sources the Clinton machine had been looking to court the Kennedy endorsement. But they assumed too much. With the constant attacks on Senator Barack Obama based on the divisive issue of race, the insult to Dr. Martin Luther King and the slighting of JFK’s role in the Civil Rights movement, and the potential of driving a wedge in the Democratic party separated by race I think the Kennedy’s got fed up.

I have no doubt that all of the above played a part in the decision of JFK’s daughter in endorsing Senator Obama. Then came what may have been the final straw if it’s true. President Clinton supposedly called Senator Ted Kennedy and asked him not to say anything. Which led to 3 Kennedy’s endorsing Senator Obama today.

Arrogance can only take you so far. Manipulation and derogatory comments are only so effective. Especially when the Kennedy political machine spans the nation and decades in public office.

The Northeast is now probably Obama country. California may be a new stronghold. Older Democrats, liberals, poor and all the other categories that the Kennedy name affects, that Hillary Clinton has previously had an edge on, are all in question. The Clintons must be as angered by these events as they are unsure of the win a mere year ago they presumed.

Ted Kennedy’s speech was powerful and clear. He is a Democrat. He will support the nominee of the Party. And he is dedicated to do everything he can to make sure Senator Obama is that nominee.

I’ve said before that I felt Senator Obama might not win. I’ve mentioned that the use of race as a tool to divide the Democratic Party and provide Hillary the win is an effective strategy. I know that the comments by Bill and all the various staffers have angered many. I know the attempts by Bill to minimize the wins of Senator Obama, and a great leader that was Dr, Martin Luther King polarized the Democratic Party. But this was unexpected. This is a wildcard that could be the beginning of a landslide that is enormous.

Will this be close? Of course. Is momentum changing sides? I don’t think it’s stopped since the nominations process started on January 1st. But this is the first time I seriously think that the math and support behind Senator Obama is enough to give him the win.

Regardless of political affiliation or guidelines you may hold, this must be impressive. And you have to say that now, more than ever before, that Rev. Jesse Jackson is not Senator Obama. That 2008 is not 1984. That we may see a Black President and that first Black President will actually be African American.

It’s not exciting because I may or may not agree with Senator Obama, or that I may or may not want/need him to win. Rather it’s exciting because it means that in the highest office, and in the most visceral manner, America is becoming a land of the free and equal. And that is something that I think every American can appreciate and look forward to.

Labels: Civil Rights, Democratic Party, Dr. Martin Luther King, election 2008, Polispeak, political debate, Presidential candidates, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Ted Kennedy

The Presidential election is an import even in America. The up-coming 2008 election is even more important than most in my opinion. Readers of my political commentary at VASS are familiar with the fact that I believe this is a crucial point in the future of America.

Given this belief, I have followed and commented on various aspects of the Presidential candidates, the issues, my observations of average people discussing their concerns, and the truth that is often shaded or avoided by pundits, media and the candidates. Since 2006 I have dedicated an extreme amount of time trying to stay abreast of all the most relevant issues and news. More importantly I have tried to be neutral in my coverage of all of my posts.

But that is not enough.

My comments and observations are meant to provoke thought and inspire those readers that have not voted to be involved. I do not question the reason for anyone to not have voted before, or for some time. I do not question the choice anyone might make for President. I respect everyone’s ability to go into the voting booth and choose whomever they wish, and for whatever reason.

But considering that this up coming election will be so critical on a multitude of issues that will affect every American directly for the next decade at least, I feel more is needed. Again, I am not asking anyone to choose what I believe. In fact I have yet to endorse ANY candidate. But I implore you to be involved and to vote.

I truly believe that it is thru your vote, that America will be able to pick the best choice for the nation and our collective future. Anything less will leave us all with a leader of the free world that is lees than what is needed. With what is at risk in the next 10 years that is too dangerous to ignore.

So I will be taking further steps to get American citizens to vote. Again, I’m not asking anyone to pick a side that I believe. Just to vote for what YOU believe.

To that end, I have created a line of 61 consumer products that emphasize the importance of our votes. You can see a few of the products here, and each one will link you to my online store where you can see the full product line.

Be proud, stand up and be counted. Don’t sell your vote, or allow it to be bamboozled from you. Show that pride and interest in the greatest good for America with the various t-shirts, mouse pads, mugs, kids clothing, pet cover, aprons, magnets, stickers and so much more.

And don’t think this is the only thing I will be doing. There is much more planned, and already a few other bloggers have voiced their support and interest. I will be going for the support of several institutions as well. I plan to work towards increasing the number of voters, because when all of America acts together we do the best things for our nation and the world.

Keep an eye out for press releases and events coming soon. And they will continue all the way up til the votes are all counted and the winner announced.

And if you like what you see spread the word, display the products, and remind people that the difference in the last several elections was a mere handful of Americans. Your vote counts and it can make a huge difference.

Labels: 2008 election, Democratic Party, election coverage, online gifts, political stickers, political t-shirts, Presidential candidates, presidential election, Republican Party, That's why I vote

And the political games go on. It’s a toss up between religion and money. Seriously, that’s what the Presidential candidates are selling, and your vote is the purchase price.

On the Democratic candidate side we hear so much on how to fight the impending recession. There have been stimulus plans offered by Senator Clinton and Senator Obama that are all about money. The plans are very similar, Obama offering $250 and Clinton $500. Sounds great right?

If you vote for either of those candidates on that basis, I am deeply offended. It’s one of the cheap tricks that politicians use to get a vote. In effect they offer nothing and hope to gain a lot.

What the offer amounts to is a rebate on your taxes, one time. Sounds nice right. An extra $500 in your pocket. Except that it won’t stay in your pocket long. The hope is that you will go out and spend the money on buying something, thus helping the economy. But I think most Americans would rather spend the money on paying down on the car, mortgage and/or credit cards. You want to clear your bills, especially when the economy looks shaky and your job is questionable.

So that won’t help the economy, your job won’t be more stable, and you end up with the same bills the next month. An example is say you own a home. You are behind on the heating bill, because of the huge increase in oil prices. You spend the money on the heating bill bringing you even, until next month when you have another high bill to pay. That rebate was a waste.

Now if the stimulus plan was really meant to help you, you would get an extra $50 a week from your paycheck. That would likely mean a tax cut. You never hear that term from Democrats because it means less money for social entitlement plans. But if they did you would get an extra roughly $200 a month or roughly $2,500 (taking out a 2 week vacation). Which would help you more? Getting an extra (assuming the average American income is $27,000) 1.9% once, or 9.3% over a year?

Mind you that this is simply a plan. Once elected there are innumerable reasons why the plan will not actually happen. So not only are you betting on the candidate winning, you are betting on them giving you a pat on the back versus actually helping you and the economy.

Oh and if you think this is a new idea look back on any election year with a possibly bad economy and you will hear it. Even as recently as 2007 Senator Clinton came up with a cheap vote plan that got her some quick television advertising and fell of the earth as soon as she didn’t need it. You do recall that she wanted to give every child in America a college bond of $5,000 right?

“Fifth, if the average college tuition is $22,218 (private) or $5,836 (public) and we assume 10% annual growth for just 18 years that means (forgive my math it’s been a while) $98,973 and $32,380 respectively. Taking $5,000 for 18 years at 10% (current rates are 4.75%) then Senator Clinton’s generous gift of your money generates $27,936. Now if my math is correct (which I’m sure I will be told if I am not) and interest rates go up to and stay at 10% (not going to happen) there is still a shortfall of $4,444 just for public school.”

