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

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

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


Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani


Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee


Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for her 4 common themes used against Senator Clinton:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alan Keyes – Deserves even less comment than Ron Paul.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That whittles the field down to 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But who is left?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So Fred Thompson is out of the Presidential race for the 2008 election. No shock at all. Considering the poor 3rd place results in South Carolina, and the speech made by Thompson that same day, this is not a surprise. Though it is a bit of a shame as the ex-Presidential hopeful did finally start to show a bit of a spark in recent debates and speeches. But his late entry into the race and the poor decisions early in his campaign too their toll on his overall chances.

Rudy Giuliani should take heed.

Just yesterday I was discussing with a friend the fact that so far the entirety of Giuliani’s campaign seems to be New York centric. The biggest draw for this Republican Presidential candidate started with the fact of his actions on 9/11. This has been something that Rudy has not let anyone forget. It’s a constant comment in every speech and debate I have heard him have.

But on top of reminding us that he did perform amazingly on that troubled day, and those that followed it, he has given us little else. And when I say us I mean New Yorkers. Rudy has focused on those from the City, and the state, to carry him to this stage. His near-exclusive attention to Florida is testament to that. For those that are unfamiliar, many older and retired residents of NYC tend to move to Florida. So his focus is basically preaching to the choir to some extent.

If the loss of Fred Thompson is any example, then Rudy’s plan will fail horribly. In addition the fact that he has consistently under-performed Ron Paul in virtually every Primary to-date is no positive for the one-time presumed front-runner.

I won’t even begin to go into my multiple questions on Rudy Giuliani. Suffice to say that his actions as Mayor involved far more than just 9/11. Many have concerns about his social policies, especially in regards to crime prevention, law enforcement, individual rights, and minorities. Little has been spoken on this, and Rudy has dance around the issues, but if he stays in past Florida I virtually guarantee that they will come up. Some of my own questions can be seen from a letter I wrote to his campaign back in April 2007.

Now the questions of when Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards will drop out are beginning to be asked. Ron Paul I expect to see stay in the race until he completely loses all hope on Super Tuesday. Kucinich has consistently gotten about 5% at ever Primary and Caucus, and is the ONLY candidate to answer (or even willing to speak about) the question of an official apology to African Americans for slavery, and reparations. But even that is not enough to gain attention in the major news media. [Sadly I think that may have contributed to his virtual media blackout.]

John Edwards is out. There is no real question that he has the claim for 3rd place, and will be give an offer of the Vice-Presidency again. I will say that if he is given that offer, and he accepts, the Democrats will be odds on favorites to lose. His prior loss, and his less than stellar performance in this election cycle bode badly for anyone he might be matched with.

And I might believe his desire to help out the poor a bit more if I were to see his voluntary contributions to the IRS for the past decade. By that I mean that if he paid MORE than his required taxes of his own volition in past years. Just for the good of the nation. But of course non e of the candidates have done that, though Democrats insist that the top earners in the nation (like themselves) must pay more money on taxes. Yet they won’t do it themselves.

Sorry, I got sidetracked by the obvious 2 faced and diametrically opposed actions of some candidates in the face of what they are calling for on behalf of the nation.

So, in short time we will be finding out that the race will be quite smaller before Super Tuesday. Besides the candidates in both parties that have no real chance but are struggling to fight the good fight, I expect a couple of the big names to fall by the wayside shortly.

Labels: 9/11, Dennis Kucinich, Fred Thompson, John Edwards, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Super Tuesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In fact all the racial tensions have done one thing,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“A question of presence, not casualties.”

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

Continued in Part 2...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the hits just keep rolling on. At midnight on the 8th the first New Hampshire votes have been cast. And the results have come in some 10 minutes later.

17 citizens in New Hampshire gathered among huge crowds of reporters to vote for their choice of candidates for the Presidency of the United States. That’s 100% of all those available to vote. And the overwhelming winners were Senator Obama with 7 votes and Senator McCain with 4. Also notably is the fact that Senator Clinton received no votes and Rudy Giuliani received 1.

Now does this mean that the race is between Senators Obama and McCain? No. Not necessarily. But it does indicate that the pundits are well off the mark.

1 year ago, Senator Obama was considered a joke by the various talking heads heralded by the major news media. They thought it was cute and wrote him off in the early days of 2007. In the middle of the summer of 2007 as Senator McCain failed to generate donations at a rate that the pundits thought was necessary, he too was written off. This says nothing of the lack of attention given to Mike Huckabee up until the very end of 07.

