I can’t believe this. Actually I can. The insanity of imbalance and degree of scrutiny placed on Senator Obama now that he is a nominee is mounting. His every move is being analyzed for some secret Black meaning.

Take this video for example



I have seen about 3 different news organizations cover what you just saw. Not Senator Obama confirming that he is the Democratic nominee but the fist bump. The fist bump. I’ve watched as reporters have acted as if their hands are deformed as they try to recreate this action. I’ve watched as reporters have researched the history of the fist bump with an old Louisiana blues entertainer (who comments that the fist bump goes back to slavery days in the cotton fields). I’ve watched as commercial media makers are commenting how this will be a new craze to sweep the nation.

And I wonder how stupid most of these people are.

Simply stated, Senator Obama no more created the fist bump than Al Gore created the internet. Sports teams from the local to the national have been doing this for at least years if not decades. This year there was a Budweiser commercial with a Clydesdale horse and a Dalmatian dog that had a fist bump, will Senator Obama get credit for that as well?

More importantly who cares? Why is it a big deal? Why is every movement of Senator Obama being followed so closely.

I can’t recall such minute actions of a Presidential candidate being observed and commented on. Can you name an action that Senator McCain does or has done in the past 25 years that has been commented on with such fervor (his war injuries do not count).

So what is next? Senator Obama patted his wife on the butt that night as well, is that a new craze? Will that be the new thing the media attributes to Senator Obama (no doubt to be argued by various Women’s Rights groups)? Is it the next secret Black thing that the major media thinks needs to be spread around?

There are dozens of reasons to vote for or against Senator Obama, a fist bump isn’t one of them. There are dozens of reasons to be excited or interested about the nomination and potential of the 1st African American to reach this level in the Presidential race ever. There is a lot of history in this moment, after nearly 400 since the dawn of slavery in America and 143 years after Jim Crow laws. And the focus some place on the average everyday action of a fist bump insults every moment and aspect of the historic news.

Labels: Al Gore, budweiser, Democratic nomination, fist bump, presidential candidate, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama

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

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

But as Bilbo would say

“Every worm has his weak spot”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does the loss of John Edwards mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you beat an African American Presidential candidate? This is not just a question that the entire Clinton political machine is working on or should be concerned with. Be assured, Republican strategists are paying full attention to some of the most effective and base tactics being used currently. And the future Presidential candidates, or even more local level election hopefuls, should take notes.

The precedent is being defined in front of our face right now. And many of the tactics will appear again. I would even state as a near guarantee that in the future the attacks and tricks will even be worse than what we are seeing now, as future opponents will push the line further than where it is being actively drawn now. I expect that the truly low points of what this could mean are angering, demeaning, and divisive.

What are some of the tactics?

One of the first that will be used is to attack the heritage of the Black candidate. Their family tree will be examined and any past actions, made by any member of the family, will be fair game. The education of your parents, their nations of origin, how much money they make, and more will be brought up.

If you have a parent that believed in getting in touch with their roots and gave you a more traditional African name, expect ridicule. If that name has any connection to any religion other than Christianity, you will be labeled by that religion without regard to what you may devoutly believe. If that religion is out of favor, or in any way attached to a negative, you will be attached to that as well. And even if you are Christian, your faith will be questioned, as well as the type of Christian faith you observe.

If you have any parentage that is not African American, or recent predecessors that are not, then you will be in a vicious circle attack. Like sharks in a feeding frenzy you will be attacked on one side for not being Black enough, separated from other African Americans and the struggles of the Black community. At the same time you will be assaulted for being Black, and thus only interested in a specific pool of issues that many non-Black Americans fear and disagree with.

To counter any of these actions, in fact to even mention that they are being used will open you to media attacks stating you are playing the race card. That any defense you offer is merely lowering the issues to claims of prejudice and inequality. It doesn’t matter if your defense is true, you are still to blame.

If you are successful, as virtually every politician is independently of the office they hold (at least at the state and federal level), then you have no understanding of what inner city African Americans go thru. You are a sell-out, and a wanna-be. Opponents will line up Blacks that are no less successful, well spoken, and recognized to boast your ignorance to Black audiences. The media will highlight these attacks, placing your life into question.

If you have made any missteps, admitted or not, they will be taken to stereotypical extremes. Today in America 31% of high school students have used marijuana, 66% have used alcohol, and 6% have used cocaine. That says nothing of the millions of adults that used cocaine in the 1980’s (the most popular drug at the time) or the uncounted masses of adults that used marijuana (and inhaled) in the 1960’s and continue to use it today. But be an African American and you will not be a mere user like the millions of other Americans. You will be presumed as a drug pushing dealer, the equal of the stereotypes promoted in movies and television for decades.

And at every step your opponent will be above the fray. Subordinates, associates, and ‘unrelated’ parties will be making the attacks for your opponent. The major news media will populate these smears for weeks, and views of these attacks will be front page items. The apologies and firing of these outside ‘rogue’ operatives will be far less popular. Any attempt by you to connect the dots will be called race baiting.

And then the biggest part will come to play. In every vote, if you gain non-Black support you will be called a sell-out and will have abandoned your heritage. If you gain Black support you will be defined as singularly a candidate of only African Americans, and out of touch of the needs of the rest of America.

Every item I have mentioned has not only occurred since 2007, but continues to happen now. And I expect that if a woman were in contention similar attacks will be made. But the tactics really play out best when the candidate is Black, or a minority. The obvious and entrenched racial disparity in America really comes to the top when any aspect of race is even hinted at. It even goes so far as to attack acclaimed and recognized leaders that sought peace and equality.

So I want to know this. Are we as American citizens so blind as to not see the tactics being used? Have we traveled so little since the days of segregation and fire hoses being used on peaceful Civil Rights supporters? Or do we expect so little of our political leaders that when shameful and base tactics are used we ignore it?

Really, I want to know.

Labels: African American, Black community, Civil Rights, Clinton political machine, political elections, presidential candidate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEN. CLINTON: It –

MR. RUSSERT: Do you support his plan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. RUSSERT: But you won't pledge?

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

MR. RUSSERT: But they may.

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

Continued in part 2...

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

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

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

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

Well if nothing else it's worth a laugh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Normally I would not go over the details of any particular candidate for President of the United States or in this case the primaries, but with the late addition of Fred Thompson, of the Republican Party, I'll make an exception. Now this is not to say that I'm picking any candidate or that I will be providing endorsement to anyone. It's simply that the attention Thompson has gained over the past several months based on his intention to run for President and his current rankings in the polls have not been balanced with information on his views and political platforms. In an effort to provide balance I plan to go over a couple of points stated on his website.

The website for Fred Thompson is Fred08.com, and is a very well designed website. The site takes into account that not everyone can read the small fonts often found on other candidates sites and is very plainly laid out. Getting from one section of the site to another section is a very simple process. While the site is set up so it's easy to traverse it is not deep in information. It does give an interesting overview of the platforms that Fred Thompson plans to promote.

The introduction video, which is featured on the site, does a decent job of going over what it is that he stands for. Perhaps one of the best ways to sum up his entire approach is to quote

A government big enough to do everything for us can do anything to us.

The video goes on to state that Thompson believes in a strong stance against terrorism, both on the domestic and international level. And that America must provide a united front against this threat. Beyond the issue of terrorism there are several other issues that are addressed. These include fixing Social Security, finding new innovations to reduce the need of foreign oil and improve the nation's energy security, improving education, providing affordable health care to the general public, reducing government red tape, protecting the borders against illegal immigration, lowering taxes and reducing government spending.

All of these items are matters that Thompson believes.

Need solutions that extend beyond the next election cycle.

While this viewpoint is rarely spoken by many of the candidates, regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat, is somewhat belied by some of the statements made by Thompson. One of the most often used (with some minor variation) quotes by Thomson is that of

Occasionally, doors have opened to me, and I had sense enough to see that they were opening, and I would walk through them.

Mr. Thompson is hardly new to politics, of course. Previously he served two terms as Senator for Tennessee. He makes a great point of mentioning that he was the first in his family to go to college and that during his time in college he worked to pay for his education. As is well known Mr. Thompson, quickly made a name for himself as an attorney, which led to his work in Watergate. It was that involvement that ultimately led to his defense of the titular character featured in the movie Marie, which led to his appearance in 18 movies (including Die Hard 2, The Hunt for Red October, and many others), and his long-term television role on Law and Order.

