In roughly 2 weeks the nation will be going to the election booths and selecting a leader for the next 4 years. That leader will be responsible for all the issues facing the nation today. The economy, the war in Iraq, potentially selecting Supreme Court Justices, and abortion to name a few.

Abortion is one of the bigger issues that the nation is very divided on. It has not been a main point of the debates nor in the media and pundits, yet millions will base their vote on this issue alone. Considering how strongly most feel on the issue I thought it deserved a bit more attention.

Just to be fair I will mention that I disagree with late-term partial birth abortions. I find that concept to be distasteful and painful just in imagining the act. I do understand how such a procedure can be performed to save the life of a mother, but beyond that I have no reason to accept this act.

Further I believe that men have no rights in any part of the thought of abortion these days. The media portrays men as callous and unfeeling, unreliable and prone to departure and as such deserve no voice in the matter. I feel that while this could be true of some men, it is not true of all men. I am not saying a man’s wishes should be the final decision, but that since it took 2 people to create the life in question some regard should be given to those men that wish to actively be involved.

And I do not believe in the concept of those that say that a baby is merely a visitor in a woman’s body. That the woman is the sole responsibility in how a pregnancy will play out. That the child has no right beyond that given to it to live.

Overall I am an advocate of choice with leanings to life, understanding that there are situations that create the need for an abortion. That does not mean that I am tunnel-visioned and cannot hear arguments on either side and evaluate situations as they are presented to me. Like life itself, abortion seems to me to be a situational decision that cannot be fit into slot A or B like policy on economics or building nuclear power plants.

All that said, the positions of the candidates are essentially the following as I understand it:

Obama supports the overall Democratic view that any form of abortion is permissible

McCain supports the view that abortion should be a decision of the individual state, as defined by that states population, and the Federal government should be outside that choice.

I state that Obama supports any form of abortion, including late-term abortions, due to his strong support of the Freedom of Choice Act (he is a co-sponsor of the bill, as is Senator Hillary Clinton). This Act assumes the thought that abortions are a Right, similar to the Rights detailed and outlined in the Constitution. While I agree that the Constitution is free to some interpretation, this claim is completely outside of its framework. There is no Right to abortions any more than there is a Right to suicide.

The Freedom of Choice Act asserts that abortion has affected the

“ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives”

Which seems to state to me that it is also stating that raising children is a negative for women, which I disagree with. And it seems to state that abortion is a form of contraception, which I think is foul. And I would even say that if a woman was really so focused on raising her economic and social life she could either not have sex, or ensure that contraceptives were used to prevent pregnancy, and/or ensure that her partner and/or she no longer had the ability to procreate.

But the Freedom of Choice Act also attacks the fact that there have been bans on abortion that disregard the health of a woman. That is equally a bad choice and a problem of law.

In essence my problem with the Act is most with the following language:

“the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.”

The definition of that last part, when combined as a Right, allows for almost anything to be done. What is necessary for the health of a woman? Her emotional health, financial health? Does that include weight gain? Does that health provision mean serious changes in health or just cosmetic ones?

Thus under the wording that exists any form of abortion is allowable, which I disagree with.

But there is a problem with the view held by McCain as well. In backing away from a Federal mandate to allow abortions of at least some type, states could be pressured into making illegal any form of abortion, even when the life of the mother is in danger. That is not beneficial to women, or the nation.

If States are the only voice then women lose the strongest advocate in a truly personal and life changing decision. It weakens the ability of women to make this choice and opens the potential for ridicule and persecution of women that make this choice. I do not favor that kind of action.

So the question is which is the right choice for America? Which candidate would be most flexible? In my opinion Obama is less flexible than McCain. The Freedom of Choice Act is too vague and open to interpretation. It can be used to allow for abortion as a form of contraception, which I disagree with. And while McCain supports State decisions, he can be swayed to ensure an overall Federal support of the choice and legality of having an abortion.

Now without religion being brought into this discussion, which is a personal factor that does not apply to all citizens of the nation, which do you support? Will this make a difference in your vote? Is there a middle ground that the candidates should be looking to support? Is it possible to have a middle ground, and if so which candidate seems likely to reach it?

Labels: Abortion, American politics, political debate, Presidential election race 2008

As with all the prior debates of the candidates involved in the 2008 Presidential election, I present the complete video of the 3rd debate between Senators McCain and Obama.

This was the most interesting debate of all 3. Yet I must state that 3 debates are far too few. In addition I have to say that 2 minutes to discuss intricate issues like education or healthcare, with a 5 minute rebuttal period shared between the candidates, is far too short to make a real statement. Given these shortcomings there was a lot of non-stump speech information in this last debate.