Yet we are seeing that the American citizens have opinions of their own. They are voicing their opinion without the benefit of major media, campaign contributions or outside influences. Were Americans merely the mindless puppets that some would indicate, Riudy Giuliani and Senator Hillary Clinton would be sweeping past all others on their way to national campaigns.

But it’s the fact that every vote counts. And that media and corporate interests don’t get to decide the next official in the highest office serving the people in the nation. For this I am proud.

Does this mean either winner tonight will win? No, there is no guarantee. But it means we are paying attention and making choices. There is no higher statement.

Will the rest of New Hampshire follow the lead of these early votes? I can’t say. But if 17 Americans in the relatively remote region of New Hampshire can gather at midnight in the middle of the week, I can only imagine the crowds that will gather in major cities in the middle of the day. This is a celebration of our freedom in action. It’s the very thing that other governments around the world fear and envy.

No matter what else happens, Americans are voicing their opinion. That opinion is powerful and honest. It is unpredictable by pundits and talking heads. It refutes polispeak that has dominated news coverage of the Presidential candidates. It refutes the polispeak that has been used in many debates and public speaking platforms that occurred in 2007.

Take this as your impetus America. Your voice matters, and every vote counts. You make a change with every vote cast, and all the political players pay attention.

Labels: election 2008, New Hampshire, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Clinton, Senator John McCain

After the solid wins by Senator Obama and Mike Huckabee in Iowa yesterday, the one thing that can be sure is that increased scrutiny of their past is about to begin. To that end I am no different than most.

I was looking around and I did find some interesting facts. I can’t say they are horrendous items, but they are reported facts that should be known by citizens as they go to the primaries, and if they were to go to the election as well. You can determine if these items are important to you, but at least you will know.

[These items were found at Judicial Watch and I make no claim to their motivations or credibility.]

Mike Huckabee –

“According to The Associated Press: “[Huckabee’s] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.” And what was Governor Huckabee’s response to these ethics allegations? Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.”

Senator Obama –

“In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.”

In addition to the 2 winners of the Iowa caucus there are a few other items on 2 more Presidential candidates. One is on Senator Clinton, which I have covered previously in posts as the events unfolded or became known to the public. The other candidate is Rudy Giuliani who has discussed his actions with his then girlfriend and now current wife. He has stated that the costs, paid by the NYPD, were required as part of the normal protection provided to the Mayor of New York City. You can determine if that answer is good enough or not.

Senator Clinton –

“In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.”

Rudy Giuliani –

“Giuliani came under fire in late 2007 after it was discovered the former New York mayor’s office “billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons…” ABC News also reported that Giuliani provided Nathan with a police vehicle and a city driver at taxpayer expense. All of this news came on the heels of the federal indictment on corruption charges of Giuliani’s former Police Chief and business partner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to accepting a $165,000 bribe…”

Now there are some items for you to mull over. I am still very angry over the Norman Hsu issue. The fact that a potential head of the Executive Office associates with a known fugitive of the law is bad enough, but the fact that she took $1million dollars from him is much worse. Add to that the attempt by her campaign to ignore, then minimize the amount of money donated and I have serious complaints.

As for Guiliani’s buddy the former Police Chief, I had no love for him or his tactics while Rudy was in office. It was under his time that the murder and attacks on Patrick Dorismond, Abner Louima and others occurred. Say 9/11 as fast and as often as you can, but unjustified murder and torture are just as prominent in the minds of most New Yorkers.

Labels: Abner Louima, Bernard Kerik, Mike Huckabee, Norman Hsu, Patrick Dorismond, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

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

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

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

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

Now for the breakdowns (in alphabetical order):

Rudy Giuliani

Pros –


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

Continued in Part 2...

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

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

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





Mike Huckabee on Taxes –





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hilary Clinton on both sides of Nuclear weapons and Iran -





Rudy Giuliani takes both sides of Immigration -





Continued in part 2...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of some of the questions are

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

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

“As a fellow African American I'm sure you are aware that there are several issues that are of great impact to the Black community. One of the most important may be the issue of education. What have you done to improve the number of African Americans that finish high school and/or seek higher education? If you were to be elected President, what plan would you follow that will improve the education system in America? – To Senator Barack Obama, Jan. 22, 2007”

“Another matter that was received in a mixed manner was your choice of police commissioner and the law enforcement policies during your term of office. During your time as Mayor, Mr. Amidou Diallo and Mr. Patrick Dorismond were murdered by police officers in a disturbing manner and Mr. Abner Louima was tortured by police officers which was then attempted to be covered up. These policies and your defense of the police department created a significant atmosphere of anger and cries of racism among the African American, Hispanic/Latino and other minority groups in the city; that was not covered significantly across the nation. For those African American and minority voters in the nation, what are your views on law enforcement? Where do you stand on Affirmative Action and other reforms that address racial inequality? – To Rudy Giuliani, April 5, 2007”

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

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

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

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

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

Continued from The lies Presidential candidates say, and the facts that prove it Part 2...