Fred Thompson is perhaps the most publicly known, presidential candidates at this time. His visage is immediately recognizable by perhaps 70 or 80% of the population today. Given these factors, he has gained a strong position in the Republican primary race. Whether or not, this is enough to gain the Republican ticket and to be able to run effectively, versus the Democratic candidate is still unknown. Further details on how he plans to fulfill the goals he has outlined in his video are basically unknown.

The one general and consistent fact that is known is that he is a federalist. By this is meant that he believes the federal government should have limited authority in certain matters. Perhaps one other factor that can be said is that in comparison to all the other candidates and the positions currently being proposed. Thompson holds a centrist view.

Essentially, this is the full amount of information that I was able to garner from the website for Fred Thompson. There is one other factor, which the website states. Thompson is looking forward to hearing questions from the general public. To that end, I will be writing up a series of questions similar to those that I have created previously for several others of the presidential candidates. I look forward to seeing the responses by Fred Thompson. As with my previous letters to the candidates I will provide unaltered my questions for this candidate, and any response that is received.

This is what I know now, now it's your turn to find out more. Remember, your vote counts, and if you don't use it you can't complain on what you get!

Labels: Fred Thompson, presidential candidate, 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued in Part 2...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Theodore Roosevelt. The name evokes an image of a powerful President, and the growth of America as a serious world power. This one titular President made perhaps the most famous of Presidential quotes, “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.” [Actually an African proverb that he co-opted]

It is because of the image and actions of this President that Presidential candidates of both parties use his words to try to puff-up their own images. Virtually every candidate has done it, each in reference to goals they wish to promote. And in my opinion, none of them deserve or embody the legacy of the 26th President. Let me be clear.

Many candidates want to use or paraphrase the famous quote cited above, to improve their stature when speaking on issues like the Iraq war, terrorism, Afghanistan and America’s role in the world. It would be impressive if any of them actually had a solid plan for those issues. But as politics have become more MTV driven, in that there is little substance but lots of motion giving the impression something is happening, the soundbites are as close as any candidate gets to being a strong leader of our military.

Many candidates want to quote and refer to the strides President Roosevelt made against corporate corruption, implying they too can help improve the economy and preserve the 401k’s and retirement funds of the nation. Yet the plans stated to date, including taking corporate profits for redistribution or expanding/creating government programs, seem to go against that fiscal responsibility. Again the bluster fails to reach the pinnacles of the quotes and image.

Theodore Roosevelt was an important President. He was the first to have a Black man as a dinner guest in the White House. That was in 1901. Current candidates cannot compete with that, given. But they also seem incapable of doing anything comparable. Some would roll over in the face of political pressure found in polls on standing on this issue or that. Others are adamant in following only one course without a concept of what repercussions may be the result.

I don’t mind that the various candidates want to look like more of a leader than the other. I just wish one actually was more of a leader than the others. Quotes from those that have done things are never equal to those pretending to be of equal importance.

President Roosevelt had served in the military, ran state government, ran the Navy, a polymath, an author, an explorer, head of his political party, and was a boxing enthusiast. Most of the candidates today can barely stand in the shadow of his experience, before he ever became Vice-President or President. As such they should never try to use his limelight to make themselves shine. It just reminds us of how far less they offer in a time we need so much more.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Afghanistan War, Iraq War, President Roosevelt, presidential candidate, terrorism, 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

Just say no. It’s not a take on a Nike commercial; it was the United States attempt to keep the youth of the nation away from drugs. First Lady Nancy Reagan was the spokeswoman of this campaign, and with due respect to the First Lady, the results were indicative of how the government deals with drugs and drug crime. In my opinion they haven’t a clue, and screw things up.

You might wonder what any of the Presidential candidates’ think of this. Well if you have, keep wondering as none of them have any information on the issue. You can find comments on whether the government should or should not bail-out sub-prime mortgage loans, because it’s a topical question in the news today; but you can’t find anything on the struggle to keep kids away from drugs or how to resolve the enormous numbers of drug-related crimes. It seems to be a bit of an oversight don’t you think?

Then again, other than an occasional showcase speech whenever funding is needed, The President and the Presidential candidates rarely discuss efforts against drugs. I suppose discussing abject failure and the lack of vision to resolve this problem is too much to speak about. Worse yet, this is a truly non-partisan failure of both political parties, so neither side will get support blaming the other about this.

“According to the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, more than 22 million Americans suffer from drug or alcohol abuse. Department of Justice statistics demonstrate that 55 percent of all federal prison inmates are there because of drugs.”

That seems to be an issue worth speaking about. You would think that at a time when each Presidential candidate, whether Republican or Democrat, is trying to stand out among their peers with soundbites over plans (as I understand it) at least one would have something to say about it. But alas ther is just a vaccum as large as space.

Perhaps Republicans don’t want to be reminded that each time First Lady Nancy Reagan implored the nation to say NO, kids laughed and said definitely yes. Perhaps Democrats find it difficult to speak on a subject where one of their most liked representatives, President Clinton, provided the laughable excuse that “I didn’t inhale.” Neither party has past or current Presidents that have done well on this issue.

Still considering the billions spent each year, the ever larger drug busts made by the DEA, and the ludicrous public safety announcements, someone should bite the bullet and say ‘I think drugs are wrong, and here is an idea that might help improve the situation.’

That’s not too much to ask for, don’t you think?

Labels: DEA, democrat, Department of Justice, First Lady Nancy Reagan, President Clinton, presidential candidate, republican

I love the way politicians pick on a subject they know they can get attention with, all the while knowing that it’s complete hogwash. I’ll take the recent confrontation the Senator Clinton faced from John Edwards and Senator Obama. It was the near-famous refusal of Senator Clinton to give up lobbyist funding that did it. Didn’t the other candidates feel smug.

Of course, none of the others are getting nearly as much money from lobbyists so they might be a bit more willing since it levels the playing field a bit. Not that any of the Presidential candidates will give up the funds they have received unilaterally. Now that would make a statement and force others to follow their move. But bold groundbreaking political actions are not for this Presidential race.

Don’t be fooled. The question about lobbyist money is self-serving. If you are not getting the majority of it, you want to no one else to keep any. It makes it easier to be competitive. And don’t think that any of the candidates desire to let the public know where their money is coming from.

So far only Senator Obama provides an easy reference to where his bundled contributions are coming from. Bundled money would be, as an example, funds raised by Oprah Winfrey at her upcoming dinner party that is $2300 minimum to enter, if you were invited.

Let me correct myself, Senator Clinton did make it clear as well, 3 months ago on a blog by a lesser staffer, stuffed in the 4th paragraph, without other notice or fanfare. That is about as clear as pea soup.

Some may think this is the norm for Presidential candidates, but the fact is that President Bush, in 2004 made it somewhat easy (and far moreso than what is available today) on where his money was coming from and thus forced other candidates to be almost as clear. As maligned as President Bush may be these days, none of the current candidates match his actions. That seems to say a lot about how serious these candidates are, don’t you think?

And this does not even touch on the money received by candidates from special interest groups, which I spoke about before. Not surprisingly Senator Clinton and Mitt Romney lead in this arena, at least with healthcare.

So the Daily Kos may have cheered, the soundbites may sound great, but there is no substance behind any of it that I can find. Smoke and mirrors are not only for magicians, politicians use them well too. Sadly, I don’t find it entertaining.

Do you?

Labels: daily kos, Mitt Romney, Oprah Winfrey, presidential candidate, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

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

The separation of Church and State is one of the fundamental tenants of our nation. No one questions that. Yet in reference to the Presidential candidates there is no question that religion is linked to each of them. It may be most notable in the questions asked of Mitt Romney, but it exists for each candidate to varying degrees. So I have to ask why?

What is it that makes a candidate better or worse? Is the particular deity they may or may not pray to make that much of a difference? I have read and understood most religions on the face of the earth today. I am no expert, but I do understand the basics and in that understanding comes a conclusion. Every major religion on the earth today espouses love, understanding, and penalizes greed, murder, and hate. Every religion believes in the sanctity of life. Beyond that the issues really become what name you call the deity and how you pray. Those 2 things have caused more wars and bloodshed than any other reason in the history of Man.

