A discussion of various thought on issues and subects that cross my mind. This can include: Politics, Economics, Race Relations, Stock Markets, Investing, Music, Poetry, Current Events and probably more. Comments, whether disenting or in agreement, are welcomed.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
M V Consulting, Inc. election poll results
For those that were curious about the results of the polls that were on the sites of M V Consulting, Inc. about the presidential election I have the numbers. These polls were on the site for a year, and visitors were able to vote only once each.
The visitors of the M V Consulting, Inc. sites broke down as follows:
28.5% Democrat
53% Republican (not including Michael Vass)
16.3% Independent
And believe it or not 2.2% checked of that they didn’t think their vote matters – which I disagree with
In addition 84.2% stated they were old enough to vote, 81% had voted before 6% were to young prior and 6% just did not vote. 50% had family members in the military and 17% of those were in Iraq. 83% felt their jobs were not secure.
29% believed one candidate was a dead-on choice for them, 64% felt one candidate was 50% or more aligned with their views.
43% felt the next President would affect their daily lives a lot or more, 28% thought the effect would be a little or not at all, and 29% were unsure.
83% follow politics everyday.
The top issues affecting America were ranked from most important to least
Economy Iraq/Afghanistan Education Illegal Immigration Crime National healthcare Foreign Policy National Defense Race Relations Other
Final votes ended up as 64 million votes and 52% overall for President Obama, 56.4 million voters and 46% of overall votes for Senator McCain.
So do you agree with my readers that voted? Do you feel these results reflect the concerns and attitudes of the nation?
Well if you haven’t heard about this, I am sure you will. The commercials and the pundits will likely be buzzing all week on this news. Colin Powell, former Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has endorsed Senator Barack Obama.
Now this is important on several levels. Powell is a Republican (as I’ve said in the past, Black Republicans do exist), respected on an international level as well as domestic, has great insight on foreign affairs, and is politically neutral (up til now). His opinion, and the weight he gives to Obama should not be underestimated. It should also be scrutinized as to why he picked Obama.
At the offset, Powell clearly states that he has followed this election since the candidates first mentioned they would run. That indicates to me that he was aware early on that this election would be the most important likely in decades. That the shape and ability of America will be shaped in the outcome.
And he clearly states that he is quite familiar with both men. He has spoken with both several times in almost 2 years.
Those are facts. And I interpret from that fact that neither man was able to convey a confidence for Powell. Further it is clear that he believes that the Republican Party is becoming too conservative and religious for his liking. In that I can say I agree with Powell, if I understand him correctly.
But it seems that Powell does not like the pick of Gov. Sarah Palin. It is not because she is incapable, nor that she is not qualified. It is the fact, in his opinion that she is not prepared or experienced enough at this time. That argument is one that many have made, and is the source of why Palin is so often compared to Senator Obama instead of Biden.
And the final critical point is the actions of Senator McCain with respect to the mortgage crisis and the credit crunch it has caused. McCain has made several moves on this issue and had several changes in policy as event have unfolded. This was a problem for Powell.
But I have a problem. It is the very lack of action, and the seeming disdain that Obama displayed in regard to the mortgage bailout and the credit crisis that bothers me. He did not do his job as a Senator when the Congress was debating and voting on the mortgage bailout. Were it up to Obama the bailout would have been passed with a clause that would take any repayments and provide them not to the public but to Democrat sponsored groups like ACORN. That is not where I would want my money to go, and the Government should not choose for my money to go there without my permission.
And Yes Obama has seemed very steady in his view of the crisis. In fact he seems more than unflappable, he is steadfast. Obama essentially refuses to change his mind on his tax plans, and the 832 billion dollars in new spending that he continues to promise, seemingly oblivious of the consequences of the trillion that has just been spent (to say nothing of the hundreds of billions just prior to that).
There is also a question of the judgment of Obama in picking a VP that opposes him so much on critical issues. That includes healthcare, Iraq, and taxes. This says nothing of the public denial Biden made about the preparedness of Obama to assume the Presidency. That speaks to me of an Administration that would be plagued with internal stryfe and ineffectiveness.
And as to the campaign of Senator McCain, I agree that the focus has drifted a bit from the core issues facing America at this time. But drifting is not the same as abandoning.
Yet I think addressing issues like Bill Ayers is important. Not only because Obama has yet to clearly state the nature of his relationship with this terrorist, but because he refuses to discuss the matter at all. He reacts as if mentioning that the actions happened in the past is enough. It is not, since the terrorist has no remorse and has stated in the present his desire to have done more domestic bombings.
And let us not forget that it is the Democrats who are firmly fixated on the past with regards to Iraq, and many policies of President Bush, if not also the 2000 election. If they believe the past is important for the future how is the past of Ayers, and his relationship with Obama not important?
So yes I agree that if this were about Rev. Wright it would be too far. And yes there is a hint of the anger versus terrorists in the message. But Ayers is unapologetic about the terrorism and domestic bombing he was admittedly responsible for. I feel that is important when dealing with a future President.
And I must ask, when has a Republican called Obama a Muslim? I am not familiar with anyone stating that, except one preacher who was then chided and refuted by Senator McCain.
But I do recall that it was the Clinton campaign that promoted and spread thoughts of Obama as a Muslim and drug dealer during the Democratic primaries. I do recall that they had staff going so far as to spread emails and appear in interviews stating these thoughts. Republicans, as I recall never have, but Democrats often have. And McCain has nothing to do with that.
And I do agree that there is nothing wrong with being Muslim in America. They are as American as anyone else. They are as religious and pious as any other religious sect. They are as worthy of any position as any other religious American. A Muslim can be a President, as there is Muslims in Congress. There is no difference than a woman, an African American, Hispanic, Jewish, Asian, Mormon, or other type of person as President.
So again I have to question how McCain can be responsible for every Republican in the Party, just as I believe Obama cannot be responsible for the actions of all Democrats – like various racial comments of Biden, the wild spending and disinformation of alternative energy stock ownership of Nancy Pelosi, or the inaction and hazardous inattentiveness of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in their respective banking committees.
So I respect the conclusion that Obama is transformational. I respect that his is an orator of exceptional ability. I respect that he has an image that conveys a thought of a new type of America. And the fact that he is Black is not a bad point either, being Black Puerto Rican myself. But is that enough?
Is it enough that he has ideas that he thinks are good. Is it enough that he wants to turn the nation from the hard right direction we are in now to a far left position he embraces (as opposed to a more centrist position that most agree the nation reflects as a whole)? Can we accept that he is potentially a President that would bankrupt the nation with his economic policies in his attempt to make everyone more equal? That he would rather face defeat and embolden attacks on U.S. soil in the future rather than struggle through a difficult and politically damaging success? That he would rather increase the cost of energy such that businesses would fail in order to enforce energy saving practices on the American public? That having a uniform and Government mandated healthcare is better than any other choice? That the Government is larger and more involved in the daily lives of every American and business than ever before?
Colin Powell agrees that Obama does not have enough experience. That he will need to be guided by others around him. But is not the choice of a person with enough experience to understand a good advice being given from purely political or bad advice the better choice? Is not a President who knows enough to ask a question not answered, or wise enough to ask a question not brought up, better?
The growth of Senator Obama over the past 20 months has been impressive, and I have no doubt that in 4 years he will be the choice for America. But today the inexperience and inability to work in a bi-partisan manner on even something as important as the mortgage bailout troubles me.
And as for those that would claim that Powell has supported Obama because both are Black, they have not thought the facts through. While I respect Powell, and his decision, I see his reasons. I do not agree with them, but at no point are they wrong or fabricated. He has expressed a well thought out and heartfelt reason why Obama should be president. To disagree with those reasons is no more about race than to oppose voting for Obama would be. In fact I think to simply disregard the arguments of Powell for Obama as simply race preference is to be racist in the most ignorant manner, in my opinion. I find that no different than someone deciding to not vote for Obama because he is Black, because a decision and choice as important as this can never be based on something as trivial as who has the best suntan.
So these are my thoughts about Powell’s choice. I respect his view, and the man. I respect anyone who has a well thought out view on why they should or should not vote for either Presidential choice. But I have to say that I disagree with his final view. But that is America, and it is a right that we each have.
Exercise your right to vote after you have exercised your mind and learned who the right choice is for you. Colin Powell has, I have, now it’s your turn.