No matter which candidate you chose to vote for, you need to be informed on where each candidate stands. To that end I suggest you review the debates, and all the comments and debates of the Primaries, that each candidate has been involved in.

We have a right to vote, it’s important and vital. And only in all Americans voting can we receive the best choice as President.

Labels: Polispeak, political debate, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

In watching and reflecting on the 3rd and last Presidential debate of 2008 there are a few immediate thoughts that come to my mind, a more detailed review will come tomorrow. The foremost is the thought that 3 debates, and only 1 for the Vice Presidential candidates, is far too few to really convey to the public the issues facing the nation. The next is that there were several inaccuracies by both of the candidates. And I have to say that this debate was by far the best of the 3.

Going beyond that I have to say that Senator Obama was very eloquent. His ability to debate is quite impressive. He made no major mistakes, and was very sure of his answers.

Yet I think that his answers were stylized and edited polispeak. He had poor answers to several subjects, which if you just listened in a cursory manner, or only heard him speak once, you might have missed. In fact if you have followed the campaigns since before the Primaries, as I have, you would find fault with several subject he spoke on.

Senator McCain was a bit more fiery at points tonight. It was invigorating when he got on the attack, which he has needed to do for some time. But at several points he disappointed as well. While he was less edited in his answers, he also failed to close a subject definitively several times. And he made a major gaff, in my opinion, when he was surprised by the answer of Senator Obama about the cost of healthcare on small businesses.

And speaking of Joe Wurzelbacher I’m not surprised that Obama did not want to discuss him much. The fact is that Obama has clearly stated that he wants to effectively cap the income Americans can make. That he will take money to redistribute to whatever he believes is best. That he does not trust the ability of individual Americans to use their wealth to the benefit of their families and the nation – preferring instead to grow a larger government that will oversee such decisions.

And by the way, Joe the plumber was not swayed by the argument of Obama. In fact he has clearly stated that he will not vote for Obama. Because the tax plans of Obama will mean that in buying the company he will lose money as Obama increases the corporate tax, personal tax, and capital gains tax nullifying future investments. Which means that Obama will either stifle growth of small businesses, or cause those businesses to fire or reduce the hours of workers just to pay the increased taxes.

Another fault of Obama, and this is more the problem of Democrats in general, was his insistence on being firmly focused on the past. He is fixated on placing blame, and living in the past descisions of President Bush. This lead to the best line for McCain

“I’m not President Bush. If you want to run against him you should have run 4 years ago.”

But McCain did not stay consistent in his strength. He failed to demand a clarification on William Ayers, which was never provided. The man was a terrorist, and it is unclear how much influence he had on molding Obama’s political career or when Obama became aware of the past of Ayers, or if their association has ever ended.

McCain failed to exemplify the importance of vouchers and better schools, not just more money for bigger Government run programs. McCain failed to deliver on the importance of having individual choice in healthcare, and how a system based on the Canadian or British models is a system doomed to failure. McCain failed to mention that there has never been a Government Agency or Department that has run efficiently or effectively in the last 40 years, at least.

McCain failed to mention that many of the economic proposals made by Senator Obama are similar to another President besides Herbert Hoover. That President was Jimmy Carter, and the result was double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and an overall malaise for the nation.

So in the end, the debate was a draw. Neither candidate shone more brightly than the other. Both were able to provide solid arguments for their proposals and views, and point out problems with their opponents position.

But Senator Obama was clearly the better debater. Of course this is not some school competition, there is no blue ribbon award for parsing huge subjects into the equivalent of a soundbite. The next president cannot be elected because of their composure in a debate, or the speed in which they respond to a question with bullet points of their stump speeches.

Polispeak may win elections, and look great on the television. But it does not prove the worthiness of a Presidential candidate. Nor does catchy phrases like “Senator Government” – even if it was an accidental blurb.

I have long ago declared that I am a supporter of Senator McCain. M V Consulting, Inc. has endorsed McCain for President. Evenso I can see and admit that Senator Obama does have some ideas of interest, surrounded and encompassed in a Government that spends far more than it can collect in taxes, is involved in more aspects of individual lives, and controlling the choices we are able to make. That is his national healthcare, federal education, higher corporate capital gains and individual taxes, unfettered abortion, and hand picked energy alternatives really means – Big Government to a degree unseen previously.

You may not agree with that conclusion. You may vote for Senator Obama. That is your right and I respect and admire that, even while I can disagree with your choice. But the debates have made one thing clear to me, we all need to vote because if we do not America may suffer as a result. And in making that choice of who to vote for you should review the records, votes, and campaign promises of each candidate.