Of course the Republican party is little better. We are watching as every candidate is trying to implore to us that they are more devout than the other. They want us all to believe that their religion is a cornerstone of their moral base, while at the same time denying it could have any impact on how they would run the nation.

Hogwash.

First of all since when is religion of a candidate a factor in the qualification of a Presidential candidate? Besides the huge question posed to President Kennedy when else has it been an issue? Where do they connect?

When you have a President you have a leader of a nation of dozens of religious faiths. He cannot favor one as that would alienate a swath of the nation. And it’s not his job. His job is to ensure the safety and prosperity of the nation. The spiritual health of any individual citizen is their own issue.

I mean seriously, if candidate X can quote a religious tome does that make them any smarter? Will they be able to avert a mortgage crisis any better? Will they prevent the loss of jobs overseas, or prevent illegal immigration any better? No.

The reality is that while we may be sure that candidate X may be more spiritually at ease with themselves it gives us no guarantee they are a good person or effective. To presume that a religious belief confers such is idiocy in my view. It just gives away a vote for nothing.

I mean how do we know that because candidate X was in a church on Sunday, or whatever holy day applies, that they were devout? That they truly believe. That they weren’t just hoping, and planning, on a bunch of television cameras to be outside the event waiting for them to exit. That they didn’t take a nap during the religious on-goings.

Cheap attempts to get your vote are popular, moreso now with 24 hour news and cable networks in the hundreds. There are so many opportunities to showcase an act that looks good but equates to nothing that deals with the actual function of the nation.

I don’t dispute the religious belief of any candidate. In fact I discount all of their beliefs as I an not capable of understanding what they believe in their core. In addition, with the seperation of church and state in this nation, their religious faith is without any importance to their actions if elected.

So when you think about it, there are many attempts to gain your vote on the cheap. Realize that and instead consider the actual plans, comments and history of each of the candidates. Race, gender, age, are all irrelevant factors. What they have done, and spent their lives doing is.

Labels: cable networks, cable news, Democratic Party, news media, Presidential candidates, Republican Party, Senator Clinton, social entitlement

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

This has been quite the remarkable night. You may not have heard this, but the Iowa caucus is over. More importantly is the advent of history that has occurred.

I realize it’s 2007, so many may not notice but an African American has taken the forefront in the Democratic race for the Presidency of the United States. Others will likely focus on the more decisive win by Mike Huckabee in the Republican race, which is a surprise, but it’s not historic. Yes, historic and a massive statement about America.

Never before has an African American done so well in an election bid. Never before has a state with an approximately mere 2% of the population being African American stated that the Black candidate is their first choice for President. Thank god we have come so far from the days of segregation, Jim Crow and random lynchings without any pursuit of criminals involved.

Seriously, America is taking a step forward and it is needed. I was just commenting in a separate post, found at Black and White Blog, about the fledgling trend in states stepping up and making half-hearted attempts at apologizing for their role in slavery. I spent a good part of the night discussing the issue with friends. I felt that this was something that is the first step in America finally healing the festering wound that is racism in this nation. But this is far more in that direction.

Just one year ago pundits were laughing, almost literally, at the prospect of Senator Obama running. Just 2 months ago, the pundits guaranteed the sweeping victory and absolute nomination of Senator Clinton as Democratic candidate for the Presidency. For the entire year there were constant cries of if Senator Obama was too Black or not Black enough. And today he stands in position to realistically win the nomination.

Is America ready for a Black President? Not the crap assigned to President Clinton by pundits that obviously have ocular issues, but a real Black President. That question is more viable than ever before. I must admit a personal rush at the thought. That isn’t an endorsement, just an observation.

Is he the best candidate for the Presidency? That’s a question I will answer only after all the primaries are done, and the candidates are announced. But he is an indication that the ‘old boys club’ of America is coming to an end. That’s something I never expected in my lifetime.

The fact is that America must deal with the inequalities that minorities face everyday, and the closer Senator Obama gets the closer that day of reckoning comes. This is not a radical or bad thing. It’s a day that is 143 years overdue. Whether he wins the nomination or not, the closer he gets the closer America comes to being truly unified and approaching a better future for all Americans at the same time.

There are many questions facing Senator Obama. There are many issues that America faces and he has not presented any plans or platforms that address these issues. As we go forward we will see if this was just a signal of what will come, or a real challenge to the glass ceiling that most minorities know. That ceiling has long been referred to as

“If you’re White the sky is the ceiling, but if you’re Black the ceiling is the sky.”

This is not the most political analysis I have ever made. I am excited about thoughts that have little to nothing to do with the actual potential of the Presidential race. I’m honest enough to admit that. But is America willing to admit that perhaps, after this adrenaline rush passes and the real questions get answered, a Black man may be the best choice for America? Would America still elect him?

Well that my more emotional thoughts based on the Iowa results. Tomorrow I’ll get back to seriously evaluating the results, and the potential nominees.

Labels: African American, Democratic Party, election 2008, historic moment, Iowa Caucus, Mike Huckabee, President Clinton, Presidential candidates, Senator Barack Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But politicians won’t say that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As has been shown constantly since it happened, the most important part of the Iowa Debate has now hit YouTube. It’s very important for more reasons than just the joke that Senator Obama wittily made. Take a look at the video clip, and watch for the details. I’ll explain my points right after.



Now at the beginning we get the question. This is very important because of what it does not state. The fact is that many long-time supporters of the Clinton’s have abandoned them and joined Senator Obama. I have to wonder why these people, who personally know the Clinton’s, would end a decades long relationship. What do they know that would cause them to switch? And en masse at that.

The next thing we hear is the laugh. Or cackle if you prefer. [The 23rd second of the video] This is not a joyful laugh, but one that directly implies superiority and advantage. It’s clear that Senator Clinton felt this was an embarrassment to Senator Obama. That it proved his lack of experience and ability, in her mind. Her laughter was at him and not with him, it was mean-spirited and for once an honest reaction from a normally very well scripted and calculating politician. [I’ll address the experience issue in a moment]

Senator Obama responded in defense and with class. [The 28th second] Rather than snapping at Senator Clinton’s implied slap in the face, he retaliated with jest. He emphasized his growing support and the fact so many of her initial supporters have joined him. He mentioned and declared that like all great leaders, he too would seek advice from those around him and make the best decision.

If you notice the reaction from Senator Clinton, which is brief, is opposite everyone else. EVERYONE else laughed. Senator Clinton caught herself in the middle of a scowl. [The 32nd second of the video clip] She showed part of another real reaction. She is angry about her attempt to embarrass was used against her, well. That a moment she thought would stand for her benefit turned into a moment of her obvious weakness.

I am not saying that Senator Obama should be the choice of anyone. I am not endorsing any candidate, Republican or Democrat, at this moment. But I am highlighting facts that are going unspoken in this race of the primaries.

Oh, and as for experience. In the mid-80’s Senator Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago. In the 1990’s Senator Obama ran a voter registration drive. From 93-96 he represented communities and voter rights as a lawyer and lectured on constitutional law from 1993 until 2004 when he was elected to the Senate. Oh, don’t let me forget to mention that Senator Barack Obama served in the Illinois State Senate from 1996 until 2004 when he was elected to the Senate.

Now that might not be executive political experience, but it is experience. It is serving the public. It is a commitment that spans roughly 20 years.