You have to be impressed by the Congressional Democrats. They have balls. Not brains, just balls. Because that is the only way they can make the claims they do about the bailout deal.
In listening to the Democrats, Barney Frank in particular you would think that the Republicans are staging a massive political coup. That the Republicans are the only reason why the bailout deal that was voted on today failed was their votes. That this is all about politics and the upcoming election.
But if you stop listening to the polispeak in Congress and look at the vote numbers and you see another picture.
The vote was 228 – 205 against the deal. That includes 94 Democrats, which could have easily made the difference and passed the deal no matter what the Republicans did. But they chose to go against their Party and Treasury Secretary Paulson, and President Bush.
Why? Because the deal was horrible. Because there is no confidence in the deal. Because the rush to pass the deal makes you wonder what is in it. Like the fact that a previous version included a stipulation that if this bailout actually got any money repaid that money would not go to taxpayers but would fund a Democratic initiative called ACORN (which has federal problems currently).
Or how about the fact that I have yet heard how the public, that will be buying these assets (bad mortgage loans) could or will get the money back. We will spend $10,000 each, out of our pockets, and if this ever makes break-even or profit there has been no discussion how we get that $10,000 back in our pockets directly. And under the current plans you never will. That is not a political problem, that is just a bad deal.
If this were as political as Democrats would like it to be, then this bad deal would have passed, Senator Obama would have the credit for it (or at least Senator McCain would have the blame) and they would use this to win the election. That didn’t happen.
If this were political, Republicans could have voted for this deal claimed it was because of Senator McCain’s influence and used that to win the election. It’s just that simple.
But Senator McCain, the Republicans, and 94 Democrats are not being political. They are doing their jobs. They are trying to structure a deal that works for taxpayers like you and me. They want to answer (I hope) the question of how the money comes back to you and me, if it ever makes money.
If we want to really be political about this, we can ask why Barney Frank and Chris Dodd could not see the impending problem as late as July of this year yet they are the heads of the Banking and Finance Committees in Congress. They were informed by supposedly brilliant minds on the exact status of the problem, and they crafted laws and regulations to control what happened. They also made enormous amounts of money from the very people they were (supposedly) watching.
Look, here is the reality. Senator Obama and McCain are Senators. One of them will be the next President. They are effectively the leaders of their respective Parties. They need to get into this fray (well at least Obama does as McCian is) and do their jobs. They need to forge a deal, stand together and say they endorse the deal. At that point it will have to pass. And to forge the deal they need to answer the question that I feel is most important, how I get my money back.
Everything that is short of this is polispeak. Every moment that Obama avoids this problem, every moment that they don’t answer the key question, every moment we have no deal endangers America and makes our near-term future that more bleak. And no matter how many Democrats blame Republicans, or how many deny their failure to do their jobs, the outcome remains the same.
McCain - Palin: Sarah Palin is the Republican Vice Presidential candidate
Well now we have a race. Senator McCain has just announced his Vice President and it has caught everyone off guard. His choice – Sarah Palin the Governor of Alaska.
You may not be familiar with this Governor, I wasn’t either. So I watched her speak and looked up some information on her.
She is 44, married for 20 years. She has 5 children, with her oldest son in the Army and going to Iraq in September. Her youngest son was born this year in April and has Down’s Syndrome – which was known before he was born. She has been Governor of Alaska for 2 years, and previously has been on the Wasilla City Council for 2 terms. She is a lifetime member of the NRA, a hunter, commercial fisher, a former Miss Alaska, and graduated from University of Idaho with a degree in Journalism.
She is also a bit of a maverick. Politically she took on the Republican Party in Alaska for ethics violations, refused to fund the Gravina Island Bridge – also known as the bridge to nowhere. She also opposed Senator Ted Stevens, known for being independent of oil companies, and opposed 35 last-minute appointments of former-Governor Murkowski including Jim Clark who later plead guilty for illegal campaign finance funding of Murkowski. She opposes same sex marriage, but has enabled laws that support same-sex couples benefits.
So overall this is an interesting choice by McCain.
As I have stated before I had thought he would go with Secretary of State Condolezza Rice. I was half right in that he took on a woman for VP. This effectively will pry many women away from the Democratic base, and add many from the independent voters. I cannot see how the supporters of Hillary Clinton cannot vote for McCain now, especially since many were obsessed with a woman being in the Oval Office.
Comparing the Vice Presidential picks we can see that only Gov. Palin has executive office experience. In fact she holds an 80% approval rating. That severely beats the approval rating of Congress which is below the rating of President Bush.
She is pro-life from what I can tell, Biden is pro-choice. Palin is pro-guns, Biden is anti-guns. Palin is younger than Obama, Biden is older. She is pro-drilling, Biden (and McCain) is against drilling in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). Palin has created a sub-committee to investigate ‘global warming’ and greenhouse gas emmissions in Alaska – so I’m not sure if she believe in global warming or not, Biden is down the Democratic Party-line on global warming. Palin has cut taxes and stimulated the economy in Alaska, Biden has voted to increase taxes but claims to be for tax cuts for the middle class.
It is unclear where Sarah Palin stands on unions, free trade, homeland security, immigration, education and foreign policy (though she has visited Iraq before). Biden is for unions, voted for NAFTA, voted for the Patriot Act (with limits on wiretaps), voted for a path to citizenship for illegal aliens and voted to give illegal aliens social security benefits [though SS is failing], is pro-teachers unions and voted against school vouchers, and his views on Iraq are famopusly opposed to his Party’s Presidential candidate.
And I know this is purely superficial but Sarah Palin looks far better than Joe Biden, especially for a mom of 5.
The Obama-Biden ticket is decidedly D.C. based and focused. The McCain-Palin ticket is not. Obama-Biden is defined as far-left liberal (first and third most liberal Senators currently), McCain-Palin would best be described as centrist/right.
Obama – Biden has a Black man, thus making history. McCain – Palin has a woman, thus making history (though honestly a bit less because Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman picked as a VP).
It is an interesting comparison. Obviously more must be learned about Sarah Palin to be sure where she stands. And her abilities in the debates will be quite interesting.
So before I go further let me mention some up-coming news. I am currently in talks with a New York State elected official about holding an interview. I cannot say more at this time, but if there are further developments I will be happy to inform you all.
But looking forward to the Presidential race, there is just so much going on, or so some might feel. In fact very little has gone on since the field of potential candidates finally dwindled to 2.
For the most part all that has been going on is more of the same. Each candidate is in the process of moving towards the center on the political spectrum in an attempt to garner more potential votes. This move is old news for Senator John McCain who has already shifted on positions like religion and the Bush tax cuts. For senator Obama there is more recent and immediate moves.
As I mentioned to a friend of mine recently
“America is generally in the middle of the political spectrum. The average person is conservative on some views and liberal on others, but the balance of issues are neutral. Because of this we have both candidates running to the center.
Senator McCain has long been known as the Democrat’s Republican. He’s made deals that infuriated the Republican Party over decades, because he felt it was the way to get needed laws passed. As such the media, that formerly loved him only 2 years ago, has made a lot of bluster about any further moves to the center. But he hasn’t far to go.
Senator Obama is different though. As the most liberal Senator currently in office, and a voting record that is absolutely the liberal ideals of the Democratic Party he has much further to go. This should be caught by the media as major position changes. But it is severely played down.”
Senator Obama has changed his position on the number of troops to be in Iraq during his first year in office. He has jumped around on his view of Iran. And he has back off solid pledges of townhall meetings and public finance. This does not make him a horrible candidate, but it does make him a politician.
So much so that I found this political cartoon to be an accurate example
But the real questions for both candidates are the ones that really are not being answered. Is raising taxes in an economic downturn an effective plan, will bailing out troubled mortgages resolve the crisis, how will Social Security get paid for as the number of retirees grows to levels never before seen.
Those are just a few questions. And no matter the side of the political spectrum you reside on, these are the questions that need answers. My only thought is when will we get these answers – before or after the election?
Mark my words, the candidate that comes closest to giving this answer – without fear of offending some in their political parties – will ultimately be the next President of the nation.
But what issue is most pressing for you? What issue is the one that will decide the vote for you? Tell me, and let’s see where we are as a nation. Let’s define what the center is and remind the politicians that their ultimate responsibility is to address those concerns.