Does it really make a difference if the President of the United States is Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Buddhist? In my view the President must act in the benefit of the nation, even when that might conflict with their religious views. I am unaware of a President that has not acted in the best interest of the nation due to their religion. So I see no precedence for such concern.

Perhaps I am more concerned than I should be, but if religion becomes a central part of the Presidency then I am sure battles between all the religions within this nation is not far behind. It is like dominoes, once they start to fall the whole line falls.

But this is what I wonder. Am I seeing this correctly? Am I missing something?

Labels: presidential candidate, religious tolerance, United States

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

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


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

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

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

That is scary, terrorists with nuclear weapons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what I think, what do you think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what I think, what do you think?

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

Concluded from Discussing retreat or fighting in Iraq Part 2...

There is no simple solution to this situation. Blame covers virtually ever member of Congress and the Executive branch. The reasons for enacting this war, no matter how questionable today, have been supported by more than the majority of Congress up until the 2nd quarter of 2006. Even until the end of April 2007 the general consensus has been in support.

Partisan bickering has not resolved any of the issues involved. No effective plan has been offered as a counter to the existing one. No plan currently includes the probable outcomes 2 years or more down the road.

Anger at various officials has overshadowed the actual events ongoing. If President Bush were to be replaced by ANYONE at this moment, there still would be no better plan in place than what exists at this moment. In fact there would be less of a plan in place (based on the exact plans declared by virtually all the candidates to date) thus promoting chaos.

Emotion must be removed, as well as partisan election games, to reach an effective middle road. Extremes are ineffective and costly. Lack of planning is terrifying. We are America, better can be done.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Afghanistan War, Congress, Iraq War, presidential candidate, terrorist attack

Continued from Discussing retreat or fighting in Iraq Part 1...

Looking at the other side of this issue, we see those that wish to fight until all opposition is removed. Such an action requires the building of a colony or commonwealth. It would involved the complete takeover by the United States. Iraq would cease to be independent and fighting would continue for about 2 generations. This plan would require that America rebuild the entire nation. A new infrastructure, buildings, economy and education system would need to be created. Military bases would have to be installed. The cost to America would be enormous, with any return on the investments there not being seen for 5 years to a decade.

An immediate problem would be the response by moderate and liberal nations in the world. France as an example would likely be outraged by ‘actions in America that harkens back to imperialist empire-building.’ During the first 10 years at least there would be constant attacks on Iraq, with several nations (notably Iran) claiming that this was an attack on Islam. The loss of soldiers would increase roughly 10-fold over the first 10 years.

Given history, it would be expected that assimilation would begin after the generation raised with improved facilities (hospitals, schools, running water, ect) reached the age of 25, and began families of their own. By the second generation internal support of America would be high and the improved quality of life would draw more moderate individuals from neighboring countries. Stateside, there would be fewer attacks but they would be more severe, as the emphasis would be on destabilizing Iraq. Liberals in America would be enraged, and strong divisions in both political parties would emerge. Taxes would increase to offset the investment in Iraq, but economic returns would improve roughly 7-12 years after the start of this program.

As neither of these extremes is attractive, or viable, what alternative exists? There is no plan offered currently other than that of continued fighting. The current plan requires Iraq to stabilize it’s government, which is not happening. The near civil war in Iraq will likely take about a decade to resolve, with continued U.S. support. Current strategies will continue the slow loss of American soldiers and high cost of fighting. Within 2 years taxes will have to be increased to cover the cost. The strain on the economy will be increased, and corporations will seek to gouge business in Iraq to make up for the risk and protracted cost.

Without U.S. support, actual civil war will occur, with Iran and several other nations supporting various groups in the fighting. The Middle East will have higher tensions, oil prices will go up. Hundreds of thousands will die. Likely an autocratic if not theocratic government will be formed and tens of thousand will be jailed in response to having aided the U.S. efforts or those of other groups. The children that lost family, as well as grown adults will be convinced that America was the cause of the current ills, and that they are worse than the subjugation of Saddam Hussein and the Baath party. Within 7 years, recruits to Al Quida and similar groups will triple to a 5-fold increase. Within 2 years of a gradual loss of U.S. support, without a strong central government, America will have a major attack, with several minor attacks similar to those that have occurred in England happening before and after the main attack.

Continued in Part 3...

Labels: Afghanistan War, Congress, Iraq War, presidential candidate, terrorist attack

Not long ago there was a battle in the Congress to bring troops fighting in Iraq back to America. This was lead by the Democratic party, based in part on the results of the 2006 mid-term elections where Democrats ran on the platform of change in Iraq policy. The Democrats failed to force the President to withdraw immediately, the only concession being the establishment of a timeline where the status of the new surge policy would be evaluated in September 2007.

Today there is renewed efforts to bring the troops back home. While the initial push for this same policy was a partisan effort, largely, 5 months ago this new effort is more bi-partisan. Some are stating they are unwilling to wait to learn the results of the strategic change, and are demanding the troops return. Without regard to political affiliation this is a serious issue with ramifications that will affect America for decades. As such some need to pause and evaluate what we are doing, and attempting to do.

Looking at the extremist views, in particular on the left, there is a call to leave Iraq immediately. Those that have this view seek to turn and run from Iraq. Semantics aside, that is what immediate withdrawal means. Let’s consider the implications of such an action. I will guarantee that upon news of an immediate withdrawal several things will happen. The first is that the news will be broadcast over Al Jazira (an Arabic equivalent of CNN or other cable news networks). Many of the most extreme militant groups in the Middle East watch this program regularly, and would learn of this act immediately. Within hours news of this would reach Afghanistan and Iraq, or more particularly those who are fighting American troops. EVERY nation in the world would see this as a loss for America, and in the Middle East anti-American groups would be dancing in the streets.

Within days of that news, attacks on American troops would increase. That is not a guess, it’s basic military strategy. The opponent is turning their back to flee, which means any aggressive action will have greater effect. The higher level of direct attacks, plus the demoralizing effect on American troops (no one likes to lose a fight, and as a nation that is the strongest in the world, losing to a few small groups is a smack in the face) would be devastating. Any student of military strategy will tell you that attacking retreating forces will cause them to have greater casualties, and confusion. Of course that does not include the fact that opponents of America will rally to Iraq, being in on the winning side is either a matter of self-preservation in a post-war country or a bragging point.

Going beyond the immediate increase of enemy forces, increased attacks, and the change in morale is the question of what happens stateside. Sleeper cells in the United States would be emboldened. New cells will seek to enter the nation. Within 6 months, several attacks will occur in several major cities. This is not random speculation but highly probable actions determined from the stated goals of militants that we are currently fighting, military strategies, and the rush of new recruits to organizations that will claim they cause America to ‘cower in fear and run away’. Looking across the world, and throughout history this always happens to nations that flee a fight of this nature.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Afghanistan War, Congress, Iraq War, presidential candidate

I’m so pleased that the New York Daily News has made an editorial piece yesterday, challenging the Presidential candidates to provide answers to several questions that are critical to the future of America. I salute them in their attempt to get clear answers. I applaud the fact that they want to know where the plans are, and who has them. I just want to ask them one question, what took you so long?

When I say that I mean it. I started asking significant and serious questions of the candidates back in December 2006. I highlighted the fact that the comments from the Presidential candidates of both parties were obfuscated with 30 second soundbites and little else.

“There is also the fact that for a majority of the voting public, information and opinions are formed from the various televised soundbites found on news broadcasts whether they are local or on a 24 hour cable channel.”

I surmised that there have been no clear plans on any currently hot or politically significant issue back in the first quarter of this year.

“Yet, in my opinion, less information is known about the views, and in some cases the voting records, of these individuals.”

Only now has the New York Daily News caught on that the public has yet to learn anything that would motivate us to elect the next president of the United State, much less consider their potential for the position.

“Considering the thought that many are gaining their insights on potential candidates from 30 second blurbs, edited and presented to match a political preference of whatever corporation may own the broadcast, this is unacceptable. Even the few debates that are held contain little real information; rather they are extended soundbites that are framed to capture the attention of selected target groups without actually defining exact parameters or plans.”