As for Senator Clinton. She campaigned for a year in 1973. She researched impeachment procedures in 1974. She taught something at Fayetteville School of Law, for 3 years until she got a job working on patent infringement. When President Bill Clinton was elected Governor she got to work on getting federal funds to expand medical facilities. After President Clinton lost re-election she joined Arkansas Educational Standards Committee and did eventually change school policies.

When President Clinton was elected First Lady Clinton took on healthcare, a familiar area for her. She failed miserably.

Essentially Senator Hillary Clinton has consistently had minor experience serving the public. She has done very well making money in dubious actions. But her roles helping the public have consistently come from her connection to President Clinton. That includes being elected in New York, where she is not from and has no connection to.

Senator Clinton has not lead a life of public service. President Bill Clinton has, Hillary has not. Consistently Senator Clinton has had the claim that she was around public service, and dabbled with it a bit, while being the wife of someone who did serve the public.

If sleeping with public figures qualifies as public service, executive experience, then expect Monica Lewinsky to win a Senate seat shortly. But if actually serving the public is the criteria, Senator Clinton is lacking all the candidates.

Oh, a last thought. From 1978 until roughly 1992 Senator Clinton made at least $100,000 a year. She was on multiple corporate boards. When was it that she, or Warren Buffett, or John Edwards and so on, wrote a check from their excess funds to the government just because. Not paying taxes but just paying more than their share, which she claims the rich, which she qualifies as for over 2 decades, don’t do.

Suffice to say, be cautious at the Iowa Caucus. 41 seconds in the past might have a lot to say about what 4 years in the future could be like.

Labels: democrats, Iowa Caucus, political debate, Presidential candidates, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Warren Buffett

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

Mitt Romney

Pros –


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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike Huckabee

Pros –


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

Continued in part 3...

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

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

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

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

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

Now for the breakdowns (in alphabetical order):

Rudy Giuliani

Pros –


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

Continued in Part 2...

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

Experience. It is defined as to have firsthand knowledge of states, situations, emotions, or sensations. In politics it is the difference between the records of one politician and another, allegedly. In the political world, having secondhand or peripheral knowledge is equal to firsthand. And that is enough to get elected on.

Amazing isn’t it. That is to say if you are married to a scientist that cures a disease, you too are qualified as an expert. The fact you know nothing about the subject besides knowing co-workers and colleagues only adds to your experience.

Imagine writing a resume and saying that

“My brother (or whomever) worked as a certified electrician and I went with him on jobs for several years. So I am applying for work as a certified electrician.”

Your application/resume would be thrown in a dumpster. That’s the real world that most Americans live in.

But if you are a politician, you live in a world that is separate of the real one. A world in which osmosis and standing next to important people is just as good as doing something. Want to get popular and you’re an unknown, stand next to a movie star. Want to seem important, get seen talking to a famous politician or dignitary (even if the actual conversation was about how they like their coffee).

For those that would scoff at this, or wonder how it applies to Presidential politics consider the current argument between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. Both claim to have international experience. In fact neither does.

For Senator Obama, the fact is that 4 years lived overseas as a pre-adolescent is not political experience. I submit that it can and does broaden life experience and that it can help to widen views about different cultures. But that’s about it.

I mean I spent a year and a half in Moscow, witnessed the coup attempt on Michial Gorbechev and the start of the civil war in Soviet Georgia firsthand. That does not qualify me as an expert in coups, civil wars, Soviet politics, revolutions, or Russia. But if I were running for political office you can bet your ass that it would be a confirmation written in stone that I have international experience.

Looking at the facts of the matter, according to how politicians equate experience, I have more experience than Senator Obama (I was 23 while in Moscow) and arguably Senator Clinton.

For Senator Clinton, there is no question that as First Lady she visited several nations and met with several dignitaries. That is fact. Of course she never discussed the politics of America with these Heads of State. That was the job her husband, President Bill Clinton did.

Do the spouses of leaders of nations have influence? On fashion trends, absolutely. On whether there will be sanctions against terrorist nations, no. That’s just a fact. No one asked First Lady Clinton how America should deal with export taxes, or Qadafi, or the no-fly zone over Iraq. Because she had no influence, power, or experience in the matter. Whether President Clinton spoke to her about these matters or not, it’s not experience.

In the same manner that First Lady Bush (either), Carter, Reagan, Ford, or Nixon had any experience because of the office their husbands held. So of the 8 years of Executive Office experience Senator Clinton claims, none is really valid except a short period of time when she tried and failed miserably to reform healthcare. A miserable failure that arguably was because she had no influence or political power/experience. She doesn’t have 15 years of political experience, because if including the time that President Clinton served counts so should his time as Governor, which she does not include (rightly).

So for all the hogwash that’s being spun out there, the fact is I and many Americans have more real firsthand knowledge of international politics and events. Those Americans do not include the Presidential candidates. It may sound great for a soundbite, but it’s just polispeak and another cheap way to buy your vote.

Labels: Democratic candidates, election 2008, Michael Vass, Polispeak, Presidential candidates, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama

Continued from Video clips of candidate flips: Polispeak in action Part 1...

Hillary Clinton on troops in Iraq – [She is the “frontrunner” so she gets more attention here]





Mike Huckabee on Taxes –





There are other examples, and I have no doubt every candidate has to some degree taken opposing sides of many issues. One pundit has stated this is just the

“difference between campaigning and trying to govern and legislate” – Chris Cillizza

But if you ask me it’s just a way to lie to the public. If you are for something, then you campaign on it. If you are trying to get votes you omit facts and your intentions. Perhaps I’m unique being from the Bronx, but omitting things is considered lying. Hiding part of my actions is considered shady and duplicitous. Telling part of the story, and acting contrary to what I vehemently stated is considered manipulation.

The election for 2008 is very important. Many critical issues affecting America for the next decade are in play. Essentially it seems that this election will come down to the lesser of 2 evils, which still leaves us with an evil. But given that, keep in mind when you go to the primaries that virtually every Presidential candidate has lied, answered in the grey, or outright taken both sides of the argument.

Because of that you need to pay attention to what seems to be their real positions and what you think is best for America. If not, we all may regret the President we get, because once the votes are cast we can’t go back and try again.

Labels: election 2008, Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, Polispeak, Presidential candidates, Rudy Giuliani

In my continuing efforts to present a nuetral (until the primaries) and unbiased view of what is really going on with the Presidential candidates, I found a site that has done some serious homework. This is about as honest as it gets. It’s not a written rebuttal, or questions asked of the candidate, it’s their words on the issues that they and pundits believe are important.

The benefit of the internet in regard to politics and Presidential elections has been huge. Candidates of both parties have used this medium to poke fun at, criticize and detract the message of their opponents while making requests for funding from the public and emphasizing their own importance. But they also seem to forget that this same medium allows us the chance to see how they employ Polispeak (my own term for the way politicians shape their comments to fit the audience and polling they want to influence).

Here are the examples: [Michael Vass, and 1800blogger, do not endorse any political candidate or party at this time. Any endorsement or candidate affiliation found in the following video clips are as they are found via the YouTube site.]

Hilary Clinton on both sides of Nuclear weapons and Iran -





Rudy Giuliani takes both sides of Immigration -





Continued in part 2...

Labels: election 2008, Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, Polispeak, Presidential candidates, Rudy Giuliani

Concluded from Final thoughts about the TV One Heartland Presidential Forum webcast Part 4

And another thing. I’m tired of hearing half-truths and lies from politicians. Especially those running for President. I do mean the supposed affordability of Senator Clinton’s Healthcare plan, and the comment from Senator Obama that he is not funded by special interest lobbyists. The health care plan gets its money from our taxes, and that means higher taxes if this plan is approved – don’t allow yourself to be lulled into false dreams that it won’t.