Because in the end, 2 years from now, you can look backwards and/or place blame but you can’t undo your vote.

Labels: Bill Ayers, Polispeak, political debate, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, tax policy

Well the second Presidential debate has ended and the results will no doubt be the second most important issue in the news. I say second because I have every belief that Wednesday will be another large loss on the Dow Jones Index, as it approaches my target of 9200.

The overall impression of the debate was that it was long, and boring. There were just no moments where I thought it got lively or passionate. I took from this that the debate was calculated and overly-well prepared for by both candidates.

I believe that Senator Obama took the night, not because he was more impassioned or knowledgeable, but because he was smoother. And that includes the fact that Senator McCain offered to spend almost as much money as Senator Obama continues to plead he can justifiably spend.

Senator McCain did himself no favors in this debate. While the structure was closer to town hall meetings that he tends to dominate in, he seemed to be faltering. His missteps throughout the debate did little to quell fears based on his age. Why he was so subdued and off-pace is a mystery to me.

Senator Obama won few friends in his attempts to isolate higher taxes on corporations from the effect it will have on workers and the middle class. While he did provide some clues to the cost of his dream economy, there is no question he wants an even bigger government that McCain, even with the extra $300 billion for homeowners.

And I was not satisfied with Obama’s plans on foreign policy. As he stated, McCain painted him as a novice and his own thoughts have proven that to be true.

One thing I did notice is that Senator Obama spent a lot of time looking backwards. He isolated several events and subjects where he looked back at what had been done before he was in the Senate or in recent past. Yet he failed to look at the full causes of the issues he was troubled by. And that is a problem when the nation needs to be looking solely forward, as there are no time machines for the nation or an individual.

And McCain did himself no favors in the jibes he took at Obama. The format did not allow for that easily and the attacks fell somewhat flat.

Overall I found the debate less than helpful. Part of that is due to the moderator, who seemed more concerned about the time limits than getting full and informative answers. Perhaps it’s just me but I rather have fewer questions with complete answers and rebuttals than constantly watching the clock and trying to oversimplify and thus omitting pertain facts.

The entire debate was little more than stump speeches and television commercials put together for one night. You might better equate it with an infomercial for the Presidency. And that is sad.

Thus I say Senator Obama was able to maintain the boost he has gotten from the fears that many in the nation feel about the economy, and wrongly attribute it to the policies of just the Republicans. If nothing else this has been the biggest factor in the recent swing in poll results. Yet Senator Obama has done the least to fix the problem of all the candidates.

We live in scary times. Unless Senator McCain is able to do something amazing in the last debate, or the economy improves (it won’t), or Senator Obama makes a major mistake the result will likely be momentum that will lead Obama to the White House. And I would warn you to prepare for an economy and downturn that only President Carter might recall well in recent history.

Labels: political debate, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator McCain, Senator Obama

Here is videos of the entire debate for those that might have missed it last night.

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Part 6


Part 7


Part 8


Part 9


Part 10


Part 11

Labels: political debate, political video, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

So I went over the details of the entire debate a couple of times and I want to share my observations.

First of all we start with Senator Obama and the first question of what is going on with the bailout of the mortgage crisis. The initial thought that Senator Obama brings to fore is the separation of Wall Street and Main Street. That concept in itself is dumb. Millions of regular people are as much a part of the stock market as the corporations on the market. The 401k’s, mutual funds, and investments held by individual investors are as critical to the market as any other group. What affects one, affects the other.

But in making the distinction as he does he infers that the stock market is a matter of a class war. This thinking is the backbone of many of the financial proposals made by most Democrats, and Obama. But to view the economy or stock market in such a manner is to view it as if it were in a vacuum, that anything affecting one has no bearing on the other. That presumption is both a lie and idiotic.

He goes on to discuss oversight of the bailout funds. Currently Democrats that are most in favor of a fast tracked deal are the very people responsible for failing to identify the problem. That is Barney Frank and Chris Dodd directly. Having them continuing to be in charge is a joke if it were not for the damage they have allowed to occur.

As for getting the money back, the proposal that was rejected Friday is again of interest. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Frank, Dodd, and Harry Reid loved the deal. Senator Obama was willing to back it as well. Republicans were not. Because instead of giving the money back to the public they instead had a provision in the deal that would take the money and put it into ACORN. An organization that is currently under federal investigation for mismanagement of federal money and a pet project of Democrats.