“There are 300,000 babies born deformed every year in this country because of women who are alcoholics while they're carrying those children to term.”

In fact the number is nowhere near that. I mean not even by a factor of 10. According to the Surgeon General the number of birth defects is 8,300 in total. Even is you take all births with complications from alcohol you can only get 40,000. But it doesn’t sound as important as 300,000 now does it?

But I will end this with a few Pant-on-Fire lies. There is nothing even with a glimmer in truth in the following statements. I can only imagine they were said to fool the American public into supporting the candidates, and nothing else. Thank goodness some check on these things.

“Edwards says if Congress won't pass universal health care, he'll tell Congress: "I'm going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you." – John Edwards

A complete fabrication. Can’t happen. How many donated money and will voter for him because of that lie?

“I'm probably one of the four or five best-known Americans in the world.” – Rudy Giuliani

Rudy may be popular, and New York City is well known but get serious. That’s just self-aggrandizement. Seriously.

“In 1972, we had a 179,000 human beings in jail in this country. Today, it's 2.3-million, and 70 percent of them are black, African-American.” – Mike Gravel

What is this supposed to mean? Besides being a huge lie, it seems to fall into stereotypes that are base at best. The fact is that 60% of those in jail today are White or non-African American. I don’t know who Gravel is trying to impress here, maybe the KKK. But is suppose they might just be the only ones that are interested in a lie of such grand and ridiculous proportions.

You want to know more? Want to see where candidates are just saying anything to get your vote? Want to see how far some are willing to push, or outright hide, the truth to become the most powerful elected official in America? Want to know how to protect yourself from the worst of the bunch. Check out PolitiFact. I will be.

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

Labels: John Edwards, Mike Gravel, PolitiFact, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama

Continued from The lies Presidential candidates say, and the facts that prove it Part 1...

Take for example Senator Obama. In taking on the illegal immigration issue, the senator needed to have a strong sounding soundbite. The facts must have not been juicy enough because his quote is just wrong.

“Right now, an employer has more of a chance of getting hit by lightning than be prosecuted for hiring an undocumented worker. That has to change.”

But that’s just one item. How about playing on the feeling of African Americans that they are not being taken serious in politics?

“If African-Americans vote their percentage of the population in 2008, “Mississippi is suddenly a Democratic state.”

Sounds impressive right? Except its absolutely wrong. Even doing highly generous math, applied to every southern state, it just won’t create the outcome zealously stated By Senator Obama. But I bet it swayed a few voters.

Don’t think that I’m just picking on Democrats. Republicans are just as bad. Take for example Rudy Giuliani.

“The crime decline in the United States would be fairly small if it wasn’t for the crime decline in New York City.”

Sounds impressive doesn’t it. I mean it makes you think that Rudy made an impact on the whole nation. That he is obviously a strong leader that can handle the whole nation. But it’s completely false. As big as NYC is, it’s not that big. And crime dropped in the entire nation. That had nothing to do with Rudy. But what a soundbite.

How about Senator McCain? His credibility is unquestioned right? He has been out there telling the truth constantly, or has he? Well, not really. Like in his assertion that

“We spent $223-million on a bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it.”

Senator McCain implies he is a fiscally responsible man. While that is true, and the Congress has been comatose when it hasn’t been screwing up, he knows this one is a lie. While the soundbite sounds great, Senator McCain should know that the pork earmark for this bridge was removed. The bridge has never been made, nor will it. And the money for Alaska went elsewhere.

And just for a bit of fun, and obvious dislike, I want to include a lie of immense proportions. I don’t Like Joe Biden, and I won’t hide that fact. Yet that does nothing to take away the epic lie about birth defects caused by alcoholism in this nation.

Concluded in Part 3...