And every candidate, Senator, and Representative receives money from lobbyists. They all have funding from special interests. They all wouldn’t have enough money for the campaigns they are running now if they didn’t, donations from the public may be large to the average person, but they are not enough. To deny this is a lie. If he said he had less than other candidates (like Senator Clinton who leads all presidential candidates) I might have bought it, but he didn’t.

So all in all, this was just a jamboree of feel good left liberal democratic propaganda. There were no real answers, and less definite thoughts than at a real debate.

And one final thing on the Forum Saturday. I was very upset that the moderator called for a sick child to go hug Senator Obama. That was partial treatment, a subtle endorsement, and a ‘kissing babies’ moment that should never have occurred. It was wrong and there is nothing more to say about it than that.

If the next Heartland Presidential Forum is a bit less feel-good partisan self-aggrandizement and more debate oriented, and balanced enough to be welcoming and involving for the Republican Party I will enjoy it more. But that’s my thoughts on it all. It wasn’t bad, and I am happy for the opportunity to work with TV One (I hope they will consider working with me again in the future), but I am honest and this was hope I rated it.

What do you think? What did you get from it if you saw it? How did the Heartland Presidential Forum affect your views of the Democratic Presidential candidates? Will it change or influence how you will vote at the primaries in Iowa in January and the rest of the primaries after that?

Labels: election 2008, Heartland Presidential Forum, Michael Vass, political debate, Presidential candidates, TV One

Continued from Final thoughts about the TV One Heartland Presidential Forum webcast Part 3

Another thing worth noting was that Senator Clinton was not at the event but on satellite phone, where the conversation could only go one way and she could barely be heard or understood. That meant she had a delay in her response, was allowed to go over her time, and could not be cut off as other candidates over their time were. To be fair this was due to the attempted bombing/hostage situation in New Hampshire Friday, and bad weather at the airport (which was announced to the crowd). Obviously this was an unforeseen difficulty and the technical issues were from the last minute nature of these events.

The last was that of all the candidates, I felt that Senator Obama was the least opportunistic and most direct. He covered more of the questions asked of him, with better details than any other candidate. Still there was a mountain of vagueness and ambiguity in his words and plans. And of course he used a couple of his prepared soundbite quotes, like the often used

“CEO’s make more money in 10 minutes than the people that work for them.”

Of course I have to say, “What’s wrong with that?” I mean where in the American dream or the law is it said that there is a cap on the success ANY American can have? What class did Bill Gates skip, or Michael Jordan violate, that said you can’t make more money than X? So some people are jealous, they feel bad they don’t make as much. But what are those people doing to make their lives better? Do they own their own business, did they go to college, and have they worked to improve their situation? Is it hard to make money, especially large amounts? Yes. And it’s even harder to build a business or run it as a national or global entity.

Do I think it’s fair that a CEO of a mega-corp receives millions as a bonus when a company underperforms? Yes. But shareholders can complain or sell their holdings if they are upset, and that will get the companies attention. The golden parachute doesn’t have to be enormous and inlaid with precious jewels. Then a gain, they did spend decades of their life building careers to get to that position, which often is the last one they ever will have. And if they do well a bonus is a nice incentive.

I’m tired of hearing people presume they are entitled to things just because they are a citizen and exist. I’m tired of politicians feeding into the concept that government must be involved in every aspect of our lives and there to pick up everyone that bruises their knees. It’s not the job of government, and honestly everyone doesn’t get to have all the perks and luxuries as everyone else, least of all those that worked a lifetime to get them.

Concluded in Part 5...

Labels: election 2008, Heartland Presidential Forum, Michael Vass, political debate, Presidential candidates, TV One

Continued from Final thoughts about the TV One Heartland Presidential Forum webcast Part 2

I mean raising the minimum wage sounds nice, except it has no connection to civil rights. And of course there was no mention that many if not most small businesses can’t afford the higher cost of paying employees. There was no connection between Guantanamo or alleged secret prisons or torture to civil rights.

But these are big talking points for many Democrats and liberals. It made them feel good hearing that it was on his mind. But what I noticed was that it was a convenient way to avoid the real question he was asked.

And every candidate did this. Mixing some of their talking points into answers given to them and failing to really answer what they were asked. Like when Kucinich was asked about immigrant (more on this in a second) being separated from their citizen children because they were deported – by a woman for a pro-immigration organization – and then a question about the pay a woman at Tyson receives. He chose to speak about NAFTA and the WTO, denouncing each. He spoke of the woe that workers are not getting paid enough. He avoided the immigrant issue.

Another item in the propaganda celebration of the left was the fact that everyone involved used the term immigrant. What they were referring to are the people from other nations (mostly Hispanic/Latinos from Mexico) that have entered the U.S. without visas, green cards or any legal documentation. No matter how some may want to spin it, every one of these people are criminals and the name for them is illegal aliens. They are not, NOT, immigrants.

There is no difference between an illegal alien and someone walking into your house, and moving in. They eat your food, use your gas and electricity, and take up your space. They didn’t ask to be allowed in, they don’t pay you rent or your bills, and all the money they make they keep, minus the loose change they drop into your couch as they watch your television, They complain to you that you need to learn their language to speak with them, that you need to get books and magazines in their language, and that you need to spend more money on them while they stay in your home. They have literally broken into your home and effectively stolen your possession of it.

That is an illegal alien, and that is what they have done to America. Sugar coating it, and spinning the name they are called does not change that fact. But during the Forum everyone was on the same page of propaganda, making these criminals (they broke the law the second they entered the nation without documentation) sound like they are tourists being unfairly taken advantage of. Like they had done everything involved to become U.S. citizens but was being treated with Jim Crow laws preventing them. It’s a lie and to try to pull the wool over the actual citizens is insulting. But it worked on the 5,000 in the crowd and I’m sure many who watched the webcast or C-Span coverage.

3 things worth noting though. The first is that Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate to ever have spoken at a debate, forum or any event that I am aware of on the subject of reparations to African Americans. He is in favor of them, and an apology for slavery. No other candidate of any party will speak on the issue. Even when asked directly about it. Not one including Senator Obama.

Continued in Part 4...

Labels: election 2008, Heartland Presidential Forum, Michael Vass, political debate, Presidential candidates, TV One

Continued from Final thoughts about the TV One Heartland Presidential Forum webcast Part 1...

But it got worse. The form of the Forum was then announced. 20 minutes per candidate, 2 minutes to respond to the questions presented. One question from pre-selected (that’s important) people, and 2 questions from a select group of organizations and political figures would be asked before the candidate could use the 2 minutes to respond. Sounds fairly straight forward and easy to do. I had to wonder why the Forum was expected to take 2 ½ hours.

Well I found out quickly as the event started with John Edwards, followed by Dennis Kucinich, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd, and finally Senator Obama. With the first question we saw the format in action. One average person would come onto the stage with a story of woe and anguish. They would wax on about how horrible things were for them. Then after a few minutes of this they would as a question something like, “What are you going to do about this”, “or “How will you change that?” Then the mic would go to one of the selected figureheads and representatives who would ask another question which might only be tangially connected to the first story, and then another would do the same.

Then the candidates would respond with some equally waxing response that was more of an attempt to have a soundbite on the news than a hard answer. Basically they were playing to the audience and trying to get cheap votes. I found the answers shallow.