In the past I felt that it was the fact that I am not as famous as say Mr. Bill O’Reilly, Ms. Michelle Malkin, Mr. Larry King, or Ms. Rosie O’Donnell. I also considered that the staff of the various candidates were too dependant on the televised looks of the candidates to provide answers to serious legitimate question, even when they were asked by a constituent of one of the Senators. But it appears that even the Daily News was rebuffed by some of the candidates.

Why is this the case, that it’s so difficult to get answers from those that wish to guide the nation at this crux point in time. Why is it that after 7 months, only the New York Daily News has been observant enough to notice the failure of the candidates to provide the public details? Why did it take so many months, and several debates, for the news media to mention that such inadequacies exist?

I may not have the massive staff, the fame provided by an organization with decades of existence, or the revenues funded by millions of readers (yet); but I was aware enough to start asking for more than mere soundbites in 2006. I have difficulty understanding how major news media could not come to the same conclusions. Either way the Presidential candidates are obligated to provide more to the public, and the news media are obligated to make sure they do.

I’m glad a challenge has been placed before the candidates, and saddened that some failed to take up this crucible. But until all who wish to be considered can be precise, without relying on the crutch of soundbites and pat answers, the challenges must be demanded regularly. That is the stick, with the carrot being the Presidency. I can think of no better motivation.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Bill O'Reilly, Daily News, Larry King, Michelle Malkin, New York City, news media, presidential candidate, Rosie O'Donnell, soundbite politics

In the recent Democratic Presidential debate held at Howard University, an interesting question was brought up. What are the candidates going to do about HIV/AIDS. The question was posed to specifically address the fact that it is the leading cause of death for Black women age 25-34. But considering roughly half of the estimated 1.3 million people infected in America today are not African American it is a question that EVERY American should be concerned about.

With over a decade of knowledge and research posed on this one subject, most would expect that the government would have a defined plan in place. Goals and targets set, with periodic reports of status towards those goals. Yet none exist. Nor does a single candidate of either political party have an answer.

Probably the most powerful comment came from Senator Clinton

“If HIV/AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country.”

That may be a true statement, but we have learned a few things. HIV/AIDS is not a gay issue, nor an African American issue. It’s not something that is exclusive to the poor or uneducated. This is a medical problem that affects the lives of our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and children. That does not even touch upon the epidemic nature of these diseases in the rest of the world.

If we compare it to Viet Nam, which affected the entire nation, and is often quoted as affecting every 5th American in some personal manner, there were 58,209 reported dead, 305,000 reported wounded and 2,000 still considered missing. Right now there are at least 500,000 that have been killed and 1.3 million infected today. Viet Nam tore the heart out of America, and HIV/AIDS is killing us.

The fact that not one Presidential candidate has a plan, of any type, is remarkable and incredulous at the same time. This is an issue that does not go away in time or if we do not speak about it. If we do not act on this in a structured manner, it will grow and become more of an issue. If I were to compare it to a cancer, if you do not do anything about it it will kill you.

It’s not enough to hear a nice soundbite, that grabs our emotions on this issue. It’s not enough to make a statement that everyone can agree is true. We need a PLAN. We need LEADERSHIP. Isn’t that what the Presidential candidates are supposed to be presenting in these debates?

I’m glad that the issue of HIV/AIDS is more understood today than it was in the past. I’m happy that the rampant fear that came with the recognition of the disease has toned down a bit. But I’m not happy that there is no leadership in place, or seemingly forthcoming, to deal with this disease. Hiding our collective heads in the sand is not an answer.

Speaking in a Presidential manner is great. Looking Presidential is wonderful. Being a leader that can hold the position of President of the United States requires a bit more. Part of that is having plans for issues that affect 1 in every 300 Americans, and potentially could affect 1 in 10. And for those that think it’s not so bad the National Cancer Institute believes there are 8 million Americans with cancer today, that’s roughly 1 American in 150, and the second leading cause of death in America.

Don’t you think that an issue of such a magnitude deserves attention? Shouldn’t any potential President of America not only be aware that this issue exists, they should have a plan. One that takes more than 30 seconds to explain and get cheap votes on?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: African American, AIDS, cancer, HIV, presidential candidate, Viet Nam

Continued from What are Democratic Presidential candidates saying about Scooter Libby? Part 1...

Mr. Edwards stated,

“Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today…”

If this was a mistake, then the crime was incidental. Therefore the punishment should not be as severe. Even so, there are consequences that are being enacted on Mr. Libby. Unless losing the career that was the basis of one’s life is inconsequential.

Senator Obama stated,

“This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law…”

Mr. Libby did not commit treason. He was convicted of saying he spoke to people he told the FBI he did not speak to. National security was never an issue or question and was never considered in the charge against him.

Gov. Richardson is quoted,

“There is a reason we have laws and why we expect our Presidents to obey them. Institutions have a collective wisdom greater than that of any one individual. The arrogance of this administration's disdain for the law and its belief it operates with impunity are breathtaking….”

President Bush followed the law, commutation is one of his priviledges. The President did not reverse the collective wisdom of the jury, there was no pardon. The one individual he did modify was the judge who imposed the punishment. I do not see how this is disdain.

Senator Clinton said,

“Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration's politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent….”

This is an interesting person to be speaking about a commutation after the well publicized pardon of Mr. Mark Rich that President Clinton made. Even so, again the President (Bush) was well within the law in commuting PART of the sentence. Again, there has been no connection to a cover-up or politicizing of national security in over a year plus of this case. What one man lying to the FBI about who he spoke to months prior has to do with the Iraq war is beyond me.

I have not written this as a pro-Republican view, nor is it against the Democratic candidates. I seek to work through the soundbites and rhetoric to reach the actual fact and comments being made. Politicians love to evoke emotion to obscure the facts of an issue, or to divert the conversation to a subject they prefer to speak about. That is not good enough for ANY candidate that wishes to be President of the United States in my opinion.

Perhaps I am alone in this thought, but this seems to have been a waste of the governments funds. The use of our taxes has a better use than a multi-year snipe hunt, the capture of one individual in a lie that affects nothing, and rhetoric from candidates that is meant to whip up emotions for the exclusive benefit of the politicians themselves.

I felt it was a waste when President Clinton was being persecuted for lying to the nation, on live television, about getting oral sex, I think no different now. There are far more important issues that need to be discussed, in depth, and far better uses of our money.

Just something to keep in mind as you hear the Republicans and Democrats waste our time and your donations speaking (or making ads) about this issue.

Labels: Gov. Bill Richardson, President Bush, President Clinton, presidential candidate, Senator Barak Obama

Well the big news among the Presidential candidates today is all the buzz about Mr. Scooter Libby getting a commutation of part of his sentence. I have not seen comments from the Republican candidates, but I will comment and provide what I found on the Democratic candidates.

First of all, what is commutation of a sentence? It is part of the powers of the President. It is similar to a pardon, but it is not that. Pardons nullify a sentence, effectively removing a juries decision. A commutation lessens the punishment for the conviction, effectively modifying a Judges decision. I want that to be clear as many pundits, besides the candidates, are wording their responses as if this were a pardon. Another example of soundbite politics, trying to confuse or obfuscate an issue in order to sound better to voters.

Let me also clarify why there is a mention of this case in the first place. Mr. Libby was convicted of lying to the FBI. After tens of thousands of dollars were spent looking for a conspiracy in the leak that might have revealed a covert agent, this was the only charge made. Depending on your political leaning Mr. Libby was either lying on purpose or lied as a consequence of a bad memory on events several months prior. The conviction was 30 months in jail, $250,000 fine, and a loss of his ability to act as a lawyer – forever.

President Bush removed the jail sentence. That’s it. Mr. Libby still has a conviction on record, still cannot practice law, and still must pay the fine.

Now as for the comments, Senator Biden said

“…I call for all Americans to flood the White House with phone calls tomorrow expressing their outrage over this blatant disregard for the rule of law.”

The rule of law says that the President can commute or pardon any federal prisoner. Where is the law disregarded?

Senator Dodd said,

“…The only ones paying the price for this Administration's actions are the American people.”

It was the Democrats in the Congress that claimed and pursued a conspiracy, that was never found, which happened to cause this event. If there was no pursuit of a conspiracy that no news media in the nation could find, Mr. Libby would be working today.

Mr. Edwards stated,

“Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today…”

Continued in part 2...

Labels: John Edwards, President Bush, presidential candidate, Scooter Libby

Continued from Can you find Presidential candidate's answers on issues? Part 1...