Congress polispeak to Karl Rove spends your tax dollars and wastes time
I hate watching blatant partisan politics. It’s the blatant use of polispeak and opportunism that gets my ire going. Such as the subpoena on Karl Rove.
It’s May 2008 and Karl Rove is getting questions about his involvement in the President firing lawyers around April 2007 and the conviction of former-Alabama governor Don Siegelman in June of 2007. Isn’t it interesting?
Let’s see, there is a Democratic Congress in place now. Karl Rove is seen as a dark evil figure that was instrumental in the Bush Presidency. This is an election year and the Democratic Congress has achieved none of the goals they were elected for in 2006. Does it sound like Congress is trying to give the Democratic Presidential candidate a boost with the public by attacking the Republican Party sideways?
You might think this polispeak bluster is just that since we know a few things. First that there was nothing illegal about the President firing the lawyers in 2007. After multiple Congressional meetings, and untold numbers looking through the laws it was confirmed that the lawyers in question worked at the pleasure of the President. That means, at any time, for any reason, the President can fire these individuals – which he did. No surprises there, everyone knew this. And for all the bluster and all your taxes spent that’s all that happened. But because of the polispeak and accusations Alberto Gonzalez resigned his position.
And in the case of Governor Siegelman, an investigation was long in place tracking his acceptance of bribes and conspiracy. The former-governor was a criminal, and he was caught. Some Democrats want to place blame with Republicans and I have to ask why? Because Seigelman didn’t win his re-election bid, or because he was a criminal that got caught? Some question if the investigation was politically motivated, I question why a criminal was shielded from the law as long as he was. Remember, Seigelman was convicted – that’s not political so no matter the cause of the investigation (which could be just good work by the FBI and other law enforcement groups) the man was point blank a criminal.
So where in all this does Karl Rove need to speak to Congress. Over half a year after the facts, in cases where there is no law broken, Congress wants to spend your money to ask him questions. And the only hope that Congress can have for justifying this is if, while being questioned, Rove says anything that hasn’t been said before – or exactly the same way. That would lead to perjury charges. That’s the best case Congress can get.
So considering that Congress is wasting your money, and making an obvious political push to elect a candidate, how do you feel? Do you think your taxes are being spent well? Because some tens of thousands of dollars (if not more) are going to be spent to question Karl Rove about old useless factual events, instead of getting a better law regarding your children’s education, or getting more oil from non-Middle East sources, or lowering the cost of healthcare, or getting our soldiers home from Iraq (whichever you may think is important).
No wonder Congress has a lower approval rating than President Bush.
Full interview of Senator McCain with Bill O'Reilly
Since I know some have not see this interview, and to give a comparison to the interview of Senator Hillary Clinton, here is all 3 parts.
I've already commented a bit on the 1st part of this interview previously. And I have commented often on all the various potential Presidential candidates. I would suggest you take a search for whichever candidate you have a question about.
I admit that I agree with a lot that McCain has to say, and in comparison to Senator Clinton it's obvious who has the greater experience and better plan for America. At least to me. But now you have an opportunity to make a decision for yourself.
Now we just have to wait for Senator Obama to get on the program as he promised some time ago.
So here are some of the thoughts I’ve had about the first part of Senator McCain’s interview with Bill O’Reilly on the O’Reilly Factor. I plan to provide the full set of videos as soon as I can have them downloaded. Currently I’m having an issue with the sound mixer. Please be patient.
To start with it’s obvious that Senator McCain has a far superior level of experience when it comes to the military and military actions. Neither Democratic candidate has served a single day in defense of this nation or ever in the military during peace time. That lack of understanding may be fine for a President during peace times, but whether you like it or not we are currently engaged in 2 military actions – thus experience matters. Ultra-liberals may enjoy the concept of peace, from cozy houses without fear of death from anything, but that freedom is only possible by the cost soldiers pay every day since the creation of America.
The conversation goes on to discuss taxes. Now as I have previously posted - $31,850 is the new definition of rich - both Democratic candidates have voted to increase the taxes of everyone making $31,850 and up. A far cry from their claims of only the rich being taxed don’t you think. Senator McCain voted against that increase.
But consider something else. If you own any stocks, mutual funds, or bonds the Democratic candidates want to increase the tax you pay if your investment makes money. So all that money you are trying to save for retirement – kiss a good part of it away if the Democrats have their way. That money will go to Government programs to decipher why April 2008 was the coldest on record, but Global Warming is creating a hot house in the world.
But don’t forget that all these taxes are coming out of pockets that have to pay more money for food because the glut of ethanol production is using up corn that would otherwise go for food. And gasoline costs more because of OPEC, and the fact that we are pushing for more ethanol plants instead of oil refineries. Don’t even mention nuclear power to the eco-ultra-liberals. Their fear of hurting an owl or some such supersedes the fact that without an alternative source of energy millions will eventually die.
Moving on to Senator Obama’s preference to speak with nations that are dedicated to the eradication of America. Senator Obama wants to speak with North Korea, Iran and other nations that hate our existence. Why? What can you offer or discuss with a country that has spent 50 years on one thought only, finishing the war they had with us (that’s North Korea for the younger readers). They have gone nearly bankrupt and many are starving as they divert all funds and food to their military.
How about Iran. A nation that would kill millions solely because of their religion. Do you believe that leaders with such intolerance would be any friendlier to a nation of multiple religions they disagree with, and lifestyles they abhor? They are extremists, given, but how do you compromise with someone that believes that God wants them to obliterate the existence of those that do not believe and act exactly as they do?
I need only say one thing about the media driven Rev. Wright issue, which I thing Senator McCain nailed.
“This campaign is not going to be about, in all due respect about, Rev. Wright or Mr. Ayers. It’s going to be about vision; it’s going to be about a plan of action for the American people that are hurting right now.”
As for the government running healthcare, I stand by Senator McCain. Name one agency that the Government runs that is fiscally sound. Name one Agency that is not mired in red tape and inefficiency. Name one that provides all the services it is supposed to do, and in a timely manner. I know of none. And the Democratic candidates want to create another of these agencies because they believe that YOU are not smart enough to be given money and chose the healthcare program you think is best for you and your family. How kind of them.
But there is also the media to consider with Senator John McCain. Where were the months long outrage and media investigations of his connection to Pastor John Heagy. Aren’t that pastors comments against gays and Catholics unacceptable? But if Senator McCain’s refutation of his unsolicited remarks, and endorsement, are enough to keep the media off his back – shouldn’t Senator Obama’s be the same?
But the media is far from even-handed, or focused on the issues. The New York Times has made that very clear as their attack on Senator McCain was backed by nothing. It was a blatant attempt to discredit a Presidential candidate whose political views they don’t agree with. Another reason I say that you need to check the candidate’s positions as the media wants to decide that choice for you and get a President that may not be in your best interest.
It should be noted though that Senator McCain has weathered this and other smears throughout his career. At no time has he fallen back and whined about it. He has refuted the positions and waited as other media groups proved these smears false. This is highly unlike at least one Democratic Presidential candidate that runs behind their gender anytime they are questioned strongly or find their campaign in a weak position.
Lastly, I know of no one that questions the honor and dedication of Senator McCain. Anyone that would call him a traitor, in the face of direct first-person comments contrary by fellow Prisoners of War, is simply a fool. There are few in the nation that have given so much to this nation, and to besmirch that is to be ungrateful and deceptive in the most cruel and vile way. There is no reason unsubstantiated smears should be allowed for any candidate, regardless of political party, because such claims against Senator McCain are no better than calling Senator Obama a fanatical Muslim or attacking his race.
Well that’s what I got out of the first part of Senator McCain’s interview. I admit that I agree with many of his opinions. The issue of immigration is not one of them obviously. But that will be discussed in a later video on the issue.
Senator Obama "bitter", and the other Presidential candidates
So now we have the major news media jumping all over the words of Senator Obama. This time it’s in reference to his elitist comments about how small town voters across America seem to feel and are acting. While the comments are harsh, there is some truth in them.
Having lived some 5 years no in a small town (that residents of the area consider a city for some reason) I have noticed that many are clinging and bitter. There is no question that in this town with approximately 6% non-whites and a large community of college students, there are bitter feelings. The average income is about $28,000 and jobs are scarce. Most jobs pay minimum wage, the downtown district is littered with empty buildings, and more than just a few homes are in disrepair even in the best neighborhoods.
