Well how much fun are you having today? If you hold investments, it may not be a fun day at all.

Back in the 4th quarter of 2007 I said I believed the Dow Jones Industrial Index would hit 11,000. I thought this would be a move in the late 1st to 2nd quarter. I was wrong… on the timeframe. But this is not a pat yourself on the back kind of moment.

With Indy Mac having failed and fears rampant over whether Freddie Mac and/or Fannie Mae will follow there should be no doubt that the Dow will cross into the 10,800 area on Monday. Add crude oil prices that are continuing to rise on fears from Iran and you get a bad situation. But perhaps the real culprit for this current situation is the Fed (Federal Reserve).

The Fed has been providing banks extra money to ensure their solvency, but not requiring that loan reserves be increased. It’s kind of like stopping a leak in your tub by adding more water. The problem is not getting fixed and may get far worse. And all the panic about the mortgage industry seems to have done nothing but whip up polispeak from political candidates and political parties, each looking to sway voters.

Loan reserves must be raised at all financial institutions. That especially means Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And several institutions need to fail. That of course means that some people will lose their homes. Nothing can, or should be done about that.

When I some will lose their homes I don’t just mean the roughly 4% of homeowners that are in default. I include in that group those that will fail this winter due to the cost of heating oil increases. I expect that in total some 7% of homes are in danger of foreclosure this year. While it’s not a nice thing to say, they need to lose their homes for the economy to survive.

This is not unlike the enormous wash-out that occurred when the internet bubble broke in the stock market. Money was lost, as it should have been, and opportunities were created. Those that made bad financial decisions, whether corporate or individuals, lost and others benefited from that loss. It’s a standard cycle in the markets.

Of course what is likely to happen is that Congress (with it’s 9% approval rating – sure to go lower) will take taxpayer money and bailout homeowners and financial institutions alike. Thus more water will fill the leaky tub. Undoubtedly the current Administration will be blamed (even more than they should) and the war in Iraq (and possibly Afghanistan) will be identified as the cause of all these ills. Which is false.

The outcome will probably be a surge for Senator Obama, who prefers a bailout. This may lead to him being elected and higher taxes to pay for that bailout. And if anyone thinks a bailout of this size will be limited to just the top 1% of the nation they are insane.

I believe, looking at current factors several things are highly probable:

1. Confidence in all financial will go lower forcing the need for more liquidity
2. Several institutions will fail – focused mostly on those dealing with housing markets first
3. Interest rates will increase by 1pt by the end of 2008, increasing another 1pt early in 2009.
4. Crude oil prices will jump to maybe $160 a barrel by mid-September as winter starts, with a commensurate move in heating oil prices.
5. Gasoline will reach $5.15 a gallon
6. Home foreclosure will hit 5.5%
7. Bankruptcies will increase by 3%
8. Higher energy prices will be blamed for the further slowdown in corporate profits and significantly lower (negative) holiday sales in the 4th quarter.
9. A Democratic Congress will be re-elected
10. Senator Obama will likely be elected
11. Republicans will be blamed
12. Taxes will be increased for all incomes by 3% by 2009
13. Corporate taxes will be increased by 10% early in 2009
14. Inflation will soar unchecked by 3 - 5%
15. Unemployment will grow to 8.5% by December 2008

While each of these items may or may not happen they are all interrelated. I expect each item to happen, at least to the degree I stated, generally in the timeframe given.

As money tightens, gold will be a hedge and prices for all precious metals will soar again. Credit will get severely crunched, and credit card rates will fly. The debt load on the average American will increase from the current $6,000 to $8,500. Most of this increased debt will be from higher energy costs. Thousands of small businesses will shutdown.

As a result of all these things I expect that the Dow Jones will drop to 10,200 by December. If I am correct about Congress and Senator Obama – for the reasons stated – then I further expect a drop to 9,300 during 2009. A significant bear market indeed.

The main problem is that the solutions being looked at now raised taxes and increased liquidity, fail to resolve the actual problem. And the combination will weaken the dollar, to a point where holding U.S. bonds is unattractive. I won’t even mention the increase in retirees and Social Security.

But there is opportunity. I see the housing markets as a great buy, for those willing to hold for 5 years. Buys in the secondary city markets will probably do best having a lower purchase cost and holding value better.

Several financial stocks will be excellent buys. Some have far better balance sheets than others, but will be blasted by the same investor fears as those in bad shape. Companies like Citigroup are trouble spots as they reinsure their own loans and thus hide them better on the balance sheets. Financials will lead the markets down, but they also will signal the start back.

Coal will likely start to regain interest in the quest for alternative energy sources. I expect nuclear energy will also get a push, with at least 1 new nuclear plant being authorized to be built in 2009. I expect a call to switch to ethanol produced by grass and sugar to go initially unheeded until mid-2010. Further harming the ethanol push is the fact that there will be a glut of ethanol by mid-2009 through 2011.

Bond rates will be more attractive in 2009 than today with the likely increases in interest rates. Of course inflation rises will remove that benefit.

There may be other sources of opportunity but they will be guided by factors including but not limited to:

Iran
Iraq and Afghanistan wars
Crude oil prices
Heating oil prices
Inflation
Unemployment
Manufacturing and Industrial layoffs
Retiree growth rates
Healthcare costs
International political stability
Another terrorist attack on the United States

That is the outlook that I have based on what is currently ongoing in the world today. Some of this is just my on interpretation, some my deduction. But I believe that if only ½ of my expectations occur, the general outcomes as stated are accurate.

But look around and determine your own answers. Better to be prepared than taken by surprise.

Labels: Congress, Crude oil prices, Dow Jones Index, election 2008, ethanol, Federal Reserve, Freddie Mac, gold stocks, heating oil, real estate, Senator Barack Obama, stock market

America is a nation of rules. Rules and the ways that we break them. If we look at baseball, particularly the MLB, we have steroids and the homeruns that fans love. If we look at football we have videotaping and the Super Bowl that is the number one event year after year. In the most important event that happens once every 4 years, not the World Cup – which is phenomenal – nor the Olympic Games, we now have a similar situation.

By that I mean we have Michigan and Florida. The event is the Presidential election. The leader of the free world and unarguably the strongest nation in the world is an event everyone should pay attention to. It’s an event that affects everyone. And it is the one event where the rules have consequences that are irrevocable.

Yet Michigan and Florida, and by extension the Democratic Party, feel that the rules established are not applicable to them. There is no advocate of throwing out the rules greater than Senator Hillary Clinton.

Long before there was a nomination race, before there was chaos in the Democratic Party, and before the Clinton campaign decided to throw everything and the kitchen sink at Senator Obama all the potential candidates agreed with the Democratic Party in penalizing Michigan and Florida.

Those 2 states were told not to move their Primary dates. They were told that to do so would cost them their delegates. Everyone understood the outcome if they violated this. And they did it anyway.

But today, they want to be in the game. They are demanding to have their delegates re-instated. They are devising plans to re-do their votes and alter the current nomination race. And in doing so they are laughing at the votes of every Democrat that has voted in a primary so far, in my opinion.

If these states are allowed to ignore their penalty, why can’t any other state? Why can’t all the Democrats get to re-vote, and why can’t all the candidates that were involved earlier allowed to jump back into the race? If one rule is to be ignored, then what rule is valid?

Where is the leadership that should stand up and say we are a nation of rules and laws. That none are above this, and that all are held equally to these rules. Because to do otherwise is to favor one candidate over another and to invalidate the votes of the public.

Sour grapes, and a desire to feel important is not a reason to alter the outcome of what has happened. Political ambition and a desire for power is not a reason to manipulate the public. And in doing so once, a presidence is set to do it always. Thus we move from a Democracy to another form of government, paving a path to hell with supposed good intentions and the so called best interest of the people at heart.

Some Democrats are claiming that keeping the penalty in place is disenfranchising the public. A year ago there was no worry about that. Before the Primaries there was no problem with ignoring portions of the party in those states. No cries of unfairness rang out. Because there are rules and penalties.

But political favor and gain motivate the call for changing the playing field now. Any politician that says otherwise is a liar. This is a game for control, and the public is being used as pawns.

No matter the outcome of any action that includes the delegates of Michigan and Flotrida, you the public and voters will be used and manipulated.

That does not mean that you should not vote. It does mean that members of the Democratic Party should hold their representatives accountable. That you should make them aware that their power comes from you. That your vote is their ultimate power and anything that dilutes your power destroys them.

Mark my words, if the changes being proposed for Florida and Michigan come to pass America will be damaged. Whether that is felt immediately in this election, or in a future election I do not know. But it will happen.

Senator Clinton may need this kind of stunt, and may use her power to alter the situation, but that just makes me sure that she is unfit for the Presidency. If she, as a leader of the Democratic Party, cannot abide by rules she was involved in creating and agreed to then what in the world makes anyone think she will be willing to abide by any other law, rule, or decision of the nation? And how can a person without regard for anything but what they want, be trusted with the power of the most powerful and influential nation in the world?

Florida and Michigan may not like the penalties, and Senator Clinton may prefer a change for her benefit, but America is a nation of rules and laws. That is something that must be remembered, because unlike a game for entertainment the Presidency is about our lives and there is no instant replay to correct a bad call.