Am I shocked by this news? No. Long time readers of my site are aware that the Presidential candidates, in both parties, have seemingly avoided answering questions I have posed to them. They have ignored the copies of my letters sent by readers just like you, so far. Questions asking the very same type of things that they don’t have on their websites. Answers that I others believe are important for the next would-be President of the United States must have.

To find out that a study has found that all the candidates won’t provide these answers is not a surprise, it’s a shame. How can any candidate ask you for money yet not tell you what they plan to do with the nation? Fear of not getting the candidacy just means they are too weak to lead the nation in the first place. If a candidate is afraid of how the public, or any part of it, will respond to an answer, then it probably not the right answer for the NATION. At least that is how I think.

The American public is not stupid. We can understand more than a 30 second answer. We realize that solutions to the issues affecting us today and for the next decade are more involved that explaining the economy to a fifth-grader. Like Mr. Carl Reiner’s character in the original Ocean’s Eleven film said

“So are you going to treat me like a grown-up and tell me what’s going on?”

Well when are the candidates going to treat us like adults? Will we get some answers only after a President gets sworn in January 2009? Do we have to wait until after the primaries and our choices have been whittled away?

42% of people can’t get answers, and the candidates aren’t speaking. Well I’m still asking. Take a look at the letters I have sent the candidates of both political parties. If they seem like sound questions you would like an answer to, copy it and send them to whomever you would like an answer from. When those answers come in, and they will, I will post them unaltered.

Your vote counts, your voice is loud. Let’s remind the Presidential candidates that no matter how many corporate or lobbyist donations they get, we still elect them.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Democratic Party, presidential candidate, presidential election, Republican Party

With half the over, and pundits as well as candidates crowing about how much money they raised, I have prepared to release the current results of my poll on who might win the 2008 Presidential election. Before I mention who is leading my informal poll I want to bring up something far more important. It’s not the question of how much money is coming to each of the candidates from the healthcare lobby (which is substantial – Senator Clinton leads on that) or other corporate donations. It’s not how the candidates have used the internet to gain funds from the general public (which even with the record breaking numbers raised by Senator Obama pale to the lobbyist and corporate donation). I’m not even looking at how pundits are so focused on the issue of money raised they discount anyone who has not raised enough money (like Mr. John Edwards and Senator McCain). No, the issue is that while every candidate has a website, roughly 42% of the public can’t find answers about the issues.

According to a iCrossing study, 42% is the number of people searching for information on issues and candidates only to find nothing is there. This includes websites for the candidates themselves. You might say well if those Americans that are say 45+ are looking they are not as familiar with the internet and computers, so it might be a mistake on their part. If you did say that yoou are wrong. The emphasis of those looking online for information are between thwe ages of 18 – 35.

Forty-seven percent of those who go online for information about candidates and issues use search engines to conduct their research, equal to the 46 percent who do not.

Of potential voters who are looking for election information online, 61 percent of 18 to 24 year olds and 55 percent of 25 to 34 year olds seek answers on user-driven content sites such as blogs, YouTube and Wikipedia.

Issue- oriented searches dominate over explorations of candidates' voting and personal histories by a margin of nearly two to one; yet nearly all candidates rank poorly for issue-based search visibility.

I want to emphasize that last part, nearly all candidates rank poorly for issue-based search visibility. Why is it so difficult to find answers about issues on a Presidential candidate’s website? They want to tell you how friendly, joe-average, just like you, they are, but they won’t speak clearly and definitively about say national healthcare. Or what is their exist strategy for Iraq, or what happens after we are gone. Information gets fuzzy about social security, or providing an education to ALL the children of the nation. Not even a straight answer on what they want to do about illegal immigration.

Let me be clear, I’m not saying that they have a soundbite; I’m talking about a plan. A beginning, middle and end. A structured outline that anyone who can read can understand or at least follow. You can easily learn why Mr. John Edwards paid $400 for a haircut, or that Senator Obama quit smoking, or how many times Mr. Rudy Giuliani has appeared in drag. But do you care? Is any of that more important to making sure that when you go to sleep at night, or your loved ones go to work, that you won’t have to fear a terrorist attack? How does the information they give compare to whether they can ensure that the American dream of your children living a better life than yours will be a reality?

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: immigration policies, Iraq War, Mitt Romney, presidential candidate, presidential election, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

Continued from Smearing Presidential candidates on the internet Part 1...

No site is completely unbiased all the time. No blog writer, or any writer for that matter, is completely impartial. But when it comes to the next President of this nation, whose actions will impact generations to come, do we really want to elect someone that was the least negative of the pack?


At the same time, the Presidential candidates need to use the internet to better inform the public. They need to not just spam us with email blasts, or ask for money via the net and blogs. How about taking the time to answer the questions of the people? How about incorporating our questions into the multiple speeches, debates and press interviews?

I mean the questions and blogs of people less popular than Ann Coulter, or CNN, or the New York Times. How about using the internet to reach out to the people that actually vote. How about speaking to everyone in the world, in a consistent manner and not a soundbite laden speech in one part of the nation that conflicts with a special interest group speech they make in another part of the nation. How about a detailed answer to questions that take more than a glance to read.
Maybe answers to questions like

"Based on your reported desire to abolish the Department of Education (2002), what would you have to replace it and how would it function?"

"In regard to your stance on Roe v. Wade, you have said in 1999 that you would not repeal the law, though you wished there was no need for it. Recently you have changed your opinion to be actively against the law. What has caused your more aggressive stance?"

"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."

"Do you believe that the fact you have never served in the Armed Forces would have any effect on your ability to perform as Commander-and-Chief?"

Questions don’t have to be negative, nor does the website. Information about the facts, positions and thoughts are what is important for the best choice for America’s future. The sooner that politicians use the internet for that, the sooner the nation gets results.

That’s what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Ann Coulter, CNN, democrat, presidential candidate, presidential election, republican

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued in part 2...

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

Continued from Presidential Candidates and national healthcare Part 1...

I found a portion of a report on how much money ALL the Presidential candidates have received from healthcare industry contributions. While I’m glad I found the report via a blog post by Sister Joyous Whip of Enlightenment, I must also mention that this post does not contain the full news release. Shane on you for not getting the whole story out there. The full news release can be seen on Yahoo News. What both sites show is the following,

“…candidates have accepted more than $3.7 million in campaign contributions this year from healthcare industry sources, with more than 45% of it going to just two candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney…”

That might or might not sound like a lot of money, until you look back over time. Adding all 18 Presidential candidates together we find that

“Presidential candidates total an aggregate $12.8 million since 1989 -- with 29% of that total donated just in the first quarter of 2007 alone.”

So far this year alone

“Clinton topped the recipient list with $868,722, 23% of all the healthcare money donated to candidates this year. Romney was a close second at $833,385, 22% of the total dollars. The other frontrunners followed. Sen. Barack Obama, with $574,268, 15%; Sen. John McCain, $423,751, 11%; former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, $408,822, also 11%; and former Sen. John Edwards, $222,950, 6%.”

So the question must be asked, how impartial are the candidates when it comes to the question of national healthcare. It’s not a question of one party or another being more inclined to work on this issue. It’s not a question of if this is a good idea. Virtually anyone will concede that the likelihood is that some form of national healthcare will happen. But having an effective plan that is run better than the usual manner government agencies are run, is critical for it to work.

Do you think this is why so few sent representatives to the Accountability Coalition event? Is this why no Presidential candidate of either party will respond to my letters? Is this why we get soundbites and partial answers to a question that many in the nation want, and will affect everyone in the nation at some point?

The issues that are involved with the 2008 election are far too great and long-term in reach to be taken lightly. From terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy, and many other issues we deserve answers that go into depth. Then we can make a decision that is the best for the nation as a whole.

Copy the questions at M V Consulting, add your own, and send them to your favorite Presidential candidate. Let’s get the answers and get what the nation needs.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Accountability Coalition, Iraq War, M V Consulting, Mitt Romney, presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

At my M V Consulting website, many people have had the chance to review letters that I have sent to several of the Presidential candidates. Since December 2006 several of the leading candidates of both parties have received letters directly from me, and others that have copied and forwarded these letters. So far, there has been no response. Which makes me wonder why?