But in the 3rd point I think everyone can agree. There is no reason why a CEO who has damaged a corporation deserves to benefit to any extreme point. That does not mean they are not entitled to a retirement package, but to reward them with tens of millions of dollars for weakening a company is dumb. If the company makes money, thus ensuring jobs and increased value to shareholders (which means you the public ultimately) then I can see a bonus. But without that success paying enormous sums of money is just wasteful.

Homeowners that failed to read the contracts they entered into do not merit help. Their rash actions do not necessitate contributions from my pocket. That may sound harsh, but as a homeowner who did read my mortgage documents, got a fixed rate loan, and ensured I could afford the home I own with room to spare I have little pity. In necessitating me to give up my money they are in fact placing a second mortgage into my finances, one that I receive no reward for paying. That is a bad plan indeed.

And for all the concern of Senator Obama for the middle class he fails to mention that he has voted to increase the taxes of those making $31,850 or more in March 2008.

As for the McCain view on this same question, it is not enough that politicians are working together. They should work together more often, in fact as a norm. The fact that politics are so partisan in general is a problem that helped to create and magnify this problem. But if politicians fail to think about what they have done, or the plan by which they promise us a resolution, the mere fact they joined hands in the failure is small consolation.

But another problem I must note with Senator Obama is the fact that he loves to look backwards on issues that are in America’s present. He look backward on Iraq – seeking who to blame, he looks backward on the bailout as well. What he said 2 years ago is as important as what McCain said 3 years ago, or the bill that McCain tried to pass to change the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which Democrats voted down and Republicans gave up on).

And if any politician was so brilliant as to have seen this problem a year ago, where were they when Barney Frank was telling the public everything was ok in July? Or Paulson said they had things under control in February?

And as for Republican spending under President Bush, it has been atrocious. And I don’t mean the earmark spending which has been bad enough. $18 billion is insane, but that hardly is the same as the hundreds of billions that are being wasted in every department of the Government.

Still in a down turning economy adding new spending is a dumb idea as well. Obviously adding these new sources of spending can’t happen when we have already spent that money on the bailout. And both candidates need to be honest enough to mention that either taxes will be increased because of this or that social entitlement programs will be cut, or both.

And if anyone thinks that raising business taxes will not affect workers they are insane.

Also, everyone needs to keep in mind what Obama keeps rewording. 95% will receive a pay cut from Obama’s plans. But what he drives at is avoiding anyone hearing the part that is important. 95% that receive a paycheck. That means business owners of all sizes will pay more in taxes – separate of the increase in taxes from the bailout.

But let’s focus on the issues the debate was really supposed to be about. Foreign policy.

The big question is Iraq. We know Obama was always against the war, and he never lets us forget his position in the past. And McCain was for it, as was nearly every Democrat and Republican at the time. Including Senator Hillary Clinton, who insisted Congress vote in favor of the war.

But the fact is we are in 2 wars today and when the next President takes office. Not wanting to be there has nothing to do with where we are now. I don’t want to have to bailout the banks for the mortgage crisis, but that doesn’t change the fact that we are about to anyway. The question is what are we going to do going forward?

Is running away a good plan? According to McCain it is not. Iran is a big part of that reason. And there is no one that can convince anyone in the world that Iran is not in favor of America being destroyed.

The surge has worked. Even Obama has admitted that. But he still refuses to accept the consequences of that, or the need to finish the job. By refusing to accept the new conditions, which he barely saw in a day during his recent run through the nation, he fails to see how to make America safer in the future.

But McCain must also accept that the cost of the war is outrageous. We need to get Iraq to do more, and pay for their share of the work being done. Especially since we know they have the money to do so.

By the way, the series of items that Obama quotes as things that McCain said is incorrect. Those were the claims of the Bush Administration. And McCain is wrong about Obama’s oversight of Afghanistan. Not that either man has really done any work they were elected to do, other than McCain working on the bailout. And in hearing Obama’s comment about tactics and strategies, I agree he has no idea what the difference is. Of course that may partially be because he has not been in Iraq 1/3 as much as McCain has.

And I want to ask a simple question. If you are in a bar fight, it doesn’t matter who started the fight, and you look at your watch and say “I’ll stop fighting in 5 minutes.” You keep fighting for 5 minutes, then step away, turn your back and walk off. What do you believe will happen next? What are the odds that you will get a barstool smacked against your head? And how is this different than declaring a timetable in a war?

It is interesting how close both candidates are on Pakistan. Though the means by which they want to enact their actions in that nation, and the terrorists hiding there, differ to a degree. Again, as with many of Obama’s policies, we see the junior Senator telegraphing his intentions.