Kind of like when Edwards was asked about what he will do on civil rights, making the laws and system more balanced and fair to African Americans and minorities. The response was both rambling and indistinct. He was told how unfair racial profiling was and how one family was affected by it.

Edwards’s response was that he would stop the profiling, and then he went on. He mentioned that he would close Guantanamo Bay, would close all the secret prisons, would cease spying on Americans, and end any and all forms of torture. He picked back up on the inequality core of what he was asked with a claim to remove mandatory minimums, the unfair and heavy handed practice of giving minorities extreme sentences as compared to Whites (like Genarlow Wilson). He then went on to jump top discuss creating jobs, passing a national healthcare raise the minimum wage to $9.50, empower unions, and oh back to the subject at hand change the disparity in sentences for crack versus power cocaine.

He was posturing on a soapbox to the converted. The crowed loved it. And the responses of the other candidates were all similar in their scope. The “questions” also were all similar in their dreary and bemoanful story-telling. But what was it all really saying?

Well as an example I now know that Edwards has no idea on what to do about the civil rights offenses in this nation. He has no plan, and thus could not point to anything he would change. He didn’t even mention a single case that is on-going that he could highlight as something he would prevent or change if he were President. I mean there are plenty to pick from, Genarlow Wilson – as I mentioned before, Megan Williams in West Virginia, the Jena 6 and many more. I’m sure his staff could have picked one to mention if he cared about it. Or any of the candidates for that matter. Not one had a real answer about this issue, or could reference a single event that happened recently. They all spun this in a manner to get everyone feeling warm and fuzzy though. Lots of style and not a drop of substance.

Continued in part 3...

Labels: election 2008, Heartland Presidential Forum, Michael Vass, political debate, Presidential candidates, TV One

I happened to be traveling on Saturday, and was out in public watching the Heartland Presidential Forum. I heard a couple of different comments about what some people thought about it. One was

“Show me and honest politician and I’ll show you a dead politician.”

Several had that kind of reaction to the event. Many were just starting to follow the race for the Presidency. Of course everyone that was listening and watching part of the webcast with me was moderately interested. Several had no idea who Dennis Kucinich or Chris Dodd were. None were interested in watching the whole event. Everyone thought I was crazy to be working on a Saturday. But well over 5,000 people were at the Forum, many spending hours (one group spent 12 hours on a bus) to arrive.

So for those that were not able to see the Live TV One webcast of the Heartland Presidential Forum, or have not read my live commentary on the event, I offer this summary of my thoughts. [By the way, I want to thank TV One for selecting me as one of the 5 bloggers that covered the event live. Each of us had a unique viewpoint and it’s worth reading what they all had to say as well.]

Basically one thing was very clear from the beginning. This was no debate, formal or informal. It was not like any of the usual political gatherings we have come to expect and often ignore on television. But what else might you expect from Iowa?

The event started with no real pomp. Instead there were far too many accolades for various officials and organizations that were involved with creating the event. Oh and gospel singers. Oh and a prayer from a female reverend. Like I said, not your regular political event.

After all the various people involved too their time to blather on about how great it was to be there and see the response of the people from 32 states gathered their, things got under way. Actually it’s a bit unfair to say they were blathering. Yet at the same time, I could have done without the fanfare. I honestly didn’t care who they were or their political affiliation. I wanted to hear the Presidential candidates speak and see how they responded to the questions of average American.

But as the event went forward, I noticed something. More than the fact that this was not a Presidential debate. It was a propaganda stump for the Democratic Party, and liberal viewpoints. That was most likely the reason that though Republican candidates had been invited, only one arrived to participate. Of course since only one arrived, they were denied the chance to speak to the people.

That was perhaps the first clue to what was to follow. It was announced that the lawyers for the event (they needed lawyers for this?) felt it would be an endorsement for the only Republican Presidential candidate to speak. So he was denied, and his name was never mentioned. Nothing like lawyers to make something political even more partisan than it already was. How they thought one candidate could be singled out like that is beyond me since there were 4 other candidates there.

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: election 2008, Heartland Presidential Forum, Michael Vass, political debate, Presidential candidates, TV One

In my daily search for news on the Presidential candidates and issues that the next President will be dealing with I have run into a recent report that has disturbing implications. We have all heard the saying that politicians are not to be trusted. That our elected officials will say virtually anything to get elected. Even most recently we have seen some candidates that have said nothing and every side of an issue all on the same question. But it is far worse than that.

I am referring to the Presidential Political Courage Test, conducted by Project Vote Smart. This study viewed 10 years of various political candidates, in both political parties. And the conclusion was that.

“55 percent of presidential candidates were willing to expose their positions on issues of obvious concern to citizens. This represented an 8 percent decline in the candidates' willingness to provide such crucial information to citizens since 2004. This also demonstrated the candidates' increasing interest in controlling the public's access to information regarding their intentions on issues.”

Think about that. 45% of the candidates don’t want the public to know what they believe about the issues that will affect the nation. That almost half of all the candidates have hidden what they really want to do, if elected, at a time where some of the most critical decisions facing America are on the table. In effect that we are being told lies of omission to our faces, with a smile and a soundbite.

Let me be more specific. Of the candidates that are currently running for President, that the major news media follows, only 3 are willing to openly state where they stand. Chris Dodd, John Edwards, and Mike Gravel. That’s it. And only one of these 3 is a serious potential Presidential candidate, though a long-shot I wouldn’t bet on.

Now I will say that the study has some fluff in it. Announced Presidential candidates such as Emperor Caesar (no joke, and that’s a Democrat no less) are hardly serious entries. But at the same time, Hillary Clinton (Democrat), Rudy Giuliani (Republican), Duncan Hunter (Republican), Dennis J. Kucinich (Democrat), John McCain (Republican), Barack Obama (Democrat), and Bill Richardson (Democrat) are serious and all were against being open with their positions being told to the public.

Given the failures of the report, one thing is clear. This is unacceptable. Any serious candidate must be able to declare EXACTLY what they stand for and how their term as President of the United States would be a benefit to the citizens of the nation. Anything less is a two-faced, soundbite laden, cheap attempt to swindle votes from well meaning but less than informed citizens. This is the effective equivalent of giving the people sand to drink and no other option.

What else would you call it when candidates go to a debate one week and get caught obviously not answering a critical issue that affects all Americans in one way or another, then after a week or 2 of practice with advisors and constantly shifting views goes onto the next debate and makes a firm stand. That’s not being forthright. That’s finding out what boat is sinking and jumping away from it, for the mere sake of winning.

I would have more respect and would consider voting for a candidate that has a position and can make a real argument why it’s in my best interest. Anything less is not worthy of being President. And while Senator Clinton may have been the most noted for her obvious doubletalk, candidates in both parties fail to do more than make 15 second soundbites for major news media. Honestly I feel they have all let the American people down.

When it comes down to it, this election will be a race of what is the least horrible choice. The problem with that is that we the people will still be left with a miserable, ineffective, President that will not promote the best interest for ALL the nation.

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

Labels: and Bill Richardson, Barack Obama, Dennis J. Kucinich, Duncan Hunter, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Presidential candidates, Presidential Political Courage Test, Rudy Giuliani

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

Some Democrats want to hear more answers about running away from Iraq from Presidential candidates. Some Republicans want to hear more about how the economy will be maintained or improved. And most Americans want to hear about how their ability to receive healthcare and a decent education for their kids will become better than it is today. Virtually everyone wants to hear something from the Presidential candidates. Except Mexican President Felipe Calderón who wants to hear less.