There is a huge hunting community though, and there are an abundance of churches and church groups. The main activity outside of these events is drinking. In a recent article in the local paper there was a story (during Black History month) describing that one of the local major companies recruited new workers and when asked what the recreational activities were in the area they stated ‘there are a lot of bars’. Such is this small town in central New York, and that is better than the surrounding smaller towns and villages.
That says nothing of the rampant racism and prejudice. I have heard numerous stories from non-whites over the years, and experienced several myself. From failure to be served for over 15 minutes only to be skipped over to serve a White patron that walked up, to being called the N-word for speaking to a White person of the opposite sex, to having a drunk guy picking a fight – using the N-word to provoke the situation – and being told at the end that it was due to dressing better than those around [which happened to me]. Binghamton is a city dying for lack of good jobs, lack of foresight from the city council, and the failure of Senator Clinton to live up to her promise to generate 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York [in fact upstate New York has lost 30,000 jobs since she has been elected].
So is Senator Obama wrong in what he said? From what I have seen here and in the area, no. The citizenry is quite bitter and angry. They want to see less jobs going overseas, fewer immigrants keeping job wages down, and virtually hate anyone – especially of color – that is living here and doing better. Mind you that is not everyone here, but it is more than enough to make things uncomfortable is you walk into the wrong place on the wrong day.
But let’s consider this. If Senator Obama is out of touch or as Senator Clinton states
Well we know as fact that she lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. Sinbad and videotaped footage of the event have proven that – thus it’s not a misspoken statement as the polispeak would have you believe. We know that she had no impact or input to the Ireland peace talks, those who did have told us about that lie as well.
We know that in the 7+ years that Senator Clinton has been representing New York State she has lied about new jobs, and her voting record reflects changing polls consistently. We know Senator Clinton is against guns, in speeches and votes. We know that the Clinton campaign has consistently and directly, in the form of Bill Clinton, used race as a factor in generating votes. The Clinton campaign has directly pandered gender as a solitary reason for votes. Is this “standing up” or “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”?
But perhaps most important is her connection to the people. Senator Clinton, along with former President Bill Clinton, made $109 million. They paid only $34 million in taxes. That may be a lot, but it is far less than the highest tax bracket so they took tax breaks available to them. They also donated $10 million to charity – the Clinton Library – in effect giving them a tax break and keeping the money. All from those that claim that the rich (which she obviously qualifies as) don’t pay enough in taxes and voted to increase the taxes paid of everyone making $31,850 or more (which I know none that would qualify this as rich).
Now both of the Democratic candidates have gone to good colleges and have law degrees. Senator Clinton spent her time after graduating on the board of Wal-Mart (which has fought unions – a big issue for Democrats) and being the wife of a rising political husband. Senator Obama spent his time working for the Chicago community and entering politics at the state level. Which sounds like it benefits the average guy more? Which sounds closer, since neither is similar, to the life average Joe lives?
Of course if we were to really be fair about this Senator McCain really stands out. While his wife does have wealth, he was a soldier. While he was an officer and a pilot, he did serve his nation at a time of war, and stood by his fellow soldiers while having years of torture. He has served the public for 25 years, longer than some of my readers have been alive. He has never lied about being shot at, nor has he made a donation to a charity he runs. He has not voted to raise taxes of those that are obviously in the middle class (though he did balk initially at giving them a tax cut). He is not known for looking down at anyone, though he is known for his temper. But he is also known for breaking party lines to make deals he feels benefit the American public – which the Democratic candidates have not done, ever.
So really, who sounds like they are looking down on the average American? Who is the least connected? Who has lied the least – or as the spin likes to say “misspoke”. Who has stood their ground and served the public the most, or in other word has experience?
Obviously for the Republicans that is Senator McCain. For the Democrats I leave the choice to you, based on the facts. And as for the election, well that is your choice. No matter what you believe, your vote makes a difference. If we all are involved, since we all will live with the results, then I believe we will get the best choice for America. But if not, there will be no way to explain the next 4 years in some polispeak spin of “misspoke” or “mistake”.
So Hillary Clinton won 3 states on March 4th. Senator Obama won the caucuses and 1 state. The net result? No real change, no answers, no nominee in the Democratic Party.
For all the hoopla that the Clinton campaign has made recently, they really have accomplished nothing. Except for furthering the divide among Democrats, and showing the nation the extent she is willing to go to. And if the Republican Party is paying attention they are amassing a huge list of questions and points to attack whoever is the nominee.
I’ve stated previously the multiple racial attacks, rumors, and outright lies in the Democratic race. Not one has come from the Republican Party. Almost all of them have come from the Clinton campaign. And as the nomination battle stretches on, things only look like they will get worse.
Plans are already being made to have the agreed upon rules thrown out where they relate to Michigan and Florida. A favorite tactic of Democratic candidates, lawyers and court battles, are being spoken about on the horizon. Whispers of re-doing Primaries in those 2 states are whirling about.
Of course this says nothing about the lesson that is teaching the young voters in this cycle. When a penalty is given for breaking rules, it really isn’t a penalty if candidates don’t like the rules outcome. It doesn’t matter what voters choose because the Democratic Party can use Super Delegates to potentially ignore their votes. And everything is considered fair game in getting elected, if race and religion is involved.
I am left pondering a thought. Do Democrats actually think they will win the Presidential election? The current candidates are trading barbs about experience. Neither has any really. Definitely not when compared to Senator McCain. Expect to see the 3am phone call commercial again, and expect that the question will be if America wants a renown war hero and dedicated elected official to pick up that phone, or a candidate that might have watched her husband answer that call before or a candidate that has never had to make such a serious decision before.
Democrats are making their party split along lines of race and gender. Race is a weapon in this election, used so far as a means to diminish and insult. Gender is an excuse to avoid answering questions, engender favor, and to claim bias when momentum is lost. So depending on which candidate is picked, a large portion of voters may lose interest in the election and not show up.
And scandals are being created or re-surfacing. The failure of the Clinton campaign to reveal their taxes implies that they are afraid to let Democratic voters see where their money has come from. The failure of the Clinton campaign to release records from President Bill Clinton’s administration hints of other negatives. And questions of an association from the past, which has been investigated and researched for years in Chicago without a single claim of wrong-doing, are surfacing now as if they were a lightning bolt of wrong. But don’t forget that the Clinton campaign has taken stolen money from a fugitive of the law that was strongly involved with the campaign.
Again what has been the net result of the wins by Senator Clinton on March 4th? Greater fuel for the Republican Party and Senator McCain. Greater exposure of the American public to the issue of race as a factor. Greater emphasis on the lack of experience of the Democratic Party. More division in the Democratic Party. And a lot more bickering on how and when to break rules.
The longer this goes, the more I have to believe this will not be good for anyone but Republicans.
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.
There is a question that is being asked during this political race. The question has been asked and answered and debated and even blown off as being ridiculous. It’s a question that has been asked on both sides of the political line. The question is:
“Will there be an Obama/Clinton ticket in 2008, regardless who wins?”
Many people say “No, there is too much bad blood between them”, others say “Hillary will never pick Obama to run with her”, still others say “Barak will not be comfortable with HER as a running mate, having to deal with her legacy with Bill”.
The sad truth is that all those answers are wrong.
Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are THE 2 strongest running candidates in the Democratic Party. They also represent something much more than just popular candidates. They represent how far we as a diverse country have come to looking past things as trivial as race, gender, religion, and looking into the “content of character” so eloquently expressed by Martin Luther King, Jr. (not that I think Clinton has much content, but go with me on this).
If they do not team up on this election that will say to me 2 things:
1. Neither of the 2 candidates have this country in mind when running for the presidency. This is all just a quest for power and fame, plain and simple. The fact that both Clinton and Obama have some different views on how this country should be run is the perfect dynamic needed to bring about change in the government today, which is still doing business as usual. If you want things to be different, you have to do them differently.
2. Neither of the 2 is qualified for the Presidency. Pardon me for being out of line, but being the President requires that you make some decisions that will preclude trivial things like pride, self-worth, feelings, etc. If you can’t make a decision about what is best for your Party as opposed to your feelings, how can you begin to hope to lead this country which is now at a crossroads the like we have never seen before and will never see again?