Labels: Democratic Party, DNC, election 2008, Florida, Michigan, Senator Clinton

Previously I mentioned the top reasons why the combined Clinton – Obama Democratic Presidential ticket would not work. So now I will look at the counter-points. Again, the top person on the ticket is interchangeable.

• 1) Save the Democratic Party. Unity can be created by the combination if handled optimally. The division in the campaigns so far can be ameliorated by the candidates that created the friction. Solidifying the African American base, the influx of the youth vote, a surge in Hispanic/Latino and women voters can provide a huge base for the Presidency, each of these groups having specific needs that each candidate represents.
  
• 2) Leaving Iraq. A major focal point for many in America, without regard for their political preference. This is one of the top issues in the nation, with few in favor of how the war has been run overall. Some even believe that our leaving Iraq will provide stability in the region and lessen our chances of being attacked by terrorists.
  
• 3) The combined ticket is expected to draw massive minority votes. African Americans have never had an elected official attain such a high level, Women have a chance to have a symbolic leveling of the political and cultural playing field, Hispanic/Latinos have a chance to be recognized. Each group has reason to feel disenfranchised and these candidates could be the answer to that.
  
• 4) The youth vote as mentioned before is unprecedented. The numbers of younger voters has long been considered a pivotal factor in the last several elections. The actual presence of the youth vote, and their tendency to vote Democratic, could increase voter turnout by 20% and easily turn the tide in an even less than close race.
  
• 5) There is a Democratic Congress in place now. If the Democrats are able to maintain control then having a Democratic President would embolden the attempts to live up to the campaign promises made to date. A Democratic President would be far more powerful under this Congress; and we would assume that far less time would be wasted on meetings to review non-law breaking acts in the government.
  
• 6) The media is seen in the nation as liberal. So one could expect that as programs and entitlements are proposed the media will laud them in a positive manner with little argument. This will help rally public support for the programs. And it will help raise the political power of the party and Administration.
  
• 7) There is a strong religious backlash in the nation. Because of the obvious and preferential regard President Bush has had towards his faith, many that dislike him dislike the emphasis. In addition many in the nation fear a highly Christian push in politics and law as they do not share this faith. Those that have felt excluded, or even persecuted (like Muslims), would prefer a less fanatical religious President.
  
• 8) Hollywood would love this. From television Presidents to the movies, Hollywood has been reinforcing the image of a liberal President in office. Money has poured out in droves so far, and the combined ticket ensures that even more will be spent to make fiction a potential reality.
  
• 9) Change. It’s the buzzword of this election cycle and everyone wants it. The fact that President Bush cannot be re-elected is not enough. A palpable and immediate difference must be in place for some people. What is more visible than an African American and/or a woman?
  
• 10) This proposed Democratic Presidential ticket makes a statement against bias, racism, and outright prejudice. It makes many Americans feel better about their lives with a minority as President. The argument is that the world must be better than 40 years ago, even though nooses, the legal system, and city education programs all state otherwise.
  
• 11) Free healthcare. No one has promised that, but that is what many are hearing. If everyone must be covered in the universal healthcare plans, then those in low incomes presume it will not have a cost to them. Others miss understand the source of the income to pay for coverage for every person in America. Who doesn’t want something that is free? Who doesn’t want to be able to go to the doctor when they are sick?
  
• 12) Isolationism. Current promises by the Democratic candidates imply America retreating from the police of the world stance we have maintained for almost 2 decades now. A wall to the South, exiting Iraq, throwing out NAFTA. America would step back from the world and just deal with itself. That comforts many, even though it is obvious that this kind of retreat is impossible.
  

While these may not be the only reasons one could have to want a combination of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, I feel they are the reading reasons. You may not agree, with me or the reasons.

Whether you agree or not, only your vote will make the difference. Only your involvement in the process will make the best possible choice for America a reality. Be involved. If you like these ideals vote for them. If you don’t vote against them.

What ever you do, just get out and vote.

Labels: Democratic Party, election 2008, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Vice President

There is no question that Senator Clinton desperately needs a win in Texas and Ohio. It’s a fact that has been admitted by all sides of the Democratic race. Nor is there a question that Senator Clinton has decided to do everything possible to get those wins. But even I would never have expected a move that is as racist and underhanded as what I have just learned about.

Senator Obama is Black. Unless you are blind, and America is everything but that, it’s not a big surprise. But is he Black enough?

I’m not speaking about the cultural question that was debated when he initially began to run, asked generally by less educated African Americans. The question in this case applied to how black he actually is. Pigmentation and skin tone. Not a tan but how dark is he.

It would seem that the Clinton campaign, as has been reported so far but not confirmed thinks that Senator Obama needs to be darker. So that’s exactly what they did to his image. Darken it.

Why does that matter? Well if it’s an attempt to emphasize in the minds of White voters that Obama is just an African American, and to play on stereotypes, it’s a big deal. If it’s an attempt to make him seem more dangerous and framed in a racist visage, it matters.

None ever question how pale white a Caucasian is, but throughout American history it has been a big deal. Going back to the original Constitution and the 5/8th’s line. It’s a wedge in the Black community and a way to be hands distance from other Americans. It’s a memory of America that everyone wants to deny and avoid speaking about. And it needs only a subtle push, like the photo re-imaging, to bring it to the forefront.

America has gone no where if such a racist and vile tactic can be used and even worse if it works. And any candidate that would stoop to this level to win is despicable in my mind.

If an ad … actually there is no similar scenario for this. There is no way to correlate the racial prejudice this action implies and relies upon to being pink or ‘moon tan’ white. There just is no comparison in the daily evidence of the magnitude of the action.

I know some Whites will say, ‘I don’t get it.’ Of course not. They have never lived or observed it. They have not noticed when they do it. It’s so common as to be sub-conscious. But I think every Black American knows.

This is repugnant. I can’t express that enough. After the multiple racial attacks from 2007, when Senator Obama announced he would run, to today there has been no end of the emails that alleged untruths. And the Clinton camp helped spread them. And the attempts to stereotype Senator Obama as a drug dealer, by the Clinton campaign. And the minimalization of Dr. Martin Luther King and every Black politician by former-President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and the Clinton campaign. After all that, still there is a need to be even more racist with this act.

Will this divide the Democratic Party? It should. What can you think of a party that condones the use of racism by its top leadership, while it talks out the other side of its face about preventing gender bias? How can any Hispanic believe that our bronze skin is seen any differently by those that would highlight that darker than white must be magnified and wrong. How much trust can you give a potential President that would throw huge portions of its own party membership under a bus, just to attain power? And what woman would feel safe with the thought that this woman would stab her partners in the back just to try to run for office.

All the warm and fuzzy tears, and appearances on television shows, like the Daily Show, will never excuse or cover this kind of racism. And if color can matter, what would make you think gender, religion, ethnicity, or economic status won’t?

As I said, this has not been confirmed. But you can see the videos as reported by Wired, and you can draw your own conclusion. Then ask this question…

Do you want a President that is willing to use race, gender, outright lies, political differences and who knows what else looking out for what your children will learn and be able to do? Would you trust that kind of person enough to invite them in your home? Or work? And would a smile, a tear, or a joke make all that change?

Vote what you think, but be sure to vote!

Labels: Black community, Daily Show, Democratic Party, election 2008, Presidential race, racism, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama

Here is a video about the Presidential election that was sent to me that I thought was quite funny and interesting.

This was made by David Pompeii, a L.A. based comic. Do let me know what you think.

Labels: comedian, David Pompeii, election 2008, presidential election

Voters have spoken. Mike Huckabee and Senator Hillary Clinton sadly weren’t the voices being called out by the najorities. In sweeping victories Senators Barack Obama and John McCain continued their momentum towards the nomination for their various political parties.

Most decisive was the victory by Senator Obama. In victories that were between 60% to 75%, there was no question that voters of every race in the Democratic Party are being drawn by the message of hope and change over the message of experience touted by Senator Clinton. So definitive was the victory that long before the outcome was reported, Senator Clinton had already left the area to travel to Texas. There she is making what may be a last line in the sand stand to claim the Democratic nomination.

On March 4th Texas and Ohio will have huge Primaries that could likely seal the delegate battle, potentially removing the need of Super Delegates to decide the Presidential nominee. Potentially because there is still the question of the Michigan and Florida Primaries.

Both Michigan and Florida were penalized for moving up their primary dates by the Democratic Party. Michigan had it’s delegates decreased and Florida received none. But now that the battle is so close the Clinton campaign is making a huge push to get those delegates validated. And a major debate is ensuing. There is a more than probable chance that legal action will wind up being involved.

There are 2 opinions on these penalized delegates. The first, which I agree with, is that both states were warned and fully aware of the cost if they chose to hold their primaries when they did. Decisions were made and the consequences were metted out. Such is the essence of life. A choice is made and we live with the results.

On the other side is the Clinton campaign, and it’s proponents, that believe the voice of the people in the respective states must be heard. They want to ignore the known consequences and take advantage of the results. It should be remembered that while all the other Presidential candidates respected the rules in place, the Clinton campaign pushed forward to try to seek an advantage.