Labels: John Edwards, Mike Gravel, PolitiFact, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama

So everybody knows that politicians lie. Whether it’s a local assemblyman or a Presidential candidate, we all know that at least some of the time they all tell untruths. But when are they lying, and how much of what they say is a shade of grey?

I recently found a site that can help decipher the truth and facts in the midst of a popular or catchy soundbite. PolitiFact covers everything from true statements, to pants-on-fire outright lies. Here are a few of my favorites (from Barely True to Pans-on-Fire with no particular emphasis on political party).

A popular soundbite from Mitt Romney accuses Senator Clinton of having no experience

“She hasn't run a corner store. She hasn't run a state. She hasn't run a city. She has never run anything.”

Of course it fails to account for her work while First Lady or as a lawyer. This is a barely true statement, but we don’t really know exactly what she did in the law firm or while First Lady. Which leads me to a favorite quote by Senator Clinton.

“All of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care, those are already available.”

Well yes they are sort of available. Except that President Clinton has the right to question anything being presented to the public, like all Presidents do. That means he reviews items first. Thus he has not ‘stopped’ anything from being published, he just isn’t moving things along with any need for speed. It’s all how you word it.

Speaking of wording things to get a positive response from particular groups, how about the green/global warming crowd. Here is a group that has gotten a lot of attention since the Al Gore film. But Mike Gravel has no qualms about mixing fact with the feasibly impossible.

“If we manufactured 5-million of these 2.5-meg windmills across the country, we could electrify the entire nation — the entire nation.”

While that could handle the load, it is not realistic that all the mills would capture consistent wind, and creating a electricity grid to handle, store, and distribute the electricity is unrealistic. But doesn’t it sound great?

But how about straight out lies? Comments made just to get a quick vote or shift polls even thought anyone who checks the facts will find out that this is just smoke being blown up our collective… well you know.

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: John Edwards, Mike Gravel, PolitiFact, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1998 Senator Clinton spoke in favor of NAFTA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given the attention, and strong feelings on immigration, there is no surprise that it is a hot topic among the various Presidential candidates. Each has staked out a position, usually running along political party lines. But there is an aspect of immigration that gets far less attention and is perhaps the answer to the issue.

Many of the illegal immigrants in America at this time are Hispanic/Latino. That is neither a negative nor an accusation. The fact is, as best as can be determined, that there are some 12 million illegal immigrants from Spanish-speaking nations. The main reasons they have come to America is because they are looking for work, a high standard of living, and the ability to provide families in their home countries with a better life funded by the American dollars they send to them. I cannot fault those reasons. That does not change the fact that they have broken U.S. law.

[I must state that I have very strict views on immigration. I have spoken before on these views. To simply state it, I do not believe any illegal alien, or undocumented immigrant if it makes some sleep better, deserves any rights or public aide in America.]

While many are suggesting that the answer to this issue is a wall along the Southern border (while completely ignoring the larger and virtually unwatched Northern border) or placing National Guard troops on patrol, few are looking at the other end of the issue. Improving the quality of life and income in the native countries of these illegal immigrants.

Improvements of the trade agreements and ability to conduct international business would reach the people of those nations and thus help stem the flow into the United States. It will not end the illegal immigration issue, but it could improve it far more than a wall or troops.

But the key leading presidential candidates seem to be questionable in their resolve on this issue. As noted in an article at the Latin Business Chronicle,

“Measured by their voting records and/or statements, Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney are the best candidates, while Democrat John Edwards is the worst. Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton - the frontrunners in the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively - both have mixed records. The two have, however, been developing in different directions. While Clinton previously was seen as more favorable to free trade, she now is more critical, whereas Giuliani appears to have gone the opposite way.”

While Mr. Rudy Giuliani seems to be improving his position on free trade, which thus improves the chance to reduce illegal immigration at its source, Senator Clinton is traveling in the opposite manner. Mr. Giuliani is a bit trickier to decipher as he was merely a Mayor, albeit that the city was New York City. His choices and position is not nearly as strong as a political decision that impacts the entire nation.

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: illegal immigrant, immigration policies, presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Hillary Clinton

Politics and Hollywood. These 2 go together like white on rice, and are separate like oil and water. It’s something that is a big deal if you have it and not a big issue if you don’t. At least among pundits.

For those that are more Democrat, and/or liberal, Hollywood and the entertainment industry it represents are flag bearers of causes such as the environment or retreating from Iraq. To a smaller extent the more centrist views are held there as well with few (though often powerful) conservative or Republican issues as well. Because of this, and the fact that Hollywood support means large money donations and lots of faces with access to the media touting your candidate, most would enjoy having the top of the Hollywood elite joining their side.