Part of that may be the questions that were asked. None are simple 30 second, soundbite generating questions. They are thought out, balanced, non-partisan, real questions that require a real serious answer. These questions are not just of interest to a particular party, a region of the nation, or any race found in the nation. Here is one example given to former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani,

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

Another was posed to Senator Barak Obama,

“In terms of national healthcare, do you agree with the push for a national healthcare system? If you do how would you have this program funded? What would you do to motivate institutions and individuals to seek out new innovations with the profit motive removed? How would you ensure that a national program would not function in the same manner most feel other government institutions do, such as the education system (which most feel is a failure)?”

The abovementioned question is an important one. I have asked many of our potential future Presidents this question in one form or another. And I have noticed the swelling of interest about a national healthcare program. In particular I have noticed a few things that have come out recently that I think should get more attention.

One item is the response by the various candidates to the Accountability Coalition. Now I realize that this article I read was written by the Democrat staff writer, Gretyl Macalaster, and the Accountability Coalition is based in New Hampshire. Bias may exist. Still the fact is that the Accountability Coalition is a group of Americans that want to understand what the candidate plan to do on national healthcare, and not just the 30 second soundbite that is provided on the news and at ‘debates’. Only 4 Republican candidate representatives and 7 Democratic showed up to a bipartisan event that invited all the candidates.

That is a pretty piss poor response if you ask me, and I mean that for both parties. But I also found out why the response may have been so lukewarm, as well as why I cannot get an answer to my questions on this subject.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Accountability Coalition, M V Consulting, national healthcare, presidential candidate, Rudy Guilliani, Senator Barak Obama

Continued from Some spin about the Presidential candidates Part 1...

But why is Senator Clinton so polarizing? What makes this one candidate so despised on one side and loved on the other? Is it the anger some have over the war in Iraq? Is it the actions of President Bush that is the real motivation, masking the actions of Senator Clinton?

Negative ads are bad. 30 second soundbite answers do no justice to the populace as we seek serious answers to serious questions affecting current and future generations. But to gloss over the failure in American politics as being a one-sided group of events is to be either naïve or ignorant of the truth.

Both parties have corporate backers spending millions on promoting one candidate or another. All the backers will obviously want some kind of consideration for the winning candidate. All the candidates have weaknesses. Several have serious character flaws, and many have flipped positions that bring their real political standpoints into question.

I don’t mind that everyone is interested in this Presidential race. It’s an important one. It will affect this country and the world at large for decades. But to look at it in a myopic view is ridiculous to me. I have yet to see a candidate that is not taking large funds from corporations and ultra-rich individuals that have a specific agenda. Not one of the candidates has been explicit in their positions on critical issues.

By that I mean, while several have stated in no uncertain terms that they will remove our troops from Iraq, they have not mentioned how this will be done nor what they will do to ensure that future aggressors will be prevented from creating a base once we are gone. While several candidates have said they will seek to create a national healthcare system, none have mentioned how this will be funded, how pharmaceutical companies will be motivated to create new drugs, nor what will prevent this system from being run like the Post Office, VA, or the DMV [the inefficiencies of each are too vast to go into detail about].

These are just a few of the issues that need to be discussed. Until there are clear answers, picking on either party or candidate is useless and worse distracting.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Democratic Party, Iraq War, national healthcare, presidential candidate, Republican Party, Senator Hillary Clinton

Here is an interesting bit in defense of Senator Clinton and denouncing the Republican Party. It seems quite interesting that this piece focuses on the election in France, cable news and a newspaper in London. Obviously the election of the next President of the United States affects the entire world, but the way this one blogger puts it you would think the world is hoping for a Democrat in the position.

To say that a Democratic President in 2008 would be a bad thing is a bit early to call. We don’t even know who will be the candidate of that party. The same must be said of the Republican candidates. But there are a few things we can definitely say.

The election of the President of France did have a large voter turnout. They do have a different style of politics, but one of the factors in their election was a pro-America (and that means President Bush) candidate. The anti-American candidate lost by an overwhelming number.

Add to this the fact that the candidates debate issues and you get a very different kind of race than what we have here. Liquor ads are banned on American TV, and we do discuss the past of our candidates. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.

“Conservative groups and political figures are planning a film, books and a concerted media campaign to demonise Clinton, who is already one of the most polarising figures in American politics.”

I don’t know if demonize is the correct word here. There have been several books discussing Senator Clinton. They are bringing up her actions in Whitewater and motivations for getting elected in NY State. These are real concerns, and as a long-time political figure she knew they would be raised. There is even added interest as one of her former aides, Mr. Dick Morris, has raised concerns about her. I for one have to wonder why would someone who was instrumental to helping her husband get elected is one of those leading the charge to prevent her from getting elected President. That’s not negative.

As for the internet, to say that Republicans are using it against any Democratic candidate implies that the Democrats are not doing the same thing. I can point to at least a dozen unsolicited emails from Mr. John Edwards to prove that. [I mentioned previously that rather than answering a letter with question, Mr. Edwards has added me to his mass mailing list and has not made any other response.] Many of his mass mailings directly attack the position of the President and the Republican Party. I’m sure other candidates have done the same thing, including Senator Clinton. That sounds like a similar and equal use of the Internet to me.

One of the most interesting media campaigns against Senator Clinton was made by a fellow Democrat. While Senator Obama’s campaign denied involvement, it was found that they were responsible for the very popular remake of the old television commercial that spread on YouTube. They implied that Senator Clinton was the Orwellian equivalent of Big Brother. Republicans can’t be blamed for that.

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: Dick Morris, John Edwards, presidential candidate, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

Recently the Carpetbagger Report decided to take on the Republican candidates, speculating which was the ’scariest’. While this rundown of the candidates is scant on fact, and very much directed from a point of view that is opposed to the Republican Party, it does highlight some weaknesses of some Presidential candidates.

Lopsided as it is, I have to wonder what are the weaknesses of the various Democratic candidates? If the Carpet Bagger is to be taken seriously then why haven’t they made the same kind of critique against a Party they support? An honest look at all the Presidential candidates reveals flaws in all hoping to run now, anything other than discussing both sides rings hollow to me.

As an example of what I mean:

Senator Clinton has flipped her position on the Iraq war as recently as February of this year. It is only recently that the demand to leave Iraq at all costs has come to fore. That qualifies as a flip-flop I think.

Senator Obama has the least experience of the front-runners of the Democratic Party. A junior Senator, with few years and no real connections on an international basis.

Mr. John Edwards has made a lot of money from sources that questionably profited on the poor. His cries of standing up for the less successful in America seems to contradict his lavish home and $400 haircuts.

Anyone can pick on the flaws of the candidates, they are human so they have them. But to just pick one side and demonize them is unfair. The above is meant only to give a little balance to what is found on the Carpetbagger Report.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Democratic Party, John Edwards, presidential candidate, Republican Party, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

It would seem that I am not the only person with questions for the future President of the United States. I doubt that Mr. Clinton Whitehurst and I are the only ones. Yet the candidates, of both parties, continue to avoid questions that go beyond the simple 30 second soundbite.

I have yet to hear a single candidate speak about some of the issues Mr. Whitehurst brings up. While these are questions limited to foreign policy, they are important. They include:

“If North Korea reneges on its promise to give up its nuclear-weapons program, should the US encourage Japan to develop nuclear weapons?

How should the United States Respond to a Chinese military action against Taiwan?

In the Western hemisphere, for example, should the United States lift its embargo against Cuba?”

And several other questions that the next Commander-and Chief must be able to respond to. While all eyes of the citizenry are turned towards the Middle East, no one is asking what will happen elsewhere. It’s not enough to know that the next President wants to end the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter. How they will end these current wars and what they intend to do about the rest of the world are critical in our decision in choosing among the candidates.

Perhaps one of the candidates will be bold enough to answer the questions that aren’t being asked, and give an answer that will be better than a soundbite. Then again it seems they are in no more of a hurry to answer the Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs at Clemson University than they are to answer me.

Don’t you wonder why?

Labels: Clemson University, Clinton Whitehurst, presidential candidate, presidential election, Strom Thurmond Institute

In reading about the candidates I came upon an article from the Southwest Nebraska News that discussed the Presidential candidates’ position on AIDS and other infectious diseases. The subject has recently become more of an issue with the attention that Mr. Andrew Speaker brought in his trans-Atlantic flight while having tuberculosis.