While Democrats in Mifchigan and Florida may be upset, they were fully aware of what would happen. To claim sour grapes now is without merit and does not warrant reward.

Looking at the Republican results, Senator John McCain has finally received tallies that place him above 50%. He has also further pressured Mike Huckabee towards what is most probably a withdrawl. Given the math, it is virtually impossible, and would be unpresidented, if Huckabee were to garner enough support to overturn Senator McCain’s lead. Unless there were to be a major gaffe by McCain, and Huckabee were to win the Texas and Ohio primaries in massive landslides, there is no chance for huckabee to win the nomination.

But I do believe that his continued efforts are more politically motivated. While his chance of gaining the Vice-Presidential nod is impractical, his ability to gain other political office and generate favor is large. It has been said that Washington, DC is a zero-sum game. Meaning that all political power and influence is a finite and the only way one politician moves up is at the cost of another moving down.

By continuing his unlikely quest for the Presidential nomination Huckabee more likely seeks to improve his political standing, thus enabling him to influence and enact some of the goals his candidacy has heralded. I would strongly believe that if he is able to stay in the race, with support, long enough to gain more delegates than Mitt Romney he may well succeed in this attempt.

A similar case may be made for the continued campaigning of Ron Paul. Though in his case I believe it is the more fringe elements of the Republican and independants that are supporting him.

So as the March 4th Primaries approach the 2 sides of the objectives become clear. Democrats seek to establish dominance and a clear claim to the nomination. Whether that claim is justified by the votes of the public and existing delegate counts, or via legal machinations is yet to be see. And in the Republican side, the question is not so much who is the nominee, but what political favor can be gained.

Labels: election 2008, Florida, Michigan, Mike Huckabee, Ohio Primary, Senator Clinton, Senator John McCain, Senator Obama, Super Delegates, Texas Primary

“My armour is like tenfold shields, my teeth are swords, my claws spears, the shock of my tail a thunderbolt, my wings a hurricane, and my breath death!”

Such a statement might have been the claims of the Clinton campaign in 2007, right up until November. Politically, the powerhouse of the Democratic Party was presumed the frontrunner. It was assumed by most pundits that Senator Clinton’s appeal among Democrats, and women in particular, was unassailable. And the African American vote was assumed to be locked up without much thought towards it.

But as Bilbo would say

“Every worm has his weak spot”.

That turned out to be Senator Obama. He has endured smears and personal/racial attacks. He had battled the chuckles of pundits, and gained recognition on a national basis. His triumph is not complete yet, but so far 20 of 28 states have been won by Senator Obama. No matter the delegate math, that’s a landslide. Expectations are that the 3 primaries to be held February 12, 2008 will be another set of 60%+ wins for the Obama campaign. In fact they were 60%, 64%, and 75%.

Yet delegates show a virtual tie among these 2 Democratic Presidential hopefuls. So what should the voters of the remaining Primaries be focused on?

Well Hispanic/Latinos may want to consider why the Clinton campaign is so attractive. Based on my observations I would believe the most attractive thought is that the Clinton campaign will bend to whatever will is popular when it comes to illegal aliens. From her ‘every answer in the book’ response about illegal aliens and driver’s licenses, it seems obvious that there is no clear position. Thus a Presidential candidate that was supported by Hispanic/Latinos will owe major favors to this growing group of Americans.

But considering that Senator Clinton has shown a decisive ability to do anything but maintain a real position about virtually every political subject since taking public office, I would not count on that. Because Clinton has been unwilling to take a stand in favor of illegal aliens, I believe that she will court them for the vote and abandon them in the face of national pressure if elected. It’s not like she has stated clearly that she backs anything, so she has no campaign promises to back out of. And considering that early assumptions of support from, and later minimalization of, African Americans has worked out horrendously, the Clinton campaign realizes that it needs a minority group to help shore up its weakening hold on Whites and the vital women vote.

I believe that if these observations are correct, then Hispanics/Latinos will realize the lack of commitment by the March 4th Texas Primary. They will back Senator Obama, and it will be more than obvious that the popular vote and delegate count will be for Obama. Super Delegates (a silly idea in my opinion) will have no choice but to join the Obama camp lest the Democratic Party becomes more fractured and divided than has already happened in this election cycle (thanks in large part to former-President Bill Clinton).

If the Democratic Party does settle down and accept what the current momentum and predominance of state results show, then I think they will have a great chance of winning the Presidential election. If not, then a loss for the Democrats is a virtual guarantee.

Labels: Democratic Party, election 2008, presidential candidate, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Texas Primary

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

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

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

All others – 0%

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

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

Total Men – 49%
Total Women – 51%

In terms of ages

18 – 35 were 42%
35 – 66+ were 58%

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

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

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

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

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

69% enjoyed my poetry section
31% did not

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

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

You can email me at info@vassconsult.com

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

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

So Mike Huckabee is definitely looking to prove me and many pundits wrong. His continued run for the Republican nomination gained some strength Saturday with a win versus Senator John McCain. Now the question that comes to mind is does this win mean he has a chance? Not really.

Mike Huckabee needs to win roughly 80% or the remaining Primaries to gain the Reepublican nomination, versus the 40% needed by absolute frontrunner McCain. The chances of such a resounding win seem small and nearly improbable to me, though this election cycle has already proven that many givens are incorrect. Still I cannot see a Presidential candidate that is weak on the economy and so overtly involved with his singular religious perspective winning the nomination. I don’t believe that it’s the will of the nation or the Republican nomination.

Just like Republican wildcard Ron Paul, Huckabee has had a substantial rise in his primary numbers. Ron Paul moved from his normal 4% to 11% and huckabee won. Considering the lack of Mitt Romney I think this has less to do with their actual interest in these unlikely candidates or their platforms, which most I have asked do not know, but the amorphous dislike of McCain.

Overall this will amount to little of nothing. Senator McCain will win the nomination, and while both Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee will gain greater votes than in previous Primaries, they will still not get close to a true challenge.

But when you look at the Democrats we see a bit of difference. Senator Obama sweeped each of the 3 Primaries in contention on Saturday. More important than the win in Louisianna, which was considered a probable win for Sentor Clinton, is the margin of win. Obama came in with 60+% of the votes. While some, like former-President Bill Clinton, may wish to try to minimize the appeal of Obama to being Black, the fact is that few African Americans make up the populations of Nebraska and Washington State.

The most troubling potential is that if the polling data is correct, which it has often not been so far, the entire decision of who will be nominated on the Democratic ticket will not be decided by the voters or their delegates. Super Delegates, like Senator Ted Kennedy and former-President Bill Clinton will make the ultimate decision.

Considering that the popular vote seems to be leaning to Senator Obama, and the very close call of the delegates, such a decision by Super Delegates would potentially go against the express opinion of the public. That is a troubling thought. That the public could be overridden by political inside machinations is against the concept of Primaries and voting in general.

The only answer to such a situation is more voters getting out and voicing their opinion via their Constitutional Right. With an over whelming decision being expressed there is no question as to who is the choice of the people.

February 12th is the next step in the Primary process, and March 4th is the next major delegate provider. With continued 60% wins Senator Obama will take the lead, without it Super Delegate may rule. Isn’t that reason enough to vote?

Oh, here is a closing though. What if, in a truly selfless act for the betterment of America, there was a combination of Senator McCain and Senator Obama (in whatever order you prefer) as a Presidential and Vice-Presidential ticket? Would you vote for that over any of the current frontrunners alone?

Labels: election 2008, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Senator Ted Kennedy, Super Delegates

When the attention of the nation turns to politics, there are few things that most would call inspirational that occur. Generally there are soundbites of this debate answer, or a bit of polispeak that is catchy from a speech. But one thing is certain, in this election cycle Senator Obama has definitely inspired many of every political affiliation in the nation.

Initially this was seen in the Obama Girl video, which was more cute than much else. But it caught on like wildfire. But now there is a video, by Will I Am that I feel is inspirational. It’s not about who you want to choose, sort of, but that our voices count especially when we vote.

I agree with the intent of the video, which I include below if you have not seen it yet. Vote, make your voice be heard. No matter who you choose, as a nation voicing our concerns and opinions we can not only have change, but get positive changes that are in everyone’s best interest.

Yes We Can.

Labels: Black Eyed Peas, election 2008, Polispeak, political video, Senator Obama, voter registration, Will I Am

M Hope is a contributing author, writing to Black Entertainment USA and Vass.

There is a question that is being asked during this political race. The question has been asked and answered and debated and even blown off as being ridiculous. It’s a question that has been asked on both sides of the political line. The question is:

“Will there be an Obama/Clinton ticket in 2008, regardless who wins?”

Many people say “No, there is too much bad blood between them”, others say “Hillary will never pick Obama to run with her”, still others say “Barak will not be comfortable with HER as a running mate, having to deal with her legacy with Bill”.

The sad truth is that all those answers are wrong.

Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are THE 2 strongest running candidates in the Democratic Party. They also represent something much more than just popular candidates. They represent how far we as a diverse country have come to looking past things as trivial as race, gender, religion, and looking into the “content of character” so eloquently expressed by Martin Luther King, Jr. (not that I think Clinton has much content, but go with me on this).

If they do not team up on this election that will say to me 2 things:

• 1. Neither of the 2 candidates have this country in mind when running for the presidency. This is all just a quest for power and fame, plain and simple. The fact that both Clinton and Obama have some different views on how this country should be run is the perfect dynamic needed to bring about change in the government today, which is still doing business as usual. If you want things to be different, you have to do them differently.
  
  
• 2. Neither of the 2 is qualified for the Presidency. Pardon me for being out of line, but being the President requires that you make some decisions that will preclude trivial things like pride, self-worth, feelings, etc. If you can’t make a decision about what is best for your Party as opposed to your feelings, how can you begin to hope to lead this country which is now at a crossroads the like we have never seen before and will never see again?
  

I don’t claim to support either Democrat or Republican candidates, but I do know this. In order for the Democrats to win this election, I can’t see how Clinton and Obama (or Obama and Clinton, whichever way you prefer) can not partner up and focus on the business of bringing change to this country. That is, if that’s what they really want to do…

Labels: Demcratic Party, election 2008, presidential cantidates, Republican Party, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

**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

John Edwards is gone. Wow, the candidates are dropping like rocks. Not that there is a surprise here. There was no question that his campaign was done. It was just a matter of when.

The Ted Kennedy endorsement must have been the final blow. It sealed the door, and signaled the fact that he had no chance whatsoever. And the remaining Democratic candidates should take heed at what it says about Democrats and the nation.

John Edwards was the voice of ‘2 Americas’ as he called it. The though that there was a rich and poor America and nothing else. He ignored the middle class in this manner, and was a hypocrite at the same time. I call him a hypocrite in the same way that I call Senator Clinton and Warren Buffett that. Because it is each of these individuals that have said that the wealthy, which is never defined, need to pay more in taxes. Yet not one of them, each at least a multi-millionaire, has ever voluntarily paid an excess in their taxes. Not one has made a gift to the IRS, money that is not from their taxes or a write-off. Not one has ever been willing to lead by example, thus that whole complaint falls flat with me.

That does not mean that we don’t have poor in this nation. As I’ve mentioned about my own experience, the education system is abysmal for African Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, and minorities in the cities around the nation. But listening to a man who gets $400 haircuts and made money off of the vulture financing that caused the mortgage crisis that is magnified in the minority communities in the nation, seems disingenuous.

What does the loss of John Edwards mean?

Some pundits expect him to give his support to Senator Obama. Some pundits think that such a call will fail and his supporters will go to Senator Clinton instead. But the best answer is this; the Democratic race has come down to deciding what is more important and comfortable: a woman or a Black man.

I’m not saying experience and change. That is just polispeak, and is in fact nothing. Change is inevitable. President Bush is not running, and every candidate has views that differ from the President. The next President will change the direction of America, that’s just a fact and obvious. The only part of the change that will occur that is important is the fact that the decisions made by the next President will affect how the world, and terrorists, will view America. That the choices made will lock America into a direction that will be unchangeable for at least a decade or likely more.

And experience is probably the biggest joke and polispeak. Neither of the Democratic candidates have significant experience. If you listen to the various speeches of Senator Clinton, she has somewhere between 35 and 14 years of experience. That is just a lie.

Depending on which speech you are comparing she is including her time as wife of the Governor of Arkansas, where she has no responsibility or power and was not elected by the populace. It includes her time as First Lady, which is not an elected position with any power and minimal influence at best. She in fact did not gain experience until she failed to get her healthcare initiative passed and nothing else until she became a Senator. Mind you that as a Senator I am unaware of a single Bill that she has created or passed.

And as for Obama, he has the experience of being a junior Senator for a very short period of time, and more as an elected official in the Illinois State government.

So the choice of experience is really not a factor, nor is change. The real question left is can Democrats live with the thought of a potential woman or African American as President. Coupled with that thought is which of those 2 choices can the country accept as a possibility as opposed to a Republican White male candidate (likely in my opinion to be Senator John McCain).

It will be quite telling to see what Democrats choose in Super Tuesday. It will be interesting to hear what former-President Bill Clinton will be saying now as well.

Labels: democrat, election 2008, John Edwards, presidential candidate, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Astounding. Senator Barack Obama has been called the winner of the South Carolina Primary. He has resoundingly beaten all the other Democratic candidates. The numbers are roughly 58% of those identified as Democrats, 25% of Whites, and 50% of those under 30 years old. I’m sure those numbers will change at time passes.

So what does this mean? Well there is good and bad in these numbers. 78% of African Americans voted for Senator Obama, 17% for Senator Clinton. But Senator Clinton has been targeting the poor, uneducated, White and Hispanic/Latino vote. South Carolina has been used as a stepping stone for the Super Tuesday national votes.

There is no question that former-President Bill Clinton has introduced race in a manner that was obvious and calculated more than anything in 2007. That is not so much a surprise but a signal. The Clinton campaign has consistently been seeding the racial divide in the nation, with subordinates making comments and passing emails that attack Senator Obama, for months. But it was Bill Clinton that brought this to a new level.

As Senator Clinton disappeared from the major news coverage, Bill to front stage. Being a former President, there is no competition anyone can give him for media coverage of anything he chooses to say. And he said exactly the things that would emphasize to White voters that Obama is Black.

Now why does that matter? Besides the fact that the majority of voters are White, it’s the fact that race still does matter in America. It affects our perceptions and is evident in our daily lives. Look at virtually any television show, cable or broadcast, and count the number of minorities on that program. You will virtually always see 1 supporting cast member that is Black, 1 will be Hispanic/Latino, 1 or 2 women, and maybe 1 in 5 shows have an Asian. Race matters.

In addition is the fact that the attacks against Senator Obama, by a former-President minimize the importance of Senator Obama. Not because of his qualifications, but because he is JUST a Black candidate. It presumes that he is just a flash in the pan and not a serious option.

And lastly because Bill Clinton is so revered by Democrats, his disapproval implies that there is something wrong with Senator Obama. In a nation that was built upon the thought that A White male is always right versus a Black slave, it makes an impact. And for those that say we have grown beyond that, just look at the numbers of African Americans that are still being proven innocent of crimes they have spent decades in prison for, solely on the basis that a witness said that they thought this was the perpetrator of a crime. Often that misidentification, by a White witness, is more than enough to convict a Black defendant.

So now Senator Obama has been officially labeled the Black candidate. He is perhaps finally Black enough. Or too Black if you go by some small minds and the suggestions of people like BET founder Bob Johnson.

So what will be the outcome? Obviously Senator Obama will continue forward, as will Senator Clinton and John Edwards. Edwards has no real chance of winning the nomination. So I expect he will drop out after the Super Tuesday primaries on February 4th. Without question I expect he will shift his support to Hillary.

Major emphasis will be made that Senator Obama only is getting 25% of the White vote, ignoring his Iowa dominance and cross the racial lines popularity. And for those that thing Obama will get the Vice-President nod, I don’t think so. It’s not even an option.

Obama is too popular, and a ticket that has 2 ‘minorities’ [White women are not a minority to me] is too likely to be beaten by a Republican ticket. Especially if Senator John McCain is the Presidential candidate.

Overall I am upset by the numbers we are seeing. Because there is such a racial divide, caused by the calculations of the Clinton campaign, the Democratic nomination is now virtually assured of going to Clinton. And it means that it was won not because of qualifications, or the belief of the nation of who is the best candidate for the Presidency, but because of the lingering racism that is the backbone of this nation.

I had hoped America was better than that. But the Clinton campaign has bet big on this, and I expect they have won that bet.

At least Senator Obama will have made credible and real in-roads for the next qualified candidate. Perhaps then America will be ready. Though I would love to see that I am wrong, and race drops out of this nomination process. But like Pandora’s Box, once it’s been opened it’s too late.

Labels: Bill Clinton, Democratic Party, election 2008, John Edwards, presidential election, Presidential race, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Clinton

**A fictional press release**

Major City in America – A date some time between 2009 - 2012 -- America still reeling 3 days after the shocking assassination of its leader.

On the 1st day after the assassination of President Barack Obama, by at least 3 men from a fringe radical group, America is still in turmoil. Across the nation riots continue to encompass most of the major cities. New York, Los Angeles, and D.C. are all in states of emergency as huge crowds of African Americans continue to express rage at the murder of the nations first Black President.

The riots started shortly after President Obama was shot while addressing the nation, offering an official apology from the United States Government to all the descendants of Africans enslaved in America from 1619 to 1865. The apology was a huge political hotbed of debate prior to the speech, with dozens of legislators and governors of both political parties publicly disagreeing with the President’s intent to issue the apology. Several hate groups had been actively suggesting that if the apology were made that it was the final straw and that action would need to be taken against President Obama.

While President Obama had encountered consistent death threats since his election win in 2008, and 2 prior attempts on his life, he had stated that he would go through with the speech. Even pressure from within his own political party was not enough to sway his determination.