I don’t claim to support either Democrat or Republican candidates, but I do know this. In order for the Democrats to win this election, I can’t see how Clinton and Obama (or Obama and Clinton, whichever way you prefer) can not partner up and focus on the business of bringing change to this country. That is, if that’s what they really want to do…
A friend of mine brought up the fact that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to endorse Senator John McCain. The question to me was how I could justify saying that the Kennedy family endorsement could apply to Senator Obama in California.
It’s a good question. And I love the fact that my friend pays attention to what I’m writing and brings up what they see as conflicts. I do have an answer and it’s the reason I made the statement in the first place.
While it is a fact that the Guvernator is a Republican, his wife Maria Shriver is a Kennedy. I have no doubt, though I have no fact to base it on, that prior and since the endorsement of Senator Obama there has been conversations among all the Kennedy clan. Included to some degree of that would be the Governor. While I would never have expected him to endorse Senator Obama, there are other things that he can do to help him.
Prior to his involvement in politics, the Governor was an actor of some acclaim. During his time in Hollywood he worked with and I imagine became friends with many that are liberal, Libertarian, and Democratic. Considering that much of Hollywood is dominated with vocal non-Republicans, his 20 year career would demand that he at least know those of such a political affiliation. It is those contacts, from his acting days if not his current position, that is the greatest benefit he can provide to Senator Obama. He could introduce him to many people that could provide him with endorsements and money that he might need to ensure a win over Hillary Clinton in California and possibly other states.
Another question is raised by this supposition that I again state is based solely on my own reasoning. That question is - Why would he do this?
Because as a de facto member of the Kennedy’s, and for all the support that was provided to him, he needs to do it. I say the help he received, and again I base this on my supposition. I believe that it was the influence, via subtly introductions and quiet introductions to like minded Republicans, which helped Governor Schwarzenegger to win California. As much stardom as he might have had, the fact is that he had no political experience or exposure. The polispeak of American politics generally prevents unknowns from attaining high political positions, unless they receive significant backing. Few politicians would risk their political capital on an unknown without a strong belief in an individual. That belief, I think, was gained in some cases by the introduction and nudge from the Kennedy family stating in effect ‘I think you should speak with Arnold. He’s got great ideas, in line with your Party.’
Is that what happened? I have no idea in fact, but I believe it did. And on that basis, which seems logical and probable, he owed the family. Providing Senator Obama with the same type of quiet introductions was his quid pro quo. Not illegal, nor damaging to the Republican Party. In fact I’m sure it happens far more often than the polispeak we hear would indicate.
Thus, Governor Schwarzenegger is free to endorse Senator John McCain publicly and still help the Kennedy family who helped him.
That is my reasoning, I think it is sound. Do you agree?
I Love America! That's why I vote - first step - 1.25.2008.1
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.
Presidential candidates try to buy cheap votes with money and religion
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?
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.
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.
In light of the consistent reversals of positions, incomplete answers and anything but subtle switches of subject from the issue at hand I was wondering about a couple of questions that the Presidential candidates could answer yes or no to. No trick questions, no bias based on political affiliation. Just something simple that should be able to get a simple answer. And to be fair, I will provide a follow-up question they can answer in any way they wish.
1. Do you believe the legal system in America is fair and balanced for all people regardless of their color of skin or economic bracket?
1a. What will you do about the obvious media and legal imbalances exemplified by the delay and then subsequent media coverage of the Jena case and the initial criminal charges, the sentence of Genarlow Wilson, and the complete avoidance of the Megan Williams case in West Virginia?
2. Do you find that the education system is adequate?
2a. How will you improve the incredible failure that is evident in the higher dropout rates and lower reading skills found now in students across the country?
3. Do you believe that religious fanatics who create violence are not motivated by monetary or political actions?
3a. How can America protect itself, under your guidance, against groups that have the singular desire to destroy the nations existence because of their religious belief?
4. Do you believe citizen taxes should be spent to benefit anyone but U.S. citizens?
4a. Why should Americans provide anything, funded by citizen taxes, to individuals that have committed a crime by entering the United States without legal documentation?
5. Do you agree that the work executed by Slaves in America provided the economic stability and physical labor that are the foundations of modern day America?
5a. Are you willing to consider and work on reparations for African Americans, similar to the reparations made to Native American Indians and Japanese Americans interned during WWII?
There are other questions that can be asked. Perhaps in the near future I will. But I would love to hear the simple and direct answer to each of these primary questions, and whatever answers is made for the follow-up. After all the soundbites, and incomplete answers we have heard in 2007 to date, on which the American public is expected to pick a Presidential candidate from each political party, it would be refreshing to have real answers.
I can only speak for myself, but I can have more faith and be more willing to vote for a candidate that gives me an honest and direct answer as opposed to somebody that appears to be playing at fears and polls to get elected.
Regardless of the answers, who do you think would actually answer these questions?
When you think of the President of the United States, you think of the leader of the nation. The key here is leader of the nation, not a political party or a portion of the population but everyone. That is what the highest elected position in America demands.
Given that thought, one would expect that all the political parties would address all the people in the nation. That means debates, interviews and so forth with representatives of all the major demographics. It would mean answering tough questions on issues that face America today and going into the future.
What is expected is not the case though.
What is going on with the Republican Party? As stated by Mark Radulich of 411mania.com,
Sounds bleak doesn’t it. On one side you have people with blinders on. On the other we have those that either presumes loyalty due to their promises (regardless of their actual records upon being elected) or sensationalism created for the sole reason of driving votes to them out of fear.
Without someone pointing out real facts – like the fact that there are more Black men age 18-24 in college than jail (according to 2005 Justice Department statistics) – there is only one voice out there. What that voice says does not mean it is to the benefit of African Americans.
So the question is, are Republicans going to lose the Presidential election race of 2008 because they ignore over 12% of the population, or will Democrats win because they will inspire fear in that same population? Does either option seem even remotely in the benefit of the nation?
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
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?
The question of the day has to be the fact that Gen. David H. Petraeus will be addressing Congress today. That report, being given as I write, has massive political ramification as well the long term effects on our nation. From what I have heard at this time, neither party will be completely pleased with the report I am hearing. But that leads to a bigger problem.
Overall the Republicans want to hear that the war is going well and that the Iraqis are taking over for U.S. troops. Democrats want to hear that the war is as they have long claimed a failed effort. The public though wants to hear that there is a timeframe by which they can expect to have our loved ones home.
The summary has been stated that ‘the surge has been effective, Iraqi forces are slowly making inroads to taking control of their own country, and it may be possible to see the start of a withdrawal in the summer of next year.’ That is a near direct quote from Gen. Petraeus as he has spoken live. In addition troops will be removed from December up to July 2008, to reach pre-surge levels at that time.
So what does this mean? We can expect that several of the Democrats, especially the leading 3 Presidential candidates will not be satisfied. Already Senator Clinton has stated
And the other candidates have made similar comments.
On the other side will be the Republicans and their Presidential hopefuls. They have backed the President and the military from day one. Continuing to do so based on this report means that they will be identified for the continued fighting our soldiers will go through. Considering the large numbers of the public that is hoping for the end of this war in a relatively quick manner, this will not bode well for many during upcoming elections.
But why is this political at all? Did this nation learn anything from Korea and Viet Nam? Have we not realized that when politics override, or guide, decisions of an active war and the commanders waging it, that it inevitably leads to the wrong decisions and increased American deaths?
I was speaking with a philosopher (an actively teaching and writing philosopher) friend of mine over the weekend. She mentioned something that I thought was quite important. She seeks the ideal, the conceptual best path, and is upset that America does not try to attain more of that path. I can understand that and in part agree with it. I think much of the nation would also like to follow that path. But such a path is not completely feasible in real world actions.
Discussing Presidential candidate Fred Thompson - 9.6.2007.1
Normally I would not go over the details of any particular candidate for President of the United States or in this case the primaries, but with the late addition of Fred Thompson, of the Republican Party, I'll make an exception. Now this is not to say that I'm picking any candidate or that I will be providing endorsement to anyone. It's simply that the attention Thompson has gained over the past several months based on his intention to run for President and his current rankings in the polls have not been balanced with information on his views and political platforms. In an effort to provide balance I plan to go over a couple of points stated on his website.