I do not recall any of the candidates speaking on this issue, outside of condemning the actions of Mr. Speaker. Yet this is a major issue not only to the American public, but the world at large. Millions across the world are at risk from not only AIDS and tuberculosis but malaria, bird flu, and other diseases that the average American will most likely never get. That is until the day that we do, and on that day we have the potential for hardship on epidemic levels. Addressing these diseases in other parts of the world helps us protect our own nation, and as Mr. Speaker made clearly apparent that can protect us as well.

But the part of the article that really got my attention was the comment that 68% of Americans polled were concerned about health issues, AIDS in particular. While that would be a great thing, it’s not what I have noticed in my own polls.

In my poll (found at www.vassconsult.com/politics/election2008.html) I see that the leading concern at this moment is the economy, at 17%, followed by national security, education and anti-terrorism efforts all tied at 13%. Now I must admit I don’t have healthcare (national or otherwise) on my list of choices, but I have not received any comments stating that it is a major issue. To further defend my lack of listing healthcare, I felt that social services and foreign policy covered them both (each at 9%).

While pundits and Presidential candidates are mentioning a nationalized healthcare system, I’ve notice most people are worried about making more money and maintaining their lifestyles. I know of no one that wants the government to provide health services, the general consensus being that it would turn into a DMV or Post Office clone. Even less thought has been voiced, by those I know and interact with, on the question of what aide is being given to combat AIDS and other diseases in other nations.

Perhaps more attention should be paid to these items. I agree that improving healthcare is a vital requirement for the next President, and those that follow. I cannot say that I feel it is the most pressing issue though. I also do believe that most Americans share my thoughts. The downside of this consensus is that AIDS and other diseases plaguing the rest of the world are not getting combated as they should. Of course without a strong economy, good national defense, and limits of illegal immigration we can’t help anyone else either.

Am I right? How important is healthcare, national or otherwise, to you?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: AIDS, Andrew Speaker, national healthcare, national security, presidential candidate, presidential election, tuberculosis

Would a Democrat win the White House as some pundits speculate? Could it be Senator Clinton? Why would Senator Obama settle for Vice-President? Why in the world would they say this?

All of these things ran through my mind recently. I have to say they could be right. The fact is that if this does happen it would be for all the wrong reasons. Let me explain.

The way the math is being done now, there are more women than men in the nation. This is not new, but they historically come out and vote less than men do. It is often stated that one of the reasons that President John Kennedy was elected is due to his appeal to women as opposed to his opponent. A similar motivation is being posed as a factor for Senator Clinton. As the first woman, she will bring more women to vote for her without regard to her political views.

Add to this that Senator Obama, as the first Presidential candidate perceived as having a chance to make a critical impact, will garner the African American vote for similar reasons. Given the fact that Senator Obama is very new on the political scene and started with far less recognition, he will not gain the nomination but is too vital with minority voters and thus gets the Vice-President nod.

On top of this is the fact that immigration reform is seen as a Republican initiative, which is something many Latino and Hispanic Americans are angered by. Because of the emotion involved it is seen as weakening any Republican candidate’s chance.

Have you noticed that not one of these reasons, whether or not valid, have nothing to do with political platforms, benefit to the nation or ability of any candidate. This line of reasoning seem better suited for picking a winner of American Idol, or some other brain cell depleting ‘reality’ program. Do we really want to pick a President because we emotionally think they feel better than another candidate?

If that is a reason to pick a candidate then we might as well say that X is the better choice because they have on blue as opposed to black on election day. Deciding who will run the most powerful nation of the world should NEVER be relegated to the equivalent of a coin toss. I just can’t believe the general citizenry of this nation are that dumb.

I don’t care who wins, IF they are the best choice for the nation. Male, female, White, Black, Latino or whatever they should be the most qualified of the choices at the time. Anything less damages the nation and has repercussions for DECADES.

Maybe the pundits are wrong. There is a lot of time between now and the election. Maybe I will get some answers to the questions I have asked the current Presidential candidates. Perhaps someone will stand out as actually having plans that are fully formed and coherent. Possibly we will get comments that are more than mere soundbites, and a full choice will appear.

But if the pundits are right, for the reasons they claim, this nation is screwed.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: american idol, presidential candidate, presidential election, Republican Party, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

Continuing from Talking about Cancer Part 2...

Nothing is worse than suddenly knowing you have a tumor, especially when it’s the size of an orange or more. Nothing affects your loved ones more than knowing that you have an affliction that could have been worked on years earlier if someone just checked and paid attention. It just shouldn’t happen. Yet the mortality rates prove that it does.

Politicians may want to talk about national healthcare and affordability, but no one seems willing to talk about quality of care and accuracy. No one mentions that there hasn’t been a cure to anything since Polio. No one mentions that many studies find that the care given to African Americans, Latinos/Hispanics and other minorities is not the same as to Whites. No one mentions that various medications do not affect men and women the same. Having healthcare is not the same as getting good healthcare. It’s not about money, at least not from what I have observed in those close to me.

I hope I am wrong. I hope these are exceptions and not the rule. But somehow I don’t think so. I’d love to hear someone ask this of the various Presidential candidates. Perhaps a question similar to one posed by myself to Senator Barak Obama (who has not to date responded in any manner):

What would you do to motivate institutions and individuals to seek out new innovations with the profit motive removed? How would you ensure that a national program would not function in the same manner most feel other government institutions do, such as the education system (which most feel is a failure)?

[To be fair, none of the Presidential candidates has formed any response to any of the questions I have sent to them. The reason for this lack of response is open to question, but the fact that they were sent these questions months ago is a fact. You can see all of the questions I have asked at Letters to Presidential candidates.]

This is a serious subject. I hope it has provided some thoughts. I will be discussing it more in the future.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Talking about Cancer Part 1

Talking about cancer Part 2

Labels: African American, Hispanic American, national healthcare, presidential candidate, Senator Barak Obama

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

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

More soon.

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

This is a copy of the exact letter sent to Republican and Democratic Parties on March 30, 2007. This is part of my ongoing efforts to increase the number of voters and to have the best person possible elected as President of the United States in 2008.

March 30, 2007

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am contacting your organization today in the hope of being able to speak to a
representative on several issues. The reason for this request is that I am the author of several blogs and owner of a website that discusses and features commentary and insights on politics and the up-coming 2008 Presidential election.

In my discussions with both visitors of my websites, and various people in daily life, I have come to find that many are unfamiliar with the basic tenants of the major political parties. Many, in my experiences, find politics to be confusing and the various bits of information from televised news programs, whether found on broadcast or cable networks, to be to brief to be informative. As politicians and the various parties represent varying degrees, from ultra-conservative to ultra-liberal, of their respective political viewpoints, many are unsure of what a Democrat or Republican is, or what the respective ideologies involve.

To that end, as an aid to my readers and to help promote involvement in the Presidential election in 2008, I seek to have an interview with a representative of your party. I will also be seeking to have an identical interview with a representative of the [Democratic or Republican ]party. I will publish each interview, without alteration or editing of content, separately and fairly. I have not taken a position in favor of any party or candidate at this time. I have critiqued members of both parties in the past, on the blogs, for various issues. I have also written letters to Presidential candidates of both political parties, which are similar in content and balanced in tone. All of the letters I have
written can be found at my website, www.vassconsult.com/politics/election2008.html ,
which is a neutral site. Each letter is unaltered copies of what has been sent to each candidate, and any response will be posted unaltered as well.

My belief is that the 2008 election is critical to the future of the nation. The
candidate that provides the best outlook for the nation is the only criteria that I feel is important. The letters I have sent to the various candidates of both parties reflect that viewpoint. While there has been no response from any candidate at this time I feel that providing my readers with these questions helps them better evaluate their choice for President. To further that involvement in the election process and to help better the understanding of the political parties I request an interview with a representative of your party.

The interview can be done via email, which may be easiest for all involved. I will
provide a copy of the content to be posted, and the location of the posts, prior to their being posted to the internet. I am not seeking any funds, nor have I donated any funds to either party. If it is important, I will add that my sites currently reach in excess of 20,000 visitors a month and are growing in popularity, and it is verifiable that the blogs can be readily found on all major search engines. The website, mentioned above, is new and was started in March 2007.