“There has been too much time that has passed without acknowledging the contributions and sacrifice these founding Americans made for this nation. While they were taken from their homes and families against their will, they helped to create the nation we have today and their progeny stand side by side with Americans from every race, religion and country in equality and peace. It’s time we say that America made a mistake then, and that we can now look forward to a future no longer marred by the past we so long refused to speak about.”

Shortly after beginning his speech to the nation, at least 3 men fired on the President. Two of the men were in the large crowd that had gathered for the speech, armed with 9mm pistols, and another was inside an office building with a rifle, of unknown power and make at this time. The President was struck at least 5 times.

The 2 men in the crowd were apprehended quickly after being shot in an exchange of fire with police and Secret Service agents. One died on the scene, the other is in critical condition under guard in an undisclosed hospital in the area. The third suspect was caught in the resulting dragnet of the city 4 hours later. It is unknown if there were any other individuals involved in the assassination.

Within minutes of the senseless murder of the leader of the nation, several racist hate groups denied involvement in the attack. Also videotaped denials were released by the current leader of Al Quida, refuting early claims that the assassination was retribution for the successful end of the Iraq war and the death of Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden was killed in the waning months of the Iraq War, trying to re-enter Pakistan in a firefight with U.S. forces that attempted to capture him and his small entourage of terrorist supporters.

Riots broke out around the nation within minutes of the announcement that President Obama had died while doctors were operating on him to save his life. The President had been undergoing emergency surgery for 2 hours after being shot, and the doctors performing the surgery stated that the damage inflicted was just to severe to counter.

The worst of the riots are in the renovated sections of New Orleans and Chicago where the President previously called home prior to his election, and where he served as an Illinois Senator.

World leaders continue to issue statements of remorse, and call for peace in this distressing time in America. Several nations have voiced concern over the control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and the military which has also reported several events of fighting and disturbances at bases across the world. While there has been no sigh of a breakdown of nuclear control, or fractioning of the military, international tensions have increased significantly.

Religious leaders of all faiths, particularly Civil Rights leaders Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton and even the controversial Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, have all called for calm. So far these calls have gone unheeded.

It is unclear how long this unrest will last. Few imagined that the possibility of an apology for slavery could cause such chaos. But the whole world is paying attention to what the former Vice-President and now President will do.

President Obama will be known for his winning of the nearly decade long Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the virtual elimination of the terrorist organization Al Quida, the continuing fight against the ‘Gods Arm’ terrorist organization that replaced Al Quida, his quick actions to restore normalcy in the earthquake ravaged suburbs of San Diego, the recovery from the 2 year economic recession of 2008, his work on balancing the American legal systems’ enforcement and punishment and rights of gays, women and minorities.


***The previous is a fictional news release that could happen. There are those in America that fear this becoming a possibility. Many refuse to acknowledge this fear, or even the consideration of several of the events I have described.

I hope to never see such a news release. But it is a real possibility. Yet if this were to happen, and the events I’ve detailed came to pass, what would happen next?

Would America be better for each of these things to happen? And what if the assassination or even attempts never happened? What if these events, enacted by my fictitious President Obama, were done by a Republican candidate, or Hillary Clinton?

The real question here is that there are real issues before America, and the next President will need to address them. Many of the problems are deeper than the mere surface questions debated about currently.

We all have the right to vote. That vote implies many things, and directly determines the direction this nation will take. Don’t squander that vote. Don’t sell it cheaply because of the race, gender, political party, or 30 second polispeak answer of a candidate.

If we all vote, I believe we will select the best person (whomever that may be), and direction, for all of America. The President should have no less in mind, and we should elect that President for no less of a reason.

Labels: Al Sharpton, American Slavery, Chicago, democrat, election 2008, Jesse Jackson, New Orleans, Polispeak, Presidential race, Reparations for Slavery, republican, That's why I vote

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

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

The pressure in the Democratic Presidential race is definitely moving up. And it’s hitting Senator Clinton right between the eyes.

Over the weekend, Senator Clinton seemed to get quite upset when, while discussing healthcare, John Edwards mentioned that he and Senator Obama are agents of change and that Senator Clinton was not. Her response was that

“there are 7,000 kids in New Hampshire that have healthcare because I helped to create the children’s health insurance program.”

Now I’m not sure how many people watched Fox News on Sunday when Dick Morris, who used to work for President Bill Clinton, refuted her comment. According to his live comments, Senator Clinton had nothing to do with what she claimed. He stated that it was in fact his efforts and discussions with President Bill Clinton that helped the kids in New Hampshire. Mr. Morris further stated that at the time, First Lady Clinton was overseas and had no involvement in the matter.

It’s a strong accusation, and I have seen nothing that refutes or even acknowledges his comments. If it is accurate, then it is another case of Senator Clinton taking credit for the work of her husband as her own experience. It would be an example of desperation, as is her anger, as her hopes for the Presidency crumbles.

And then on Monday we see this



I believe this is a bad sign. Given that the Presidential race is stressful, and that losing in Iowa was a huge blow to her campaign. But the reality is what happens when U.S. military forces are killed overseas, while the economy is crashing, diplomatic efforts with North Korea are failing, oil prices are through the roof, and a tornado has just decimated a big city in the mid-west? Which sounds more stressful?

And if this emotional moment is not real, which I am not assuming, it is a blatant attempt to cash in on being a woman in the worst way.

Looking at it in several different ways, the outlook is not good for the “presumed nominee” (as claimed in polispeak by multiple pundits for most of 2007) of the Democratic party.

Labels: Democratic Party, Dick Morris, election 2008, John Edwards, New Hampshire, Polispeak, Presidential race, Senator Clinton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But politicians won’t say that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or how about when you hear

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

This is just a cluster of misleading information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imagine writing a resume and saying that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





Mike Huckabee on Taxes –





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hilary Clinton on both sides of Nuclear weapons and Iran -





Rudy Giuliani takes both sides of Immigration -





Continued in part 2...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concluded in Part 5...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued in Part 4...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued in part 3...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued in Part 2...

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

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

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

John Edwards

Pros


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

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

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

Continued from Pros and Cons of the leading Democratic Presidential Candidates Part 1...

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

Senator Barack Obama

Pros


• Lawyer
  
• Current 1st term Senator
  
• Healthcare advocate
  
• First African American candidate with a chance
  
• Liberal in most policies
  
• Oprah Winfrey is major supporter
  
• Not Hillary Clinton
  
• Gained multiple former long-time Clinton supporters
  
• Consistently against Iraq war
  
• Charismatic, compassionate
  
• Pro-abortion
  
• Strong individual citizen support (internet donations)
• 
  
  Cons
  
  
• Lawyer
  
• Relative short public office experience
  
• Black
  
• Has interracial parents
  
• Lived in an Islamic nation (as a youth)
  
• Allegedly a smoker
  
• No military service
  
• Non-traditional name
  
• Pro-Illegal Immigration
  
• Anti-school vouchers
  
• Pro-immediate withdrawal from Iraq
  
• Pro-abortion
  

Continued in Part 3...

Labels: election 2008, Heartland Presidential Forum, Oprah Winfrey, political debate, Senator Barack Obama, 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

Well now that everyone has finished the turkey (minus a few leftover sandwiches), let it digest, and worked off the extra weight running around shopping at every store with a discount sale it’s time of me to get back to work. There has been a lot worth writing about, but let me start with a simple thought. The economy.

The economy is perhaps not the simple part of the thought. It has far too many factors involved, and minds far greater than mine have debated endlessly about what will and does make it move up and down. But as a man who pays attention to the events and has a decent hold on current events I’ll throw my 2 cents in.

I had a friend recently ask me what I thought would be happening to the economy, and my answer was it’s going to get bad. Perhaps recession bad. And I added that the current group of Democratic candidates may only make it worse.

I say this because of several factors. Not the least of which are, the housing crisis, the financial sector, the cost of oil, and potential tax ramifications based on the current plans announced by candidates.

Let’s look at the housing crisis. While there are estimates that state the maximum reach of the crisis is on 5% of homes, I think it fails to take a couple of things into account. While only 5% of home mortgages have failed now, I would expect these are the early defaulters. I would guess that there are another 10-15% of homes in danger of default. Given that the Fed has lowered rates, these homes on the edge have gotten a bit of extra time, but that does not fix their problem.

This leads us to the financial sector. Already several major banks are claiming huge losses due to the bad loans they have made. In order to recoup their losses and in hopes of preventing more credit is being crunched. This means that large- and mid-sized corporations will have less capital available to them, and some short-term loans may be called or canceled. That does nothing to stimulate growth. Plus variable loans to the riskier ventures will invariably go up to offset the losses in the home sector. Thus the purchase of houses must slow, the real estate markets will cease top be a haven for a while and money will have to flow into new areas for investment.

Now when you consider that the corporations are getting higher cost for loans, or being denied, this is happening at the same time that costs for fuel are going up. A lot. That hits profit centers fast. Thus profit margins shrink at the same time that retail is hitting its greatest need for the annual shopping rush of the holidays.