The website for Fred Thompson is Fred08.com, and is a very well designed website. The site takes into account that not everyone can read the small fonts often found on other candidates sites and is very plainly laid out. Getting from one section of the site to another section is a very simple process. While the site is set up so it's easy to traverse it is not deep in information. It does give an interesting overview of the platforms that Fred Thompson plans to promote.
The introduction video, which is featured on the site, does a decent job of going over what it is that he stands for. Perhaps one of the best ways to sum up his entire approach is to quote
A government big enough to do everything for us can do anything to us.
The video goes on to state that Thompson believes in a strong stance against terrorism, both on the domestic and international level. And that America must provide a united front against this threat. Beyond the issue of terrorism there are several other issues that are addressed. These include fixing Social Security, finding new innovations to reduce the need of foreign oil and improve the nation's energy security, improving education, providing affordable health care to the general public, reducing government red tape, protecting the borders against illegal immigration, lowering taxes and reducing government spending.
All of these items are matters that Thompson believes.
Need solutions that extend beyond the next election cycle.
While this viewpoint is rarely spoken by many of the candidates, regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat, is somewhat belied by some of the statements made by Thompson. One of the most often used (with some minor variation) quotes by Thomson is that of
Occasionally, doors have opened to me, and I had sense enough to see that they were opening, and I would walk through them.
Mr. Thompson is hardly new to politics, of course. Previously he served two terms as Senator for Tennessee. He makes a great point of mentioning that he was the first in his family to go to college and that during his time in college he worked to pay for his education. As is well known Mr. Thompson, quickly made a name for himself as an attorney, which led to his work in Watergate. It was that involvement that ultimately led to his defense of the titular character featured in the movie Marie, which led to his appearance in 18 movies (including Die Hard 2, The Hunt for Red October, and many others), and his long-term television role on Law and Order.
Fred Thompson is perhaps the most publicly known, presidential candidates at this time. His visage is immediately recognizable by perhaps 70 or 80% of the population today. Given these factors, he has gained a strong position in the Republican primary race. Whether or not, this is enough to gain the Republican ticket and to be able to run effectively, versus the Democratic candidate is still unknown. Further details on how he plans to fulfill the goals he has outlined in his video are basically unknown.
The one general and consistent fact that is known is that he is a federalist. By this is meant that he believes the federal government should have limited authority in certain matters. Perhaps one other factor that can be said is that in comparison to all the other candidates and the positions currently being proposed. Thompson holds a centrist view.
Essentially, this is the full amount of information that I was able to garner from the website for Fred Thompson. There is one other factor, which the website states. Thompson is looking forward to hearing questions from the general public. To that end, I will be writing up a series of questions similar to those that I have created previously for several others of the presidential candidates. I look forward to seeing the responses by Fred Thompson. As with my previous letters to the candidates I will provide unaltered my questions for this candidate, and any response that is received.
This is what I know now, now it's your turn to find out more. Remember, your vote counts, and if you don't use it you can't complain on what you get!
Republican presidential debate on Fox News - 9.5.2007.2
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.
Republicans will answer YouTube questions - 8.13.2007.1
There has been a resounding consensus that questions presented to candidates via YouTube are a good thing. The candidates get real questions that are faced by real people everyday. It’s a reminder that average Joe is the person these candidates have to answer to, not the special interest groups and large donors. The questions asked, though some were just ridiculous, did not hold back or cushion the candidates, and that is a great thing.
So far this format has only been presented to the Democratic Presidential hopefuls. It created a lot of interest in who is running and why. It’s lead to further discussion on who really is qualified, earnest, and beneficial enough to lead this nation. It provided perhaps the best example of what choices exist for the election.
There was some debate over whether the Republican Presidential candidates would appear for a debate based on this same format. Initially it appeared that it might not happen as only 2 candidates were confirmed to show. Many, including myself, thought it would be a massive blow against any Republican hopeful not to appear. But recent reports state that this debate format will be happening.
Check out YouTube to submit your question and look forward to the November debate. Remember that your vote counts, and if you don’t ask a question now you may not get a choice later. America deserves better than that.
Hypocrisy in discussing Presidential candidates - 7.19.2007.1
In discussing the Presidential candidates and the election in 2008 I have read large volumes on both sides of key issues. I have read the comments of pundits, bloggers opinions and facts they have dug up, and the comments and information on the candidates’ websites. Often there is conflicting information on the same issue, or the writer injects their viewpoint on the subject.
I have tried to be neutral in this matter. I want to present both sides fairly. That is not always easy. But there is a difference between what I do and what others claim is a fair comment. I’ll give you an example, because it just annoys me to no end to read something that claims to be an even discussion and in fact is a one-sided slam.
In just one sentence we get the disconnect. I like most are upset with both parties. Neither is really doing anything except getting donations and trying to look more Presidential than the other. The major media is only promoting this aspect, unless you believe that an issue like the retreat from Iraq or what to do about the impending shortfalls in Social Security are issues that can be answered in 30 second soundbites. But to say that the media caters to the right tells me several things.
One is that the above quoted writer does not understand what the left and right represent. To say the media leans right is absurd. Pick up virtually any newspaper or watch virtually any news program, listen for a discussion or case about immigration. When the media speaks about immigrants that have entered the nation without following the law see how they phrase it. Undocumented workers and immigrants are a common reference, not illegal immigrants. That’s one example, but recent polls show most of America recognizes that the media leans LEFT. So you know the above quoted writer is about to bash the Republican candidates.
And bash is what happens. The Republican Party is cited as doing nothing but committing errors, Senator McCain is called out by name as a leading bovine. The President of the United States is insulted and ridiculed.
Then we get to hear about the ‘savior’, the left.
“…liberals who seem to be doing a good job of focusing on the dishonesty of our politics…”
Get real. There isn’t a Party in this nation that doesn’t include dishonest politicians. I believe that being arrested for accepting bribes, and having $90,000 in a refrigerator qualifies as dishonest and that was a Louisiana Democrat. The writer continues to mention the great healthcare program that the top 3 Democratic candidates have. Hogwash. Not one candidate in either party has a plan yet. None of them. They have ideas, and good soundbites. A plan would mean they could answer where the money for the program will come from, what incentives will be made available to motivate further medical innovations, and how to avoid the pitfalls of national healthcare that every other nation has currently.
I severely dislike the hypocrisy disguised as concern some present. If you pick a side, then discuss it. If you think one Party is better than another say that. But to say there is equal problems that need to be addressed do not hide an agenda inside the message.
I’m not picking a side, I’m highlighting hypocrisy. The writer is no better than the Presidential candidates and political Parties. We cannot have an improved nation or a good President if partisan arguments are used to promote one side or another. Social Security, immigration, terrorism, the wars, education and more are serious issues facing the nation. The next President will be crucial in defining the direction America takes for the next 10 years. Bias and emotional preferences will not help get the best choice elected.
Both sides have problems. None have given a good answer on the issues. None have given plans to resolve the issues. We deserve more. But to negate one side or another as the writer above has doesn’t help. We need to be aware of that.
Am I shocked by this news? No. Long time readers of my site are aware that the Presidential candidates, in both parties, have seemingly avoided answering questions I have posed to them. They have ignored the copies of my letters sent by readers just like you, so far. Questions asking the very same type of things that they don’t have on their websites. Answers that I others believe are important for the next would-be President of the United States must have.
To find out that a study has found that all the candidates won’t provide these answers is not a surprise, it’s a shame. How can any candidate ask you for money yet not tell you what they plan to do with the nation? Fear of not getting the candidacy just means they are too weak to lead the nation in the first place. If a candidate is afraid of how the public, or any part of it, will respond to an answer, then it probably not the right answer for the NATION. At least that is how I think.
The American public is not stupid. We can understand more than a 30 second answer. We realize that solutions to the issues affecting us today and for the next decade are more involved that explaining the economy to a fifth-grader. Like Mr. Carl Reiner’s character in the original Ocean’s Eleven film said
“So are you going to treat me like a grown-up and tell me what’s going on?”
Well when are the candidates going to treat us like adults? Will we get some answers only after a President gets sworn in January 2009? Do we have to wait until after the primaries and our choices have been whittled away?
42% of people can’t get answers, and the candidates aren’t speaking. Well I’m still asking. Take a look at the letters I have sent the candidates of both political parties. If they seem like sound questions you would like an answer to, copy it and send them to whomever you would like an answer from. When those answers come in, and they will, I will post them unaltered.