I have to mention though that neither man mentioned Darfur. They speak about Bosnia, and Georgia, Pakistan and Iraq. They cover all the media popular and pundit laden hotspots around the world. But when it comes to a genocide that has been ongoing for the past 4 years, they seem satisfied to continue the same see no evil policy the Government has maintained from the start of fighting. America should do more.

Thank goodness each candidate agrees that Iran is a threat to stability and U.S. safety. This is a bit of a reversal for Senator Obama. His comments during the Primaries and just after Senator Clinton gave up were of a very different tone.

And his continued instance on speaking to Iran reflects that early position. Though what he claims about Mr. Henry Kissinger backing up his views is an outright lie. Or as politicians like to say, he misunderstood or misspoke. As is the thought that we are not currently speaking with Iran, which we are doing currently on low levels. And following Obama’s wishes we would empower Iran and other similar nations.

Of course I would feel better about many of Senator Obama’s positions if he was more consistent. Like his comments about Georgia and Russia. From his initial flubs about UN action – which Russia can veto – to his eventual adoption of the McCain response on the first day. It’s just more examples of inexperience in this arena.

Lastly, we all realize that another 9/11 style attack is not only possible, but likely. Nothing can prevent such acts forever. Every major city in the world has had to deal with these events, and the best any country can do is delay an event and minimize the effects.

I also find it interesting how Senator Obama is so focused on the image America has in the world. Since the 1960’s I believe America has been seen as a superpower, free and rich. And it is those things that have prompted the determined hatred of America for 40 years and counting.

Overall I think both candidates made interesting points. Each identified things that are important to Americans. Each highlighted weaknesses and failures in the other. But if we are to draw a conclusion for the entire debate it would have to be that experience in foreign policy, while under war at the least, is critical for America.

I think McCain won the debate. Not in a landslide but that is not important. Because the point is not how stunning a President we have, but how effective they are.

Labels: political debate, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

The following is the full video of the Sept 26 2008 Presidential debate of Senator McCain and Senator Obama.

I believe that it is imperative that every American listen to exactly what each candidate said, and plans for America if they become President. My comments and in-depth analysis will be up shortly. In addition I will be providing a copy of the complete transcript of the entire debate.

I hope that this information helps each of you to come to a decision on who you wish to vote for. Because no matter whom you choose, your vote is vital to get the best person possible in the White House, and we can only get that if everyone makes an informed vote.

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3

Labels: political debate, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taking a moment to reflect on the Presidential race, all of the comments debate and punditry that has gone on since the beginning of the year, I was sitting back and remembered something. The television show, The West Wing, had probably the best debates and political competition I have ever experienced in 40 years of my life.

Taking a scene from that show, I want to share a thought that I think is very important in the division among conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans and everyone else in the nation right now.

Let me know your thoughts.

Labels: Arnie Vinick, political debate, Presidential race, Santos, West Wing

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

Continued from Preparing for the TV One Heartland Presidential Forum Part 1...

What do I expect the debate to go over today? I think that most people are more concerned about education for their children, the economy continuing to be stable and prosperous – so they know they have job security, illegal immigrants – taking away jobs and receiving benefits funded by taxpayer money (including income taxes which illegals don’t pay). Not necessarily in that order.

Lower on the list are issues like race relations (the inequalities in the law enforcement and justice system that plague minorities as seen via Sean Bell, Megan Williams, Genarlow Wilson, and the Jena 6 as recent examples), anti-terrorism actions to keep us safe in this country (the Canadian border is still my biggest issue), and entitlement programs (like Welfare though not necessarily including Social Security). Again that is not a guarantee they are in that order of preference.

I base this on my conversations with people across this country. Friends, associates, clients, blog readers and authors, as well as polls found on my blogs and corporate website. That is what I think the real America wants to hear answers to. Yet pundits and candidates of both parties have given short shrift to these issues.

Think about it, other than one question in one debate, I don’t recall any candidate speaking about their plans to ensure our kids graduate high school, and are able to read. Yet in the African American community alone dropout rates exceed 50%. I recall one question, early in 2007, that dealt with AIDS and HIV, yet a recent announcement states that AIDS cases in kids 15-19 are up 20%, and those 20-24 are up 22% (according to 2005 numbers which are the most current known). The numbers for African American youth are appallingly higher.

That says nothing about youth pregnancy (in the Black community up an estimated 60+%). And what about other issues that are not as close to home as the abovementioned? Like the Child Soldier Act (which Congress seems determined to ignore) or HR 180 IH which deals with Darfur (now nearing its 5th year of genocide). No, but there has been plenty of talk about green energy (which most regular people don’t even think about as far as I’ve heard) which we could not resolve immediately even if there was an energy source that we could use effectively right now.