It would seem that Mexican President Calderon thinks that illegal Mexican immigrants are being held as “thematic hostages” in the debates and speeches by the candidates. Can you believe that? Don’t you just feel for the illegal immigrants now? And I bet the candidates are all re-working their speeches now, it increases that portion of their public comments.

With all due respect President Calderon needs to shut up. And candidates need to take this as a clue to what will be happening to the next President of the United States. Millions of illegal immigrants will start to say they feel persecuted by the government, and their home country will back them up. Already we see how President Calderon feels his citizens are being unfairly discussed.

I mean how dare we have our politicians highlight as a problem the number of people that are in this nation, lacking any paperwork and documentation that would allow them to be in our nation legally. How dare we make this issue, and questions like whether these illegal aliens deserve the right to anything that U.S. citizens are entitled to. There is no reason why any Presidential candidate should discuss whether or not billions should be spent on providing education, healthcare coverage, driver’s licenses, or any other privilege or right of citizens to these de facto criminals in our nation.

It’s not as if President Calderon and the Mexican government are providing better conditions for their own people to live under. It’s not like they are preventing or curbing the ability of Mexicans from entering this nation illegally. In fact they realize that the Mexican government benefits from the influx of American dollars to their economy, sent by these criminals from our nation.

I say again, with due respect, shut up. We are carrying the burden of millions of illegals every day. We provide more care, money, and rights than his own government which is why they come here rather than suffer in their own nation. We have every right and need to discuss freely how we will deal with this burden. If President Calderon or the illegal aliens in this nation feel badly about this, they can always leave.

We did not invite all these people. We did not guarantee anything to them. We have no obligation to them. And if mentioning these facts is giving them or the home nation less than cuddly feelings, so what. It’s part of the freedom of America that we citizens get to discuss and act on those in our nation in violation of the law.

I respect that some Americans want to give more rights and privileges to the illegal aliens here. I respect that citizens of this nation feel that everyone within our borders deserves the best quality of life our government ensures. I understand that they feel that with the wealth and power our country commands some citizens feel that our Constitution should not be restricted to just our citizens.

But that is a debate that citizens can have, openly and without fear of reprisal form the government or various private groups that maintain more power than the government in some areas. Nothing weakens the argument of anything for these criminals (illegal immigration is a crime, lets not forget this) more than hearing them step up, in our country, and demand we treat them better. Perhaps only slightly less insulting is the comments from a government so weak as being incapable of taking care of tens of millions of it’s own people, trying to reprimand our politicians and in effect the citizens for discussing those same people.

If President Calderon wishes that immigration is less of a presidential debate issue I advise him to improve his “Keystone cop-esque” government and provide an equally or at least similar quality of life. Until then, the debate will move on and I will continue to state that if illegals wish to be in our country they deserve nothing. If they don’t like hearing that, they can go home to the miserable quality of thief they left. I’m sure hearing about the illegal actions they have taken is far less traumatic than living in a shanty town, without any medial attention, and no hope of an education or better life for their children.

Labels: driver’s licenses, Felipe Calderón, healthcare coverage, illegal immigrants, illegal immigration, Mexican President, President Calderon, Presidential candidates, undocumented workers

**This and other posts can be found at Presidential Race Blog, where I am a contributing author.**

Sometime short and simple is the best answer to a question. That is unless you are a Presidential candidate at a debate. There is nothing that highlights the nature of almost every candidate at this time more than this video.

Note that this is not an endorsement of John Edwards. This is also not meant to take away from Senator Hillary Clinton. This is just a comment on the nature of soundbite politics that pervade the debates and public addresses of ALL candidates at this time. Sen. Clinton just makes it more obvous in the most recent debate.

Labels: election 2008, John Edwards, Presidential candidates, Senator Clinton

I was writing about Stephen Colbert recently at Presidential Race Blog, and I wanted to say a bit more about him. The fact he is running for President is a statement. And that statement is making an impact.

Already in a poll of potential voters Mr. Colbert has gained better numbers (he received 2.3 percent of the vote with a 5 percent margin of error) than Gov. Bill Richardson (2.1 percent), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (2.1 percent) and former Sen. Mike Gravel (less than 1 percent). Considering the margin of error that potentially places him just behind former Sen. John Edwards (12 percent) and easily the closely ranked Sen. Joe Biden (2.7 percent).

On the Republican side, Mr. Colbert is running on both ballots, he had less than 1% of the potential voters, but again Ron Paul is hardly a frontrunner either. Even Senator John McCain has only 10 percent of potential votes.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties in South Carolina say that Mr. Colbert could run. In fact,

“Mr. Werner said, “our executive council would have a hard time not putting him on the ballot.’’

And it gets more serious when you consider Colbert’s viewers tend to be young, white, educated, and male. Their median age is 37 and there’s a 60/40 male-female split. So far this year, he’s drawn a nightly audience that averages 1.3 million viewers nationwide, 874,000 of them in the 18-49 year-old demographic. The U.S. Census bureau says South Carolina has about 1.4 percent of the nation’s population, which would suggest that Colbert has about 12,200 viewers there.

Greater minds than my own have found that Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Mike Huckabee, and yes Ron Paul too, are all potentially doomed by Mr. Colbert making any attempt to further his chances in South Carolina. Isn’t that interesting?

So what do we take from this?

The current political landscape is a horrible mess with as much truthiness coming from pundits and satirists as from the candidates themselves. There is reason for concern. Because this highlights how little many believe in the ability of our politicians in providing a cohesive and functional answer to the problems of the nation.

I want Mr. Colbert to get a delegate in either or both parties. I want him to be able to shake the stolid and grave foundations that both political parties are firmly entrenched in. I want there to be a question of ‘Who the hell did that happen’ in the media.

The point is that what we see politics today is little better than 30 seconds of showmanship. At least Stephen Colbert provides the honesty of absolute incredulity. That makes him more consistent and honest than any politician in decades perhaps.
If Mr. Colbert is able to get a delegate, or even a better than 10% vote total, the message will be clear. Politics has devolved as badly as major news media. This will be confirmation of how substance has been thrown to the wayside, with showmanship the guide to future elections. And with that, the degradation of the American quality of life will be apparent.

Sometimes it takes a slap in the face, or a joke in the worst of taste to wake people up about what is before them. I don’t think that is the intention, nor the fact, of what Mr. Stephen Colbert has done. But it’s close enough to both, that perhaps it will make a difference.

Maybe.

Labels: Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Gov. Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Presidential candidates, Presidential Race Blog, Ron Paul, Stephan Colbert

I found a very interesting Presidential candidate selector. There are more than just a few questions. Many I found though provoking and are questions I wish there was more discussion about. This list included one particular question I never see asked on breakdowns like this, Reparations. But it also includes immigration, social security, the candidate’s ages, marital status, national healthcare and other issues.

I won’t say that you should or should not vote for anyone that pops up for you. I won’t say that this list is who I would vote for. But I am presenting what my results were. I found the rankings to be interesting and a touch surprising.

Another nice thing is that this list includes those that have dropped out of the race, recent additions and a couple of top names that are not running but have drawn interest from the media and pundits.

Try it out for yourself. Oh one thing though, there is a huge ad that pops up before you get your results. But you can go past that ad to get to your results without a problem or searching for a way to get it off. I can’t blame the site for the ad; hey we all need to make money right?

You can try your hand at the selector here http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html and you can see the side by side comparison of candidates here http://selectsmart.com/president/2008/comparethem.html.