Your vote counts, your voice is loud. Let’s remind the Presidential candidates that no matter how many corporate or lobbyist donations they get, we still elect them.
But why is Senator Clinton so polarizing? What makes this one candidate so despised on one side and loved on the other? Is it the anger some have over the war in Iraq? Is it the actions of President Bush that is the real motivation, masking the actions of Senator Clinton?
Negative ads are bad. 30 second soundbite answers do no justice to the populace as we seek serious answers to serious questions affecting current and future generations. But to gloss over the failure in American politics as being a one-sided group of events is to be either naïve or ignorant of the truth.
Both parties have corporate backers spending millions on promoting one candidate or another. All the backers will obviously want some kind of consideration for the winning candidate. All the candidates have weaknesses. Several have serious character flaws, and many have flipped positions that bring their real political standpoints into question.
I don’t mind that everyone is interested in this Presidential race. It’s an important one. It will affect this country and the world at large for decades. But to look at it in a myopic view is ridiculous to me. I have yet to see a candidate that is not taking large funds from corporations and ultra-rich individuals that have a specific agenda. Not one of the candidates has been explicit in their positions on critical issues.
By that I mean, while several have stated in no uncertain terms that they will remove our troops from Iraq, they have not mentioned how this will be done nor what they will do to ensure that future aggressors will be prevented from creating a base once we are gone. While several candidates have said they will seek to create a national healthcare system, none have mentioned how this will be funded, how pharmaceutical companies will be motivated to create new drugs, nor what will prevent this system from being run like the Post Office, VA, or the DMV [the inefficiencies of each are too vast to go into detail about].
These are just a few of the issues that need to be discussed. Until there are clear answers, picking on either party or candidate is useless and worse distracting.
What about the other side of the Carpetbagger Report - 6.17.2007.1
Recently the Carpetbagger Report decided to take on the Republican candidates, speculating which was the ’scariest’. While this rundown of the candidates is scant on fact, and very much directed from a point of view that is opposed to the Republican Party, it does highlight some weaknesses of some Presidential candidates.
Lopsided as it is, I have to wonder what are the weaknesses of the various Democratic candidates? If the Carpet Bagger is to be taken seriously then why haven’t they made the same kind of critique against a Party they support? An honest look at all the Presidential candidates reveals flaws in all hoping to run now, anything other than discussing both sides rings hollow to me.
As an example of what I mean:
Senator Clinton has flipped her position on the Iraq war as recently as February of this year. It is only recently that the demand to leave Iraq at all costs has come to fore. That qualifies as a flip-flop I think.
Senator Obama has the least experience of the front-runners of the Democratic Party. A junior Senator, with few years and no real connections on an international basis.
Mr. John Edwards has made a lot of money from sources that questionably profited on the poor. His cries of standing up for the less successful in America seems to contradict his lavish home and $400 haircuts.
Anyone can pick on the flaws of the candidates, they are human so they have them. But to just pick one side and demonize them is unfair. The above is meant only to give a little balance to what is found on the Carpetbagger Report.
Why pundits think they know who will be President - 6.13.2007.1
Would a Democrat win the White House as some pundits speculate? Could it be Senator Clinton? Why would Senator Obama settle for Vice-President? Why in the world would they say this?
All of these things ran through my mind recently. I have to say they could be right. The fact is that if this does happen it would be for all the wrong reasons. Let me explain.
The way the math is being done now, there are more women than men in the nation. This is not new, but they historically come out and vote less than men do. It is often stated that one of the reasons that President John Kennedy was elected is due to his appeal to women as opposed to his opponent. A similar motivation is being posed as a factor for Senator Clinton. As the first woman, she will bring more women to vote for her without regard to her political views.
Add to this that Senator Obama, as the first Presidential candidate perceived as having a chance to make a critical impact, will garner the African American vote for similar reasons. Given the fact that Senator Obama is very new on the political scene and started with far less recognition, he will not gain the nomination but is too vital with minority voters and thus gets the Vice-President nod.
On top of this is the fact that immigration reform is seen as a Republican initiative, which is something many Latino and Hispanic Americans are angered by. Because of the emotion involved it is seen as weakening any Republican candidate’s chance.
Have you noticed that not one of these reasons, whether or not valid, have nothing to do with political platforms, benefit to the nation or ability of any candidate. This line of reasoning seem better suited for picking a winner of American Idol, or some other brain cell depleting ‘reality’ program. Do we really want to pick a President because we emotionally think they feel better than another candidate?
If that is a reason to pick a candidate then we might as well say that X is the better choice because they have on blue as opposed to black on election day. Deciding who will run the most powerful nation of the world should NEVER be relegated to the equivalent of a coin toss. I just can’t believe the general citizenry of this nation are that dumb.
I don’t care who wins, IF they are the best choice for the nation. Male, female, White, Black, Latino or whatever they should be the most qualified of the choices at the time. Anything less damages the nation and has repercussions for DECADES.
Maybe the pundits are wrong. There is a lot of time between now and the election. Maybe I will get some answers to the questions I have asked the current Presidential candidates. Perhaps someone will stand out as actually having plans that are fully formed and coherent. Possibly we will get comments that are more than mere soundbites, and a full choice will appear.
But if the pundits are right, for the reasons they claim, this nation is screwed.
Letters to Democratic and Republican Parties - 5.17.2007.2
This is a copy of the exact letter sent to Republican and Democratic Parties on March 30, 2007. This is part of my ongoing efforts to increase the number of voters and to have the best person possible elected as President of the United States in 2008.
March 30, 2007
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am contacting your organization today in the hope of being able to speak to a representative on several issues. The reason for this request is that I am the author of several blogs and owner of a website that discusses and features commentary and insights on politics and the up-coming 2008 Presidential election.
In my discussions with both visitors of my websites, and various people in daily life, I have come to find that many are unfamiliar with the basic tenants of the major political parties. Many, in my experiences, find politics to be confusing and the various bits of information from televised news programs, whether found on broadcast or cable networks, to be to brief to be informative. As politicians and the various parties represent varying degrees, from ultra-conservative to ultra-liberal, of their respective political viewpoints, many are unsure of what a Democrat or Republican is, or what the respective ideologies involve.
To that end, as an aid to my readers and to help promote involvement in the Presidential election in 2008, I seek to have an interview with a representative of your party. I will also be seeking to have an identical interview with a representative of the [Democratic or Republican ]party. I will publish each interview, without alteration or editing of content, separately and fairly. I have not taken a position in favor of any party or candidate at this time. I have critiqued members of both parties in the past, on the blogs, for various issues. I have also written letters to Presidential candidates of both political parties, which are similar in content and balanced in tone. All of the letters I have written can be found at my website, www.vassconsult.com/politics/election2008.html , which is a neutral site. Each letter is unaltered copies of what has been sent to each candidate, and any response will be posted unaltered as well.
My belief is that the 2008 election is critical to the future of the nation. The candidate that provides the best outlook for the nation is the only criteria that I feel is important. The letters I have sent to the various candidates of both parties reflect that viewpoint. While there has been no response from any candidate at this time I feel that providing my readers with these questions helps them better evaluate their choice for President. To further that involvement in the election process and to help better the understanding of the political parties I request an interview with a representative of your party.
The interview can be done via email, which may be easiest for all involved. I will provide a copy of the content to be posted, and the location of the posts, prior to their being posted to the internet. I am not seeking any funds, nor have I donated any funds to either party. If it is important, I will add that my sites currently reach in excess of 20,000 visitors a month and are growing in popularity, and it is verifiable that the blogs can be readily found on all major search engines. The website, mentioned above, is new and was started in March 2007.
The sites that the interview would be found on are the following:
What question has your Presidential candidate answered? - 5.17.2007.1
I am so annoyed. And I think everyone in America should be as well. At least those that use the internet and blogging. We are all being used in a terrible way, and I have to comment on it.
I have posted several of my letters to various presidential candidates from both parties, that have been sent since December 2006. I’ve mentioned that to this moment none have replied. I’ve even reported on how I have been ignored by my state senator, and received unsolicited mass mails, but not a single response. And I am not alone.