I hope that when these serious issues are asked by the regular people in the audience (hopefully not planted by the Clinton campaign which seems like a common practice for them based on recent revelations) there are full real answers.

But don’t be surprised if you only hear 30 second soundbites that sound motivating but answer nothing. I mean I’m not running for any office and this quick recap takes about 5 minutes to read in full. When was the last time any candidate actually took 5 minutes to explain 1 issue without going off on a tangent, blaming Congress or the President (or both), or sliding the discussion into a completely different direction altogether?

But we will see.

Labels: AIDS, Black community, Darfur, HIV, illegal immigration, Megan Williams, political debate, presidential cantidates, race in America, 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

I want to remind everyone that on Saturday @ 2:30, TV One will have a live webcast of the Heartland Presidential Forum, featuring several leading Democratic Presidential candidates, and Republican candidates as well. This forum will feature candidates answering questions from the audience (and I don’t expect that any candidate will be planting questions for this).

I will be covering this Forum on Saturday, and you can expect a few posts from me, for TV One and everyone.

Considering the nature of the forum, and the fact that most Americans have not been following the candidates over the past year as much pundits and political bloggers, I thought that a short Pros and Cons of the leading Democratic candidates would be helpful. I intend to have a similar list for Republicans shortly.

I am only focusing on the leading candidates because of the short time until the primaries. I want to note one candidate that will be at the forum that I will not be doing a Pros and Cons for. Dennis Kucinich was the only candidate of either party to-date that answered any questions on Reparations for African Americans. His answer was for reparations. Every other candidate has refused to even speak on the subject.

With that noteworthy positions stated here is my list of Pros and Cons. I hope it helps those at the forum that get to ask questions, and everyone that will be voting. Please let me know your thoughts as well. [I am trying to be neutral, but of course that is not always possible in all issues. You may disagree with some of the items I list under either category. Let me know your reasons why you disagree, or agree, in the comments.]

Senator Hillary Clinton:

Pros


• Wife of President Bill Clinton
  
• Long-time Healthcare advocate
  
• Determined
  
• A lawyer
  
• A current 2nd term Senator
  
• Well known internationally
  
• First female Presidential candidate with a chance
  
• Forgave the infidelity of President Clinton
  
• Various polls state ~1/2 country favors her
  
• Very liberal in most all policies
  
• Pro Abortion


Cons


• Pro-abortion
  
• Has never directly run or owned any business
  
• Entered elected office after career of President Clinton
  
• Initial attempt to pass Healthcare reforms failed horribly
  
• Consistently appears to hold no actual position on most policies
  
• Speaks like a lawyer
  
• A female candidate
  
• Various polls state roughly ½ the nation strongly dislikes her
  
• Staff has at least 2x planted questions in her public appearances
  
• Had committee member attack Republican candidates by surprise at CNN/YouTube debate
  
• Very liberal (supported MoveOn.org in Gen. Patreaus ad)
  
• Has received the most money from lobbyists and institutions of any candidate of any party
  
• Took $1 million from wanted fugitive
  
• Involved in multiple scandals
  
• Pro-Illegal Immigration
  
• Anti-death penalty
  
• Anti-school vouchers
  

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Heartland Presidential Forum, moveon.org, political debate, President Clinton, presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton, 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

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

**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 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

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

Continued from Where are the answers from Senator Clinton Part 1...

So the answer is NO. Senator Clinton would not make the pledge. Thus the possibility of Iran with a nuclear weapon just went up dramatically if she wins the Presidency. There is a window of action that Senator Clinton seems unwilling to take, which could give Iran a weapon that could kill millions of Americans. Add the fact they support the destruction of America and that is a scary thought, even if the percentage chance is only 5%.

“MR. RUSSERT: [Following up the above quote] Senator Clinton, I'd like to follow up because, in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave, because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, actually, Tim, the Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves. There's about 20 million pieces of paper there and they are moving, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that.

Now, all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care, those are already available. Others are becoming available. And I think that, you know, the Archives will continue to move as rapidly as the circumstances and processes demand.

MR. RUSSERT: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, that's not my decision to make. And I don't believe that any president or first lady has. But certainly we'll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.”

So while it is possible for Senator Clinton to release these records, she won’t do it. Rather she wants to wait until 2012, after the entire term of this election cycle. Even if there is nothing to be found, it creates an appearance of duplicity.