Keep in mind that small companies will be cut off from loans by banks since their credit and assets are too weak in a tight credit market. Add the higher cost of transportation and several small companies will fail to make it thru the end of the year, I expect. That will hit all the businesses that supply and help them operate.

Also keep in mind that as I recall the market virtually never rises, or even maintains its level without the positive performance of the financial sector. As I mentioned that sector is already failing. As the dominoes fall I expect them to perform worse near term. Thus that is direct downward pressure on the market. And while the holiday sales will help retailers absorb the cost of higher fuel, the consumer will likely spend less (or buy items with greater discounts) because the cost of heating their homes and electricity and mortgages are all up.

What’s the last piece of this puzzle? The Presidential race. We have a critical election where several nation defining events will occur. Already several Democratic candidates have expressed expanding entitlement programs. Those programs, like nationalized healthcare, must be paid for via taxes. Those taxes will come from companies making less profit and citizens with less discretionary income. (And a bailout of the mortgage crisis costs even more that needs to me recouped from taxes) This is beyond the fact that when Democratic candidates are elected (which could happen in 2008 – which is a bad thought) the markets normally react poorly initially, when looked at historically.

Add all that up and you have a stagnating market, with reduced sales, higher costs, shrinking profit margins, higher taxes, horrible bond rates, and depressed real estate values. I call that a real problem. Especially if the tight credit, higher fuel costs, and higher taxes cause more home mortgages to fail than just the 15% low-end estimate I posed earlier.

What’s the best plan? Well I used to tell my clients (back when I was a broker, years ago) that we can assume these events as facts and plan for the worse. Set up a plan to sit and wait for a couple of the trends to reverse, and take advantage of market overreactions where possible (the market is more emotional than fact driven even in the best of markets). Is that the best plan for you? I have no idea.

Discuss this with your financial professionals, read what better minds than I say, and make up your own mind. Just remember, it’s all connected, and there is never a perfect answer.

** This can also be seen at Economist Blog where I am an occassional contributing author.**

Labels: credit market, Democratic Party, election 2008, financial sector, heating oil, holiday retail sales, mortgage loans, Presidential race, real estate, stock market

In light of the consistent reversals of positions, incomplete answers and anything but subtle switches of subject from the issue at hand I was wondering about a couple of questions that the Presidential candidates could answer yes or no to. No trick questions, no bias based on political affiliation. Just something simple that should be able to get a simple answer. And to be fair, I will provide a follow-up question they can answer in any way they wish.

• 1. Do you believe the legal system in America is fair and balanced for all people regardless of their color of skin or economic bracket?


• 1a. What will you do about the obvious media and legal imbalances exemplified by the delay and then subsequent media coverage of the Jena case and the initial criminal charges, the sentence of Genarlow Wilson, and the complete avoidance of the Megan Williams case in West Virginia?


• 2. Do you find that the education system is adequate?


• 2a. How will you improve the incredible failure that is evident in the higher dropout rates and lower reading skills found now in students across the country?


• 3. Do you believe that religious fanatics who create violence are not motivated by monetary or political actions?


• 3a. How can America protect itself, under your guidance, against groups that have the singular desire to destroy the nations existence because of their religious belief?


• 4. Do you believe citizen taxes should be spent to benefit anyone but U.S. citizens?


• 4a. Why should Americans provide anything, funded by citizen taxes, to individuals that have committed a crime by entering the United States without legal documentation?


• 5. Do you agree that the work executed by Slaves in America provided the economic stability and physical labor that are the foundations of modern day America?


• 5a. Are you willing to consider and work on reparations for African Americans, similar to the reparations made to Native American Indians and Japanese Americans interned during WWII?

There are other questions that can be asked. Perhaps in the near future I will. But I would love to hear the simple and direct answer to each of these primary questions, and whatever answers is made for the follow-up. After all the soundbites, and incomplete answers we have heard in 2007 to date, on which the American public is expected to pick a Presidential candidate from each political party, it would be refreshing to have real answers.

I can only speak for myself, but I can have more faith and be more willing to vote for a candidate that gives me an honest and direct answer as opposed to somebody that appears to be playing at fears and polls to get elected.

Regardless of the answers, who do you think would actually answer these questions?

Labels: american taxes, Democratic Party, election 2008, illegal immigration, Japanese internment, jena 6, Megan Williams, Native American Indians, political debate, reparations, Republican Party, social services, WWII

Ok, I just saw the Swift Kids ads that are appearing on television. I am insulted and offended. Not because they are attacking Democratic candidates, attack ads seem to be par for course in politics today, but because they are using kids and are themed in the most insulting manner.

I realize that this is a smear ad. I realize that its intention is to match the cute innocence of children with political messages. But it fails horribly. Take for example the Swiftkids ad against Senator Barack Obama.



This is insulting. First they start off with an insulting play of his name. “Black orama” is one that instantly caught my attention. And I feel it was an intentional statement aimed at the race of Sen. Obama. That somehow his race affects his ability to lead this nation. That borders on racist.

Then it’s the old, “his name is too hard to say” line. I’ve generally heard such a comment from people missing many teeth and with far less education than my 11 year old nephew. It’s an ignorant comment.

Then to suggest that a persons name has an effect on their abilities. Again it seems to be an insult based on the race of Senator Obama. Because his name is not a traditional W.A.S.P. styled name that somehow confers a lack of something that say President John Fitzgerald Kennedy or President Millard Fillmore had. If anyone is swayed by such a comment, I am ashamed that they have a right to vote.

And then one of the kickers. Senator Obama is not Black? Since when? I suppose under the seemingly drug induced logic of the makers of this ad; I would not be Black either. I’m sure the racists that have called me N-word throughout my life would beg to differ. And what makes Senator Barack Obama not African American? That his mother is White? I’m sure that if most African Americans looked back in their family trees they would find a mixing of the races. My family includes Irish blood as well as White slave owners. But I’ve never had anyone mention that to me. And lets not forget that many White Americans have blood that is equally mixed, as some of the descendants of Thomas Jefferson learned from DNA tests not long ago.

The fact is every aspect of this ad is insulting and racist. It makes no credible claim against Senator Obama. It plays on the most base of reasons to not vote for this candidate. It oozes fear and ignorance.

I don’t doubt that most will reject this garbage instantly. But just like the small minds that created this ad, there are some that will be swayed. It’s a testament to the need of more movement forward on race relations in this nation. It disgusts me, and I have issues with any television station that will run this.

Much the same can be said about all the Swift Kids ads. They are without taste, credibility, or talent. They are vacuous in the claims they make and benefit no one. None should ever see the light of day, or coverage on television. This is no different than the MoveOn.org ad against General Petraeus. It insults all Americans, and diminishes everyone.

I hope to never have to see an ad like this again. Hopefully this post will help ensure that our nation’s politics never have to be dragged through filth like this again. And I suggest that everyone who sees this post asks their Congressional Representative and Senator to denounce these ads, just as they should have with the MoveOn.org ad. And I will judge those that will not vote, or vote in favor of this ad, as harshly as I did those who voted for MoveOn.org, or failed to vote.

Labels: Congress, Democratic candidates, election 2008, moveon.org, political ads, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, President Millard Fillmore, Senator Barack Obama, Swift Kids

**Michael Vass is also a writer for Presidential Race Blog**

So what might be more troubling, a politician that won’t answer questions they are asked or a politician that sets up the questions they do chose to answer? And what does it mean if both come from the same politician?

This is not a new type of question. For a long time politicians have been viewed in a suspect manner. Allegations of being 2-faced, or in the pocket of this or that special interest group is not a new thing. But they are important when a politician is running for office, and severely moreso when that politician is running for the Presidency of the United States.

I don’t think I need to mention any names of politicians that might be accused of the above actions. The media has done a decent job of bringing that to light. Instead I will ask the general question, what does this mean?

How many candidates have done this? In an era of soundbite politics, where 30 second answers to issues that have plagued the nation for years is common, is it wrong for a politician to seed the questions they receive? I would say it is. This is despicable. One major reason is that it stifles open questioning one issues that a particular voter actually has, phrased in a manner that they feel it. I mean to say where to you stand on say the war in Iraq is different than saying for and against the war in Iraq. Or perhaps having them say something like

“As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?”

Not only that, where are these questions coming from? Is some poll saying focus on this because it’s an area you are strong on, and avoid that where you are weak? Well when a President is in office, all issues must be dealt with. Hostilities from foreign nations (or groups of people), internal national issues, and international economic issues all must be dealt with, and regardless of polls must be dealt with in the best possible manner for the nation. You can’t duck an issue because you don’t poll well.

Do we even want a candidate to be elected that cannot deal with a citizen asking a question they don’t know in advance? If such a candidate is afraid of a potentially embarrassing or difficult question how might they react to hostility from the various individuals that hate America?

And if a candidate is willing to deceive the public, just to improve their chances of being elected to the highest office of the nation, what will they do once elected? Would they manipulate the press? Would they deceive the nation to their own personal end? Can anyone be sure that such a candidate would do anything that was actually in the best interest of the nation? How would you know?