My results:

2008 President Selector Rankings


1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100 %)
2. Duncan Hunter (68 %)
3. Chuck Hagel (not running) (65 %)
4. Alan Keyes (64 %)
5. Sam Brownback (64 %)
6. Tom Tancredo (63 %)
7. Newt Gingrich (says he will not run) (58 %)
8. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (58 %)
9. Mitt Romney (56 %)
10. John McCain (56 %)
11. Fred Thompson (51 %)
12. Ron Paul (48 %)
13. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn) (48 %)
14. Mike Huckabee (48 %)
15. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (40 %)
16. Rudolph Giuliani (38 %)
17. Al Gore (not announced) (37 %)
18. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (30 %)
19. Bill Richardson (29 %)
20. Joseph Biden (26 %)
21. Hillary Clinton (25 %)
22. Christopher Dodd (24 %)
23. John Edwards (24 %)
24. Barack Obama (22 %)
25. Dennis Kucinich (22 %)
26. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (22 %)
27. Mike Gravel (19 %)
28. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (11 %)
29. Elaine Brown (11 %)

Labels: democrats, election 2008, Presidential candidates, republicans

Do you remember old films and cartoons where you will see a politician (usually an empty suit) pick up a baby and kiss it? A recent take on that was done in the program Harvey Birdman: Attorney at Law. In that episode Phil wound up shaking babies and kissing hands. You have to see it to get the joke.

[If anyone has a video clip of that, let me know and I’ll add it]

But we are in the 21st century and modern day politicians can do the old trick in new ways. Take the ‘proposal’ by Senator Hillary Clinton for example.

"I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so when that young person turns 18, if they have finished high school, they will be able to access it to go to college”

Wow, that sounds great. What a human being, a caring mother. A load of crap. It’s just candy to get votes, and I’ll explain why.

First, who is going to come up with the 20 billion dollars such a program will cost? You will, say hello to new taxes.

Second, what if your child doesn’t want to go to college. Maybe they want to be an artist, truck driver or construction worker. Where does their money go to? Do they just lose it? Where does that extra money go?

Third, when we say every baby, that includes the babies born of illegal aliens (or the silly undocumented workers designation – here’s a clue the document missing is a U.S. birth certificate or green card hence illegal). If the parents are caught and deported, where does that child’s money go? What if the parents leave the country and take the child with them? Do we pay for college in another country? Do we send that cash to the child in another country?

Fourth, what kind of college qualifies? Community college (which is not really college but high school 2.0), vocational colleges?

Fifth, if the average college tuition is $22,218 (private) or $5,836 (public) and we assume 10% annual growth for just 18 years that means (forgive my math it’s been a while) $98,973 and $32,380 respectively. Taking $5,000 for 18 years at 10% (current rates are 4.75%) then Senator Clinton’s generous gift of your money generates $27,936. Now if my math is correct (which I’m sure I will be told if I am not) and interest rates go up to and stay at 10% (not going to happen) there is still a shortfall of $4,444 just for private school.

I know that the growing cost of college probably won’t be what I just stated, but I can equally be assured that interest rates will not be that high or consistent. It is reasonably accurate that under almost every scenario the money saved will still fall short of the average college.

So depending on the college wished for, loans, grants, and part-time work will still be needed. The wonderful cure all of Senator Clinton’s gift of your money will still not be enough. Of course you can imagine that this amount will then be lobbied for an increase to make up the difference. There will also be special interest groups that will want increases for their kids like Latinos, Native Indians, the overweight, anorexics, gays, kids who are colorblind, kids who can’t dance and so forth.

Millions will be spent to make sure the funds are not misspent. Millions more will abuse the system somehow, and yet millions more will go to studies to see if the system is failing or adequate. The amount will be increased, illegal immigrants will complain that they aren’t getting a fair chance and college tuitions will increase proportionate to the Clinton gift and students will complain about it.

Oh and the last reason why this plan will absolutely not work, and why Senator Clinton is using it as a modern day ‘kiss the baby’ is that if it was such a great plan she would have tried to get it passed on the state level and used it as an example of how wonderful a leader she is.

Since this ‘idea’ has more holes and long-term complications than Swiss cheese Senator Clinton never bothered to run with the idea and saved it for a time when she needed more attention in her quest to gain the Presidency. Funny how it came out now, just as every Democrat is looking for a way to avoid the MoveOn.org problem, especially since she wouldn’t want anyone to remember that she voted in favor of what MoveOn did.

Labels: college tuition, election 2008, Presidential candidates, Senator Clinton, soundbite politics

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

The world has changed greatly in the last 20 years. In one generation the internet has become an integrated part of daily life, and the speed and ease of connecting with each other has increased exponentially. Unlike the generations before, the youth of America today are drawn to instantaneous communication and feedback. It’s all they have known.

Recognizing these facts are MTV and Myspace. Both are dedicated to feeding the need of the youth of today, the need to be able to email a thought and respond with a text message where older Americans might just wait. But when it comes to the election of the next President of the United States, a year may as well be a decade to some of the first-time voters. Thus MTV and Myspace have figured out, perhaps the best I have ever seen, how to involve these voters in the most crucial part of being an American, voicing their opinion in a free election.

In a format that is as integrated with technology, just like the youth of today would expect, a series of questions will be given by young Americans to the various Presidential candidates, and a real-time online poll will record the impression of the answers given. This is not the over crowded, soundbite laden debates that have been going on since before the summer; rather they are individual candidates answering live questions.

I must admit my surprise and pleasure with the format and involvement of the youth. Their voices are constantly called the key unknown factor of every Presidential race that I have been alive for. And each time the actual turnout is underwhelming. If this proves to be effective in motivating young Americans to vote, then that is a great accomplishment.

I’m also interested in the questions that will be asked, and how each candidate will react since they will not be able to prepare beforehand. I wonder what are the issues that younger Americans will find most important, and what degree of emphasis is give within that issue. Are many of the younger voters concerned about winning in Iraq, getting out, or just not having to face the possibility of fighting themselves? Are they fearful of a terrorist attack in the near future or do they see the current and proposed efforts as over-the-top? Are their concerns about the economy based on getting a job after high school or college, or is it more focused on longer term issues? Is national healthcare an issue they understand completely, including the costs and manner of service provided, or just something that they have heard about?

It’s as vital to understand what the newer voters are thinking as what the candidates are saying. They will be the new leaders of the nation one day. They will be voting on issues that will affect all Americans for decades. They can and will be the critical vote deciding many of these things, with more emphasis over time. This format is not only a motivation for them, but an eye-opening event for us.

We should not miss the opportunity, any of us.

Labels: election 2008, political debate, political issues, Presidential candidates, Presidential race

Well the Presidential candidates continue to bring up some of the most interesting items in blogs and news stories as we approach the primary votes. From comparisons to Hugo Chavez, to reports of web activity, to MoveOn.org. And we still see that most of the nation is very divided on what the future will bring. The issues for the next President of America are widespread and intense.

We are seeing that the internet is being used by more people to discuss more fringe opinions than were ever known to exist by the mainstream before. Probably one of the now best known fringe groups would be MoveOn.org. Not only has this organization come into the full light of public attention, they have made an impact. Perhaps not the intended on though. The vile attack against Gen. Petraeus offended every veteran, military members and family that I know of. Many have come to question the Democratic Party and the presidential candidates that have refused to denounce the ad.

Whether it’s connected or not, we now can see a sites that questions some of the social views of Sen. Hilary Clinton are being compared to Hugo Chavez.