On top of that, if we recall the first quote you will recall that Sen. Clinton mentions 35 years of service to the public. Perhaps some of that work is in the records being withheld. If that is the case, and thus the Senator has more than just 5 years of service in public office, then why not let us know that? What is it she did with President Bill Clinton that both are ensuring we cannot know until after the 2008 Presidential term?

Are we to believe that Senator Clinton does not speak with her husband, and thus did not know he would request to hide the information? Has she so little influence with her devoted husband that she could not get him to lift the ban? According to her answers it would appear both are true. And if not then as I said it is a purposeful act.

Continued in part 3...

Labels: Democratic Party, National Archives, nuclear weapons, political debate, Senator Clinton, Tim Russert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what I think, what do you think?

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

A simple question I’ve asked before, does religion affect your choice of President of the United States?

As others have noted

Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Yet the question of religion has long been connected to elected office, and in recent years directly so. As religious fanaticism has caused some to become terrorists, the question of religion in American politics takes a stronger position. I for one do not find this to be a good position.

In a recent Democratic debate (there have been 27 so far if you lost count) George Stephanopoulos asked:

“My question is to understand each candidates’ view of a personal God. Do they believe that, through the power of prayer, disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the Minnesota bridge collapse could have been prevented or lessened?”

Can you imagine this question being asked of the oft quoted Theodore Roosevelt? Or perhaps Lincoln? How about if President Clinton had been asked if prayer would heal all the people without healthcare, or if President Carter were asked if prayer would get the hostages back from Iran?

Religion is a powerful thing, for an individual. Faith is something that cannot be quantified nor should it be worn like a merit badge. It is a facet of a person that is intrinsic like leadership. To pander to any group on this basis cheapens the people pandered to and the faith they have, in my opinion. Perhaps that is one reason that the Constitution precludes its use in gaining public office.

If we cannot separate religion for the debates of Presidential candidates, how do we believe the separation of Church and State will be maintained? Thus what other tenants of the Constitution are also subject to being bent or broken? How can we be idle as we see the slippery slope taking us to a place the Founding Fathers of this nation warned us never to tread?

Labels: American Constitution, political debate, President Carter, President Clinton, President Lincoln, presidential candidate, religious tolerance, Theodore Roosevelt

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

Some may recall that I recently raised the question of what is happening with HR 180 IH. You may not recall the name it has in the House of Representatives, but it’s also known as Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007. This is one item of several that are sitting in Congress waiting for some action to be taken by the nation. Not everyoe is aware of this but at least one person had his YouTube question presented to the Democratic candidtates in their recent debate.

Only 4 of the Democratic hopefuls were given the chance to respond. They were Governor Richardson, Sen. Biden, Senator Clinton, and Former Senator Gravel. In my opinion none were satifactory answers, though they were decent soundbites.

Former Senator Gravel only blamed the foreign policy of the nation. How that helps or resolves anything I have no idea.

Governor Richardson suggested economic sanctions and political pressure from European nations and China. Which is something, though that is exactly what HR 180 IH suggests, and it has been sitting in the House without any action since it was created. How can we ask ANY nation to do what we will not?

Senator Biden took a different tack. He compared the situation to Bosnia, and suggested a no-fly zone in addition to 2,500 American troops on the ground. I will get to the comparison in a moment, and the no-fly zone, but I cannot believe that in an area where over 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million are refugees a mere 2,500 American forces can stop the bloodshed. That is unrealistic and stupid in my opinion. It will take more than that, that’s obvious.

As for Senator Clinton, she got a bit of all the best answers and combined them, mostly. She agreed on the need for sanctions. She agreed on a no-fly zone. But she would not agree to place ANY troops on the ground.

Senators Dodd and Obama (as well as Biden and Clinton) co-sponsored Senate Resolution 559 (introduced on Sept. 7, 2006), which encouraged President Bush to work with NATO and the UN in establishing a no-fly zone.

Ok, first off a no-fly zone just does not work. Not in England (Germans during WWII), Viet-Nam, Bosnia, Iraq nor Darfur. It may add some difficulty but OBVIOUSLY things happening on the ground cannot be stopped by planes in the sky. Any suggestion that states this is the main involvement of the United States is doomed to kill innocent civilians. Let’s remember, overwhelmingly most of those that have died in the last several years are civilians. Stopping a plane flying overhead does not stop AK-47 and machete wielding troops from killing people.

Economic and political pressure is one option, but like a no-fly zone it does not stop anything. Cuba, North Korea, and Iraq have all had (or have) sanctions for years if not decades. Yet North Korea has nuclear weapons, Cuba still is a Communist dictatorship and we attacked Iraq. [Iraq may not be the best example, yet they still had a large army – one of the strongest in the region- and the abuse of Kurds and others was not abated by prior political pressure].