There is too much that rides on the next President. Immigration, terrorism, the economy, and so much more. These are issues that will not end with a 4 year term of office. They will exist with ramifications for a decade or more. Given that, anyone that wishes to be President must be held to the highest standards. And they must answer all questions posed to them, without influence on where that question comes from or what is asked. Anything else is pandering and manipulation to engender cheap votes, and potentially against the best interest of the nation.

Labels: election 2008, political debate, Senator Hillary Clinton

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

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

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

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

**This can also be seen at Presidential Race Blog**

I want to be President of the United States. You hear that from Republicans and Democrats. The debates are filled with candidates that want to lead this nation. And all but one of them is a woman, or Black. So what.

Yesterday, the front-running Democratic candidate, Senator Clinton, came out in response to the Tuesday Democratic debate and lamented

“We need to shatter that highest glass ceiling.”

It was a plea for women to vote for her based solely on the fact she was a woman. It was an attempt to

“…compete in the all boys club of presidential politics.”

This commentary and the resulting backlash from Senator Obama come from the Democratic debate Tuesday. In that debate Sen. Clinton failed to answer direct questions posed to her. These questions were not asked because she was a woman, but because as the leading candidate for the Democratic ticket the public deserves to know the positions she holds. To date, Clinton has yet to answer the questions posed to her with a direct answer, and like any male counterpart she has been lambasted for it.

But unlike any other male counterpart Sen. Clinton has diverted the attention to her gender, whining for support from women based on the fact that she is being attacked because of her gender. That is the worst kind of pandering I’ve seen in decades.

"...the first time that people start challenging her point of view, that suddenly she backs off and says: 'Don't pick on me'. That is not, obviously, how we would expect her to operate if she were president." - Senator Obama

Looking at it from a different angle, if Senator Barack Obama were to go out and state, ‘all African Americans should vote for me because I am the only Democratic Presidential candidate among the all White club of presidential politics’, the outcry would be immediate and intense.

Does anyone doubt that Sen. Obama would instantly be charged with playing the race card? That he was pandering to Blacks, and that it was blatantly racist. He would be attacked by both parties and every political pundit in the nation. He would find no shore of safety, and his chances of being elected would be out the window.

But Senator Clinton does not face the same level of scrutiny or punditry. Because she is a woman she has gotten a pass. Few mention she is pandering. Few are reminding the public that she has evaded the issues she still has not answered. She has calculatedly and effectively changed the argument from her indecision and attempt to hide her views in the hope of gaining votes and support from all sides. And it’s embarrassing.

As a Black Puerto Rican man, I’m insulted by her actions. I am a citizen and as such I deserve to know where any candidate for the Presidency stands on critical issues that affect multiple aspects of the nation. I expect that any candidate for President should be able to handle difficult questions, giving answers that they believe are best for the nation, and standing up to the pressure that the answer provokes. Those that would seek to destroy America are hardly going to succumb to crocodile tears, or the fact of gender. In fact that may motivate them to take stronger actions.

I cannot accept the blatant pandering for cheap votes for no reason of substance. Is there a glass ceiling? Yes, for women and African Americans, and every minority in the nation. It also exists in terms of the Presidency for various religions as well. But the fact a glass ceiling exists is the least reason that ANYONE deserves to be elected. If that were the only reason to elect a candidate, they should not run. It cheapens and weakens the nation.

If Senator Clinton wants to prove her strength, answer the questions you were asked. Answer them without segues to other issues, or reliance on her gender. If it’s a yes or no question, don’t pick both and assume the American public is too addled to notice the difference. And make the answer public, not via subordinates and bloggers. They will not run the nation if she is elected, their answer does not matter.

If Senator Clinton cannot give a real answer, cannot avoid relying on her gender to support her campaign, cannot stand up to the pressure of having a commentator ask her questions in an American debate, then she does not deserve the Presidency.

Labels: Democratic Party, election 2008, gender issues, glass ceiling, political debate, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Clinton

**This can also be found at www.Presidentialraceblog.com, where I am a contributing author.**

There are few things that can be named that are the bane of not only multiple Presidents of the past, but the current and future President as well. Perhaps the most serious issue is the most complicated as well. Iran.

In one word I describe a key exporter of oil, a terrorist supporting nation, a potentially nuclear armed country, and a fanatically Islamic regime not to mention a government that would prefer to see America destroyed and in ashes since the 1970’s. Talk about a mouthful. I mean there is no simple answer to how this nation should be dealt with. Unless you listen to the Presidential candidates.

“On the Democratic side, there has been too much silliness on the issue of engagement, and a candidate's particular choice of words for conditions for talking. The rhetoric on the Republican side ignores a bunch of important questions - the Iranian response, our standing in the region and around the world, and poisoning relations with Iran for generations to come."

Why are the candidates so one-sided and tunnel-visioned? Because they are pandering to their respective parties to gain the nomination. While that seems well and good, as it’s been the manner in which the candidates have discussed Iraq, terrorism and most of the vital issues in this election-cycle, it has ramifications. It also fails to present a realistic outlook on what actions we need to take.

I consistently believe that any candidate that cannot present a plan that envisions, or even allows for; the best outcome for the nation does not deserve to be President. That does not mean that a poll-watching, publicity bandwagoner deserves the position any better. But we need to hear voices that can lead, not react to polls or hedge their bets as they await the other candidates’ responses. Yet that is what we are getting.

Iran has made it clear that they wish to see America crushed. It’s been televised in their speeches for decades. It’s been the sentiment since they took our embassy personnel hostage. And there is no doubt that given an opportunity they would use a nuclear weapon against the U.S., if not several if they had them.

But to attack Iran is to invite the shutdown of oil imports to America immediately. To impose sanctions is to invite higher world oil prices, and inflict pain on our economy. To simply have talks is to stalemate, allowing the development of the very weapons we don’t want and should not allow development.

Obviously we need a multiple pronged tactic that employs several strategies all at once. But multiple tactics and the implication that far more severe actions can take place only when the opponent believes the actions can be taken. Democrats have made it clear to date, that they will take virtually no action that would involve the military, and the Republicans have virtually guaranteed military responses. Where is the one person, at least, that can convey a credible ability to do more than just one thing.

As tensions grow, the threat increases, and the time and power of our current President wanes with the nearing of the next election (not to mention comments from political rivals that weaken and insult the sitting President) we need to see someone step up.
Maybe there is time left for one candidate to become Presidential in their stance, but not as long as they are all so preoccupied with trying to buy cheap votes by looking Presidential. And unlike comedian Billy Crystal’s character Nando Fernando famous saying, it is not “better to look good than feel good.” Our President needs to be more than an image of leadership, and the reason is again just one word.

Iran.

Labels: election 2008, Iran, nuclear weapons, oil

Continued from Where are the answers from Senator Clinton Part 2...

Before the primary elections occur don’t you think you should know what experience was going on for 30 years that the Senator claims but did not hold any office for. Don’t you want a President that will do everything to protect America from a nation that has repeatedly stated they wish our destruction? A nation that is actively building a weapon who’s only purpose is mass death? A nation that felt a need to kidnap our citizens, unprovoked, and that actively denies the Holocaust?

Or what about a President who’s answers are direct enough that anyone can understand how they answer a yes or no answer.

“MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure what I heard. Do you, the New York Senator Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor’s plan to give illegal immigrants a driver’s license? You told the Nashua, New Hampshire, paper it made a lot of sense.

SEN. CLINTON: It –

MR. RUSSERT: Do you support his plan?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed, and George Bush has failed.

Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York we want to know who’s in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He’s making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.”

Like I said, I’ve seen dramas with less twists and turns. And some though politics are boring. Well if you want excitement, vote for a President that you don’t know where they stand. If that isn’t enough adrenaline, don’t vote.

Just remember that once someone is elected, you have to live with that for 4 years.

Labels: election 2008, political debate, President Bush, presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton

Politics is better than drama when you pay attention to what is being said. I have not seen more double entendre's since I read Shakespeare. In fact the Grand Bard was short what we get in most political debates these days. This has been especially true of the Democratic Party in recent debates.

For those that missed the debate last Tuesday, I have pulled a couple of key points from the transcript so you can try to follow along. If you get lost in the answers, its ok we all are.

Case in point, Senator Hillary Clinton, the current frontrunner for the Democratic Presidential candidate. We get to bounce from one thought to another without actually getting an answer or finding out there are more levels to traverse to get an answer than ever imagined. And then we still don’t get an answer.

“SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think that anyone who's looked at my record of 35 years fighting, for women and children and people who feel invisible and left out in this country, knows my record. I fought for expanded education and health care in Arkansas. I helped to bring health care to 6 million children while in the White House.”

Actually, the Senator has only recently taken public office. President Bill Clinton ran Arkansas, and then the nation. The actual healthcare plan proposed by First Lady Clinton went nowhere. And in the 5 years of Senator Hillary Clinton representing New York State she has not presented any issues that have passed that. In fact besides the “Hot Coffee” issue in video games, what else can the average New Yorker say she has been working on?

“MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask each of you the same question.

Senator Clinton, would you pledge to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?

SEN. CLINTON: I intend to do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

MR. RUSSERT: But you won't pledge?