Thousands if not millions have been contacted, enticed and solicited via email and the internet for one Presidential candidate or another from both political parties. I have no problem with that. I have not committed funds or an endorsement, personally or with my corporation, for any party or Presidential hopeful. But neither I nor the general public have received anything in exchange for these requests of support other than a couple of soundbites. Our vote is not that cheap.
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy, immigration, homeland security, education, abortion and many other issues cannot be answered in 90 second bits. There is not a single intelligent person on the planet that can answer fully and honestly any of those issues in that time frame. It can’t be done. Yet both political parties hope that we will accept just that in selecting who will run for President in 2008. Even the selected meetings, chosen to highlight and benefit the various candidates, are structured to provide soundbites for the evening news, cable news, and bloggers. That just doesn’t cut the mustard.
Why is this being done? Why does it cost so much to run for President? Because it has become more MTV driven than ever before. Debates are no longer about substance, but about who appears more Presidential. It’s not what is being said, but what gets quoted. And at the same time fewer people follow the debates and coverage than ever before. As a matter of fact, my informal questioning has brought me to the conclusion that fewer people today even know what the Republican and Democratic parties stand for.
Drop the hot button question of how long we will be in Iraq, and tell me what the parties want? Does the American public want to end the war now or win and leave? What preparations are planned for the repercussions of either decision? What’s actually best for the nation and why? What can or will any of the candidates do to improve healthcare or education in the inner cities? What does it mean to be a mainstream Democrat or Republican? Most people I as these questions haven’t the slightest idea, but they know one party or another is better for the nation. Almost invariably I get quoted a soundbite or commercial for one person or another, without any clue as to what context that soundbite applies to. We are being bought cheaply.
I think this is enough. We deserve better answers and more of them. If hiring bloggers with ranks similar to mine are good enough to solicit the public, then mine is good enough to give a response to. And it’s good enough to inform you the public. I’m not just picking at the Presidential candidates I’ve sent letters to, but also the political parties I sent a letter to [on March 30, 2007 – to info@nygop.org and nysdems@nysdems.org ]. I will post the letters that I sent out to the Democratic and Republican parties.
I am left with a question, why do the candidates and their respective parties seem afraid to give any response? Why don’t they want to answer direct and important questions? Why do they not want to be responsible to the people they wish to govern?
So I ask you this, read the letters I have sent. Look for the candidate of your choice, and send them a copy of my letter (via email, link, social bookmark, or printed mail as you chose) and ask them why they can’t respond. Ask them why some of the things that will impact you and your children only deserve a 90 second incomplete answer. Ask why a soundbite is worth your financial support or more importantly your vote.
If you earned a promotion, raise, commission, higher grade or whatever and you were given an incomplete 30 or 90 second response, you would ask for a better response. So am I, with your help.
I look forward to your responses. This is what I think, what do you think?
The debates couldn’t change the mind of a hummingbird, and that’s the fault of the producers and moderator. And when I was watching the Republican debate I was in a public venue. I had one person; in a crowd of 20+ people ask once what I was watching. There was no interest, and of the 3 people that I saw glance at the debate and listen for a second, they turned away just as quickly. That is the fault of the number of soundbites being bandied about and the total lack of importance that emanated from the event.
This is why I have made my letters [found at the M V Consulting, Inc. website], questioning several of the candidates. I have real issues in mind, things that affect me and the nation as a whole. I have asked for answers on issues that affect minority communities, business, healthcare and more. And so far not one candidate has responded since December 2006. As long as we do not demand real answers to these important questions, I don’t think any of the candidates have the balls to respond.
What that means for the nation is anyone’s guess right now. One thing I can say is that those that won’t ask the questions now can’t complain about who and what we get later. Our children, our grandchildren, and we will be impacted for decades by the actions of our next President. Do you want your life, and the lives of your children, to be in the hands of someone who can’t answer a question in more depth than 90 seconds, and who won’t respond to a question from the citizens themselves? Think about that.
If you agree with me, send your candidate of choice a copy of one of my letters and ask them to respond. I’ll post any response, unaltered, as soon as I receive it. Let’s remind these candidates that they are elected by the people, and are responsible to the people, not special interest groups, unions and rich donors.
Recent Democratic and Republican debates - 5.8.2007.1
OK, I’ve played a bit of hooky. The good weather has gotten to me. But there has been something that has bugged me. The recent Democratic and Republican debates that were broadcast on MSNBC. Did anyone even see them?
My problems with the debates range from execution to interest. The debates were poorly run in my opinion. Far too many stupid questions of little relevance or impact were provided to both political parties. I mean questions like ‘who grew up with a gun in their home?’ is not relevant to whether or not the candidates are for or against gun control. [This question was asked of all the Democratic candidates, answered by a show of hands.] Another choice question that said nothing was ‘what would be your favorite tax to cut?’ [This was given to the Republican candidates.]
Questions like the above are hardly worth the time. Speaking of time, it was poorly managed. There was only 90 minutes for the entire debate, which hardly provides enough time considering the number of candidates. Added to this was the mere 90 seconds to answer a question, unless the question was cherry picked from the internet and then there was merely 30 seconds to answer. Talk about soundbites. There wasn’t enough time given to any candidate to say anything but a tagline answer. That is the candidates that were given an opportunity to answer.
Several times a question that was supposed to be asked to all the candidates was stopped mid-way through the group with a new question asked. Or the current frontrunners were directly selected to answer specific questions with lesser known candidates completely ignored. This was more obviously and painfully shown during the Republican debate. Mr. Romney dominated the airtime, with what I gather as the most questions asked and the most time to answer.
It was a joke. This wasn’t a debate; it was an extended free advertisement for each candidate. The only real question was who could look more presidential. An example is when the Democrats were asked what they would do if America was attacked 2x on the same day. It’s an odd question, why 2x, isn’t once enough? The answers were boilerplate and along party lines. Not one candidate had an answer that was straightforward. I mean what does, ‘I’d evaluate the situation and take action once I knew who was responsible.’ Really what does that mean? Every candidate answered with this response to some degree or wording. Not one said they would retaliate with force, or that they would ensure that the culprits would be chased and brought to justice regardless what rock they might hide under. I was in New York City when the Twin Towers were hit; I know and knew several people there that day. I don’t want the Presidents’ response to an attack on the citizenry to be rounds of talks at the U.N. Timeouts don’t work for children and it definitely won’t have an affect on a terrorist or nation seeking the removal of America.
So far all the Democratic hopefuls have defended themselves and claimed that this is a false comment, that it is an attempt to inspire fear and capitalize on a tragedy. I find that interesting since I cannot see how it is wrong. Every Republican candidate has said the same thing as Mr. Giuliani to some degree. Many Democratic lawmakers have also said this. So I must ask, how is fighting a war in a manner similar to a wrestling or boxing match a winning strategy? How is fighting on an exact and unyielding timetable, that does not consider the ramifications from the aftermath of suddenly abandoning a fight (or call it troop withdrawal if that feels better), increase the safety of Americans at home? I have yet to hear an answer on how that will happen. I have yet to hear how retreating (defined as: an act or process of withdrawing especially from what is difficult, dangerous, or disagreeable) makes us safer as a nation. If a Democrat can answer that direct question I may change my opinion, but to date not one has.
To be fair, no Republican has an answer on how long troops will be needed in Iraq, or how much money will be required to stabilize that nation. Not a single guess, though I believe it will take 5-10 years if the current pace is maintained. I can’t even guess at the cost, maybe 3x what has been spent to date. It’s not cheap, but then again “freedom is not free.”
But if Majority leader Senator Reid is correct, how do we stop Al Quida and other groups or nations that oppose the American way of life from gathering strength and attacking our nation again? While winning the war may not be popular it does hold the foresight that may protect the nation from some major attacks. What protects the nation if we run away? Where is the foresight that will keep Americans safe in their homes and jobs? It’s not enough to make a half-step; we must know what the next part to their plan is. Only then can we, the citizens, then make a choice on what is the direction the nation should take. That is non-partisan, and in the best interest of the nation. Anything less is just politicking and will cost lives, I believe.
It’s not a Republican view to continue to fight, nor Democratic to retreat. They are views to secure the ability of America to maintain its security. But the former looks to the future, the latter just the present. If we chose a President that can only see the trees and not the forest then I fear what may happen as our children become young adults and inherit our unfinished gaffes.