Face it, it takes troops. Just like it did in Bosnia.

Continued in Part 2...


**I want to thank Mary-Lea Cox for her writing on the YouTube question from the Presidential candidate debate**

Labels: Bosnia, Darfur, HR 180 IH, political debate, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Dodd, Senator Hillary Clinton, YouTube

I missed the Democratic Presidential debate last night, though I have heard a few comments about it. I’m wondering what were your favorite questions and answers?

I heard from one friend of mine that Senator Obama was asked what he would do for Blacks even though he was not “technically black”. Right, and I’m Casper the Ghost. What kind of a question is that? Since when are you technically any race? It sounds like the rules used during slavery to determine if you are white or black. It’s ridiculous to me. Senator Obama wakes up and looks in the mirror and sees a Black man just like I do. He’s like his life with reactions to him as a Black man, just like millions of us do. Do I need to say more?

The other question I heard that really perked up my ears was the fact that only one Presidential candidate backs reparations for African Americans. This is a big issue for me. I’ve spoken about it in-depth many times. While there are some in this nation that still refuse to acknowledge Slavery or it’s repercussions, none can debate the impact that slave made to building the infrastructure and economy of this nation.

Simply put, America would not exist without African Americans. All the labor that was done was not paid for. Everything we have today is a direct result of that work. It’s just that simple. Build a house without a foundation and watch what happens when a wind blows.

“Estimates of the value of the unpaid labor and/or the above mentioned land has been placed from $9.7trillion to $24trillion, with other estimates slightly lower and many higher. Such estimates only confirm the absolute value and impact slave labor had on the formation of this nation”.

And of course there are plenty of examples of America providing apologies and reparations to others we have wronged. Like the American Native Indians and the Japanese-Americans that were interned in camps during World War II.

So to hear that Kucinich stating that

“The Bible says we shall be and must be repairers of the breach. And a breach has occurred.
We have to acknowledge that. It's a breach that has resulted in inequality in opportunities for education, for health care, for housing, for employment. And so, we must be mindful of that.
But it's also a breach that has affected a lot of poor whites as well.
We need to have a country which recognizes that there is an inequality of opportunity and a president who's ready to challenge the interest groups -- be they insurance companies or mortgage companies or defense contractors who are taking the money away from the people who need it.
Yes, I am for repairing the breach. Yes, I am for reparations.”

It makes me want to know more about the man, and why everyone else avoided answering the question. As I understand it even Senator Obama failed to give a straight answer. Am I correct in understanding that?

So what parts did you like?

Labels: political debate, presidential candidate, Reparations for Slavery, Senator Barak Obama

Continued from Recent Democratic and Republican debates - 5.8.2007.1 Part 1...

The debates couldn’t change the mind of a hummingbird, and that’s the fault of the producers and moderator. And when I was watching the Republican debate I was in a public venue. I had one person; in a crowd of 20+ people ask once what I was watching. There was no interest, and of the 3 people that I saw glance at the debate and listen for a second, they turned away just as quickly. That is the fault of the number of soundbites being bandied about and the total lack of importance that emanated from the event.

This is why I have made my letters [found at the M V Consulting, Inc. website], questioning several of the candidates. I have real issues in mind, things that affect me and the nation as a whole. I have asked for answers on issues that affect minority communities, business, healthcare and more. And so far not one candidate has responded since December 2006. As long as we do not demand real answers to these important questions, I don’t think any of the candidates have the balls to respond.

What that means for the nation is anyone’s guess right now. One thing I can say is that those that won’t ask the questions now can’t complain about who and what we get later. Our children, our grandchildren, and we will be impacted for decades by the actions of our next President. Do you want your life, and the lives of your children, to be in the hands of someone who can’t answer a question in more depth than 90 seconds, and who won’t respond to a question from the citizens themselves? Think about that.

If you agree with me, send your candidate of choice a copy of one of my letters and ask them to respond. I’ll post any response, unaltered, as soon as I receive it. Let’s remind these candidates that they are elected by the people, and are responsible to the people, not special interest groups, unions and rich donors.

My vote will not be sold on the cheap. I won’t just shrug my shoulders and flip a coin. I won’t send out my hard earned cash to the first candidate that asks for it. Neither should you. Help the nation and send out the letters, let’s remind them where the power in this democracy really lies.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Democratic Party, M V Consulting, political debate, presidential candidate, presidential election, Republican Party