One of the most powerful, Ms. Oprah Winfrey, is making the most of this. Ms. Winfrey joined others in support of Senator Obama in April. Her public declaration carries a lot of weight in most subjects. A book or movie that can boast her thumbs up can often be assured of success. Now we will see if this translates into the political world as well.

Possibly the first example of that transition may be in an up-coming fund-raiser at Ms. Winfrey’s home. Already invitations have been sent out to various entertainment figures, and there is limited space. Each RSVP includes a $2300 donation to Senator Obama, with dinner and time to get personal for those that get combined donations of $50,000 or more.

It’s a lot of money potentially, and obviously a lot of media attention. It gives pause to the Senator Clinton political machine that had previously held the lead on Hollywood endorsements.

But is that really important? Besides the tons of money that ensures advertisements and fliers, and makes the candidates beholden to the interests of big donors, what else is there? Do people with less than extreme fervor really care if celebrity XYZ likes this politician or the other?

While Ms. Winfrey is a coup for Senator Obama, being the first she has endorsed and is pushing to support, does that really equate to voters? I can see her causing more books to be sold, or a movie to get higher ticket sales, but votes? Do people trust ANY entertainer to tell them who is the best politician, especially when it comes to the Presidency?

It’s an interesting question. One that will soon be found out. There is no doubt that a great deal of attention will be paid to who shows up for this fund-raising event. More than a few celebrities and entertainers will be questioned about their endorsement, both tacit and explicit. But what will it matter?

I wonder if Senator Obama, or Senator Clinton, or even Mr. Rudy Giuliani as examples were endorsed by Snoop Dogg if that would help them or hurt them. Does that change in any manner the quality of the candidate? If it does, why?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: celebrity endorsement, fund-raising, Oprah Winfrey, presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Snoop Dogg

As the half way mark approaches on the Robin Roberts book giveaway contest, I want to mention that there is still time to get in. There has been a lot of activity so far but there is always a chance of winning a copy. Winners will be selected on the 10th so tell your friends.

In other update news, the current status of the [found on Black Entertainment USA and M V Consulting, Inc.] online poll choosing which Presidential candidate should be the President in 2008 continues to be a close one. According to the poll on this site, 34% are looking for Senator Obama to win. Senator Obama is closely followed by Senator Clinton with 26%, and then Senator McCain with 16%, and Mr. Giuliani at 13%. There are your front runners. I may update the poll (which will require a restart) to include Mr. Fred Thompson, and other candidates of both parties. If you go by Rasmussen Reports the current leaders are Mr. Rudy Giuliani (60% for Republican) and Senator Obama (58% for Democrat). Keep voting until the real vote comes. Every vote counts!

More soon.

Labels: presidential candidate, rasmussen reports, Robin Roberts, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barak Obama

The Presidential candidates for the Democratic Party are in a rage. I know no surprise. What might be the reason this time? Comments from a Republican Presidential candidate. To be specific Mr. Rudy Giuliani. The comment that has caused this rage is reported as follows, “if a Democrat is elected, ‘it sounds to me like we're going on defense. We're going to wave the white flag there.’ But, he said, if a Republican wins, ‘we will remain on offense’ trying to anticipate what the terrorists are going to do and ‘trying to stop them before they do it."

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.”

I have to say that I’m not surprised. The current name-calling was apparent since before the mid-term elections. Some may recall when I mentioned, “What exactly is the Democratic platform on Iraq. No longer can the statement “we need a change” be the answer. The fact is we need a detailed description of what that change is. And it will be the Democratic Party that must be held accountable for what they define as needed change.”

To date we have been given an answer, though it is hardly detailed. The answer is leave Iraq as quickly as possible. But Democrats will not accept accountability for this decision. Rather than defunding the war which would pass, if it were the voice of the people to end the war without winning as they say it is, they are delaying providing fund. They are pushing forward bills that are known to be vetoed by the Commander-and-Chief and blaming the President for delays. This is while stating on national news (which has been shown world-wide to friends and enemies of this nation alike) “I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.” While in any war there are days of large losses, it does not mean that the war is lost. There are numerous examples of this in every war including both theatres of WWI and WWII.

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.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: al quida, Democratic Party, Republican Party, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Reid

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

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

April 5, 2007

Mr. Giuliani,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Michael Vass

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

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