Quick, take a shot as guessing who said this: “Society cannot allow the private sector to do whatever it wants…”
If you said Hillary Clinton, I can’t blame you. That was my first impulse, too, …

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Surprising comparison. One that you might expect MoveOn to make and defend. But they seem quite busy right now trying to claim yet another American figure is a betrayer. Having failed with the first target and ads with this phrasing, MoveOn has now targeted Rudy Giuliani as betraying Americans. The latest set of ads target is work with the 9/11 commission, and ignore his work on 9/11 and the weeks afterwards. But none have ever said MoveOn is good at making any point other than they represent a fringe of America, and due to the backing of billionaire George Soros they can get any ill-conceived message out to the masses.

Avoiding all this drama has been Fred Thompson. New to the race, officially, he has done quite well. The most recent results from Hitwise state that Thompson leads all candidates with views of his website din the last week. His lead is not shabby either, with more than double the second place candidate, Sen. Barack Obama. I will say that the site is very well designed.

So with all the activity on the internet, and still months to go, where do you fit in? Do you have a candidate you agree with? Do you understand the platforms the various candidates support?

If you don’t remember one thing. One of these candidates will be the next President. Know who you are voting for, and what they stand for. Understand who supports them. Otherwise you may be very surprised, at least, by what you get during their presidency.

Labels: 9/11, Fred Thompson, hitwise, hugo chavez, moveon.org, Presidential candidates, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

What is going on with the Republican candidates? There is a report out that they have again declined to appear in a debate before people of color. What is prompting this consistent decision, en masse, among that party?

It has been stated that 3 of 4 Republican candidates declined an invitation by Tavis Smiley for a debate this month. Mr. Smiley has responded with this comment

“Smiley told USA TODAY the rejections are part of a pattern, noting most GOP candidates declined invitations to address several black and Hispanic groups, including a Univision debate for a Latino audience.

"No one should be elected president of this country in 2008 if they think that along the way they can ignore people of color," said Smiley, host of radio and TV talk shows. "If you want to be president of all America , you need to speak to all Americans."

I have to agree that anyone that wishes to run a nation that is comprised by 1/3 of people of color, they must respond to and speak to these groups. How can any Presidential candidate justify ignoring questions from a full third of the nation. It just boggles my mind.

Without regard to any personal political beliefs, one has to wonder what this kind of shun portends for the future.

I don’t think more needs to be said on this, does it?

Labels: political debate, Presidential candidates, republican candidates, Republican Party, Tavis Smiley

So everyone is ready for the Fox News and presidential candidate debates tonight. You have heard about this correct? If you have not I will make you aware. The Republican presidential candidates, with the exception of Fred Thompson, will be gathering tonight at eight o'clock to have a debate that will be broadcast on Fox News. This should be quite interesting.

For all the anger and animosity directed towards Fox News the fact is that this one news cable channel is the most watched in the nation, as opposed to CNN which is also more aligned to the left in its political spectrum. This alignment makes this debate, interesting as it will not be similar to prior debates on CNN. In my opinion I would expect it to be a superior debate. More importantly, this debate will do what all debates are supposed to do, present the nation with opinions of the presidential candidates.

The candidates will no doubt be in top form do to the fact that more people will be seeing this then perhaps several of the other debates combined. The questions that will be posed to them, should be far more topical, if not outright controversial than any they have received to date. I expect Fox news to challenge the candidates on issues including immigration, the economy, homeland security, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hopefully this will be an opportunity for the presidential candidates to stand up and give a serious answer to some of these issues. Of course, the debate is structured like all debates these days in that soundbite answers are far more important than actual substance. Yet, if the questions are posed substantively then serious answers should still be presented. The combination of these potentials in one place makes this perhaps the most important debate to date.

The fact that Fred Thompson will not be involved in the debate is a negative. Why he would not announce, running for the presidency prior to this debate bodes ill for his chances, in my opinion. I would have to seriously question his apparent reluctance to engage in debates with the other Republican candidates. The nation needs a president who is willing to stand out on issues of significance, and be honest with the public. Not engaging in debate prevents the public from being able to make an honest choice for quantifying the issues facing the nation in the near term future.

The fact that the Democratic presidential candidates have, to date, refused to join into a debate run by Fox News is troubling. One problem is that the future president needs to be strong enough to stand up to terrorists around the world. What kind of president, would we have if they were afraid of a debate made up of reporters and newscasters in their own home nation? Another reason why I think they should is simply a matter of fairness. Multiple debates have gone on at CNN, which is almost inarguably a left leaning news channel. Most of the debates held on CNN have gotten atrocious viewership numbers. In my opinion, the Democratic candidates owe it to the public to appear on a cable news channel that reaches a wider audience, not just a friendly one. The Republican candidates have appeared on CNN, addressing a questionably unfriendly audience head on.

Regardless of personal political leanings I think it is important for the general public to watch this debate. Hopefully this will add some clarity and direction for the upcoming primaries. I look forward to hearing what you feel was said, was not said, and was said well.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: cable news, CNN, Democratic Party, Fox News, political debate, Presidential candidates, Republican Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what I think, what do you think?

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

Well here is something original. You may be very surprised at the following chart; it details the political position of the various Presidential candidates here in the United States. One thing you should note about this chart is the fact that it is based on a wide spectrum, and not just the American political universe. Thus Senator Clinton is left here, but a conservative moderate on a worldwide basis. No doubt that alone makes this list interesting.


One of the things about this list is the chance it allows each of us to see where we land. You might just be a bit surprised. I for one found out that, according to this, Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton are my closest contemporaries out of all the candidates. (I'm 5.75 Right and 1.59 Authoritarian - somehow I always thought I'd rate more authoritarian.)

If you are wondering where you might lad on this chart, take the test at The Political Compass.

Labels: American politics, Political Comapss, Presidential candidates, Ron Paul, Senator Hillary Clinton

Continued from What can solve illegal immigration? Part 1...

Senator Clinton on the other hand is very accountable. In Clinton said in a 1997 speech to the Corporate Council on Africa.

"Look around the globe: Those nations which have lowered trade barriers are prospering more than those that have not."

In 1998 Senator Clinton spoke in favor of NAFTA

"a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA...It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun,"

Yet in 2006 Senator Clinton blames NAFTA on former-President George Bush

"continuing to drive hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people from Mexico into our country...We just can't keep doing what we did in the 20th century."

More confusing is a vote in 2003 for US-Chile FTA, and a 2005 vote against CAFTA. Add to that the criticism that Senator Clinton gives to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) which is supported by her husband former-President Clinton.

This flip-flopping and lack of cohesiveness in both parties is unacceptable. Building a wall is a waste of time. People will go over, under or thru a wall if their desire and need is great enough. Even smarter will be the ones that will go around the wall and enter from the wide-open North. Troops are costly, and will lead to confrontation and thus loss of lives. Even with added troops many will enter the nation. And having troops on one border is ignorant when a simple entry option to the North exists.

The best answer to immigration is dealing with its root cause. It’s the same as good medicine. Don’t deal with the symptoms, cure the disease. Improving trade and thus the economy of nations feeding illegal, undocumented, immigrants reduces the problem we face in America. Perhaps the Presidential candidates will realize this, or at least their numerous staff will. At least this is something I would hope as I find it hard to believe only the Latin Business Chronicle and I am smart enough to come to this conclusion.

Labels: democrat, John Edwards, Latin Business Chronicle, NAFTA, Presidential candidates, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Clinton, Trade Area of the Americas