SEN. CLINTON: I am pledging I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

MR. RUSSERT: But they may.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, you asked me if I would pledge, and I have pledged that I will do everything I can -- (laughter) -- to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.”

Continued in part 2...

Labels: election 2008, political debate, presidential candidate, Senator Clinton, Tim Russert

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

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

It’s an accomplishment devoid of cheer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My results:

2008 President Selector Rankings


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

Labels: democrats, election 2008, Presidential candidates, republicans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While most would agree that Jon Stewart is a liberal guy, and his Comedy Channel television program - The Daily Show - is equally of a liberal or left bent, he is not above pointing out humor in Democrats.

In this case the wooden and cold demeanor of Sen. Hillary Clinton is where she hoists her petard. Nothing is more obvious of trying to capture votes on the cheap than perhaps the exact same response 5x in one day, calculated by pollsters and advisors as the latest 'thing to do'.

Remember, this false emotion belies something. If it's not figured out what that is before the Democratic primaries, she will be one of the candidates for President. If she were to win, and her true emotions (and possibly motivations) are still only percieved as this same kind of response... who knows what could happen.

Well if nothing else it's worth a laugh.

Labels: Daily Show, Democratic Party, election 2008, Jon Stewart, presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We should not miss the opportunity, any of us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what I think, what do you think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There has been a resounding consensus that questions presented to candidates via YouTube are a good thing. The candidates get real questions that are faced by real people everyday. It’s a reminder that average Joe is the person these candidates have to answer to, not the special interest groups and large donors. The questions asked, though some were just ridiculous, did not hold back or cushion the candidates, and that is a great thing.

So far this format has only been presented to the Democratic Presidential hopefuls. It created a lot of interest in who is running and why. It’s lead to further discussion on who really is qualified, earnest, and beneficial enough to lead this nation. It provided perhaps the best example of what choices exist for the election.

There was some debate over whether the Republican Presidential candidates would appear for a debate based on this same format. Initially it appeared that it might not happen as only 2 candidates were confirmed to show. Many, including myself, thought it would be a massive blow against any Republican hopeful not to appear. But recent reports state that this debate format will be happening.

Check out YouTube to submit your question and look forward to the November debate. Remember that your vote counts, and if you don’t ask a question now you may not get a choice later. America deserves better than that.

Labels: democrat, election 2008, political debate, presidential candidate, Republican Party, YouTube

The debates continue to rollout one after the other as we approach the 2008 primaries, and the level each needs to rise up to supposedly increases. There have been debates that the various Presidential candidates have gone to, and others that were suspiciously avoided. The advent of technology has even provided the general public a chance to directly question the candidates on issues that John and Jane Q. Public find to be of importance.

This is a great thing, in theory. One might expect that this much attention being given to who might be the next President of the United States would spur conversations and help drive people to one candidate or another. One might think that the majority of Americans would be beyond the basic questions in the debates, and focusing on the finer points of the various platform policies. And if you thought that you would be wrong.

There are reports that suspect somewhere between 40-60% of Americans do not know, nor are they sure where to find, the actual positions of the various candidates. There could be many reasons for this. The prevalence of discussion on the War versus virtually any other question is potentially part of the problem. The fact that many are not familiar enough with the internet to find the information is another. But I believe the fact that getting a televised full answer to say nationalized healthcare is the cause.

Each candidate, in both parties, are prepared to answer most any question in a 30 second soundbite. The media has no problem in presenting the abbreviated responses. But how often are the candidates shown or reported as giving a complete answer? How often are quotes of a couple of paragraphs, that stay on topic throughout their entirety, found for any candidate on any and all topics?

Are there a lot of candidates? Yes, no matter which party you chose. Would more full debates take longer? If we got real answers they could. But isn’t it worth the extra time to know where everyone stands? Don’t we deserve to know who we are choosing in a primary or the election in 2008. Shouldn’t more people be able to say, in plain English that Presidential candidate XYZ stand for this on whatever issue, and here is a quote that they made supporting this stance.

There are many more debates to go, and some of the candidates will be at some of them. But when will we get a better answer that takes more than 30 seconds to proclaim. I just wonder.

Labels: election 2008, national healthcare, political debate, presidential candidate, United States

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


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

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

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

That is scary, terrorists with nuclear weapons.

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

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

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

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

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

In discussing the Presidential candidates and the election in 2008 I have read large volumes on both sides of key issues. I have read the comments of pundits, bloggers opinions and facts they have dug up, and the comments and information on the candidates’ websites. Often there is conflicting information on the same issue, or the writer injects their viewpoint on the subject.

I have tried to be neutral in this matter. I want to present both sides fairly. That is not always easy. But there is a difference between what I do and what others claim is a fair comment. I’ll give you an example, because it just annoys me to no end to read something that claims to be an even discussion and in fact is a one-sided slam.

“I'm upset with both parties and particularly the brainless media that's obsessed with catering to the right. There's no striving to set the crooked straight. It seems nobody cares about what people care about.”

In just one sentence we get the disconnect. I like most are upset with both parties. Neither is really doing anything except getting donations and trying to look more Presidential than the other. The major media is only promoting this aspect, unless you believe that an issue like the retreat from Iraq or what to do about the impending shortfalls in Social Security are issues that can be answered in 30 second soundbites. But to say that the media caters to the right tells me several things.

One is that the above quoted writer does not understand what the left and right represent. To say the media leans right is absurd. Pick up virtually any newspaper or watch virtually any news program, listen for a discussion or case about immigration. When the media speaks about immigrants that have entered the nation without following the law see how they phrase it. Undocumented workers and immigrants are a common reference, not illegal immigrants. That’s one example, but recent polls show most of America recognizes that the media leans LEFT. So you know the above quoted writer is about to bash the Republican candidates.

And bash is what happens. The Republican Party is cited as doing nothing but committing errors, Senator McCain is called out by name as a leading bovine. The President of the United States is insulted and ridiculed.

Then we get to hear about the ‘savior’, the left.

“…liberals who seem to be doing a good job of focusing on the dishonesty of our politics…”

Get real. There isn’t a Party in this nation that doesn’t include dishonest politicians. I believe that being arrested for accepting bribes, and having $90,000 in a refrigerator qualifies as dishonest and that was a Louisiana Democrat. The writer continues to mention the great healthcare program that the top 3 Democratic candidates have. Hogwash. Not one candidate in either party has a plan yet. None of them. They have ideas, and good soundbites. A plan would mean they could answer where the money for the program will come from, what incentives will be made available to motivate further medical innovations, and how to avoid the pitfalls of national healthcare that every other nation has currently.

I severely dislike the hypocrisy disguised as concern some present. If you pick a side, then discuss it. If you think one Party is better than another say that. But to say there is equal problems that need to be addressed do not hide an agenda inside the message.

I’m not picking a side, I’m highlighting hypocrisy. The writer is no better than the Presidential candidates and political Parties. We cannot have an improved nation or a good President if partisan arguments are used to promote one side or another. Social Security, immigration, terrorism, the wars, education and more are serious issues facing the nation. The next President will be crucial in defining the direction America takes for the next 10 years. Bias and emotional preferences will not help get the best choice elected.

Both sides have problems. None have given a good answer on the issues. None have given plans to resolve the issues. We deserve more. But to negate one side or another as the writer above has doesn’t help. We need to be aware of that.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: election 2008, political bias, presidential candidate, Republican Party, Senator John McCain

Thus begins the spam and negative email blasts for the Presidential race of 2008. For far too long there has been an emphasis on negative television ads and smear campaigns in politics. For elections of every level, politicians have de-evolved to telling the public what is wrong with this candidate or that one. More money and time are spent in advertising the problems voters should be aware of, than the actual platforms and issues that voters care about.


For a time the hope was that the internet could change that. Many thought it would be the chance to get better answers than the now common 30 second soundbite. Politicians would have to pay attention to the people, and people could find what politicians have said and voted in the past on issues that matter to them. The public would be involved again.

Then I see a report like the one at Marketing Pilgrim and the wind leaves my sails. With months to go before the primaries, already 83% of the Presidential candidates have negative search results.

“Republican candidates managed only an average 42% positive sentiment search results, with Democratic candidates not fairing much better (45%).
Of those candidates with the most name recognition, only Barack Obama achieved zero negative sentiment results.”

Do we really need more spam, smear campaigns and jaded comments? It’s one thing to put out facts, another to just be negative for the sake of making a candidate look bad.

Every candidate has issues. None of them have a universal appeal, with the perfect position on every subject that all voters can agree upon. It can’t be expected. But having clear positions on issues isn’t a lot to ask for.

I don’t expect a parade of positive, yes-man, websites. But not seeing a slew of skewed views would be nice as well. You can point out a flip-flop a Presidential candidate has made without tearing them down. You can show a voting record, or YouTube coverage of comments that seem to conflict current campaign rhetoric without including bile.

I am no less perfect than anyone else. I get as heated on issues that matter to me as anyone else. I have written posts that take on a candidate harshly for comments or positions I feel cross the line. Then again I try to comment on all the candidates, and I try to support all my positions on them. When I lose my cool I try to note that as well.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: democrat, election 2008, presidential candidate, presidential election, republican