The sites that the interview would be found on are the following:

www.blackentertainmentblog.com
www.mvass.com
www.vassconsult.com

I look forward to your response in this matter and thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Michael Vass
President - M V Consulting, Inc.
Author - Black Entertainment USA, VASS
718-344-6921
info@vassconsult.com

Labels: Democratic Party, presidential candidate, presidential election, Presidential race, Republican Party

I am so annoyed. And I think everyone in America should be as well. At least those that use the internet and blogging. We are all being used in a terrible way, and I have to comment on it.

I have posted several of my letters to various presidential candidates from both parties, that have been sent since December 2006. I’ve mentioned that to this moment none have replied. I’ve even reported on how I have been ignored by my state senator, and received unsolicited mass mails, but not a single response. And I am not alone.

Thousands if not millions have been contacted, enticed and solicited via email and the internet for one Presidential candidate or another from both political parties. I have no problem with that. I have not committed funds or an endorsement, personally or with my corporation, for any party or Presidential hopeful. But neither I nor the general public have received anything in exchange for these requests of support other than a couple of soundbites. Our vote is not that cheap.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy, immigration, homeland security, education, abortion and many other issues cannot be answered in 90 second bits. There is not a single intelligent person on the planet that can answer fully and honestly any of those issues in that time frame. It can’t be done. Yet both political parties hope that we will accept just that in selecting who will run for President in 2008. Even the selected meetings, chosen to highlight and benefit the various candidates, are structured to provide soundbites for the evening news, cable news, and bloggers. That just doesn’t cut the mustard.

Why is this being done? Why does it cost so much to run for President? Because it has become more MTV driven than ever before. Debates are no longer about substance, but about who appears more Presidential. It’s not what is being said, but what gets quoted. And at the same time fewer people follow the debates and coverage than ever before. As a matter of fact, my informal questioning has brought me to the conclusion that fewer people today even know what the Republican and Democratic parties stand for.

Drop the hot button question of how long we will be in Iraq, and tell me what the parties want? Does the American public want to end the war now or win and leave? What preparations are planned for the repercussions of either decision? What’s actually best for the nation and why? What can or will any of the candidates do to improve healthcare or education in the inner cities? What does it mean to be a mainstream Democrat or Republican? Most people I as these questions haven’t the slightest idea, but they know one party or another is better for the nation. Almost invariably I get quoted a soundbite or commercial for one person or another, without any clue as to what context that soundbite applies to. We are being bought cheaply.

I think this is enough. We deserve better answers and more of them. If hiring bloggers with ranks similar to mine are good enough to solicit the public, then mine is good enough to give a response to. And it’s good enough to inform you the public. I’m not just picking at the Presidential candidates I’ve sent letters to, but also the political parties I sent a letter to [on March 30, 2007 – to info@nygop.org and nysdems@nysdems.org ]. I will post the letters that I sent out to the Democratic and Republican parties.

I am left with a question, why do the candidates and their respective parties seem afraid to give any response? Why don’t they want to answer direct and important questions? Why do they not want to be responsible to the people they wish to govern?

So I ask you this, read the letters I have sent. Look for the candidate of your choice, and send them a copy of my letter (via email, link, social bookmark, or printed mail as you chose) and ask them why they can’t respond. Ask them why some of the things that will impact you and your children only deserve a 90 second incomplete answer. Ask why a soundbite is worth your financial support or more importantly your vote.

If you earned a promotion, raise, commission, higher grade or whatever and you were given an incomplete 30 or 90 second response, you would ask for a better response. So am I, with your help.

I look forward to your responses.
This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Afghanistan War, Democratic Party, Iraq War, presidential candidate, presidential election, Republican Party

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

OK, I’ve played a bit of hooky. The good weather has gotten to me. But there has been something that has bugged me. The recent Democratic and Republican debates that were broadcast on MSNBC. Did anyone even see them?

My problems with the debates range from execution to interest. The debates were poorly run in my opinion. Far too many stupid questions of little relevance or impact were provided to both political parties. I mean questions like ‘who grew up with a gun in their home?’ is not relevant to whether or not the candidates are for or against gun control. [This question was asked of all the Democratic candidates, answered by a show of hands.] Another choice question that said nothing was ‘what would be your favorite tax to cut?’ [This was given to the Republican candidates.]

Questions like the above are hardly worth the time. Speaking of time, it was poorly managed. There was only 90 minutes for the entire debate, which hardly provides enough time considering the number of candidates. Added to this was the mere 90 seconds to answer a question, unless the question was cherry picked from the internet and then there was merely 30 seconds to answer. Talk about soundbites. There wasn’t enough time given to any candidate to say anything but a tagline answer. That is the candidates that were given an opportunity to answer.

Several times a question that was supposed to be asked to all the candidates was stopped mid-way through the group with a new question asked. Or the current frontrunners were directly selected to answer specific questions with lesser known candidates completely ignored. This was more obviously and painfully shown during the Republican debate. Mr. Romney dominated the airtime, with what I gather as the most questions asked and the most time to answer.

It was a joke. This wasn’t a debate; it was an extended free advertisement for each candidate. The only real question was who could look more presidential. An example is when the Democrats were asked what they would do if America was attacked 2x on the same day. It’s an odd question, why 2x, isn’t once enough? The answers were boilerplate and along party lines. Not one candidate had an answer that was straightforward. I mean what does, ‘I’d evaluate the situation and take action once I knew who was responsible.’ Really what does that mean? Every candidate answered with this response to some degree or wording. Not one said they would retaliate with force, or that they would ensure that the culprits would be chased and brought to justice regardless what rock they might hide under. I was in New York City when the Twin Towers were hit; I know and knew several people there that day. I don’t want the Presidents’ response to an attack on the citizenry to be rounds of talks at the U.N. Timeouts don’t work for children and it definitely won’t have an affect on a terrorist or nation seeking the removal of America.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: cable news, Democratic Party, MSNBC, presidential candidate, Republican Party, soundbite politics

I noticed something recently while writing the previous post. We all know that the race of the Presidency in 2008 has already begun. We have heard candidates speak on how great they are, thus being deserving of our votes. Respective of their political parties they have all claimed to be exemplifying the core values that voters want. But they haven’t told us anything really.

Yes, as the previous post proves there are some subjects that the potential candidates cannot avoid, but beyond that one subject what have they really said? If you have taken a look at my various questions posed to several of the main Presidential candidates, I have asked question on a spectrum of subjects. Taking out specific questions concerning health, age, and religion they all have been asked essentially the same thoughts. These thoughts have not been addressed by any of the candidates (nor have any of them been bold enough to respond).

In terms of healthcare, what has been said? Who is for national healthcare, and how do they expect to pay for it? How do they plan to keep taxes affordable? Who will help small business creation or growth? What initiatives will they champion for better race relations in the nation, or how about providing better educations to our children?

Can you honestly say that the WHOLE nation has been told these thoughts? Or have there been a lot of selective comments targeted to specific areas and groups that may contradict comments made to other areas and groups? Has anything said to raise money been specific or has it just been superficially all encompassing and popular enough to get free advertising?

Before you send out $1 to any candidate, check out the questions I have sent and have not been responded to. Ask yourself if you know the answers to the questions I posed, and if the nation knows that answer as well. I mean a detailed answer, not a cursory redirection of the answer. Ask them why they won’t answer, or respond, to the questions I have sent out since December 2006. Ask why they believe that questions from individuals, especially those that interact with tens of thousands of voting citizens, are unimportant while they ask for your money. Even asking while contacting you via the same medium that you and I are using now.

These are important questions. You should know the answers. Because once they are running, or are elected to office, it’s too late to say ‘this isn’t the guy I wanted’ or ‘I didn’t know you were for that’.

By the way, in polls on my various sites, Senator Obama is leading with 31% of votes, and Senators Clinton and McCain are tied for second with 21%. This includes the votes of visitors 18-65+. Just so you know.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: national healthcare, presidential candidate, presidential election, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, small business

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

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

April 5, 2007

Mr. Giuliani,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Michael Vass

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

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

February 23, 2007
Senator John McCain,

I am writing your today due to your announced intention to seek the Presidency of the United States in the 2008 election. I have made similar inquiries to Senators Clinton and Obama, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Romney. I intend to also contact other individuals that seek the Presidency in the future.

Senator McCain, it is my firm belief that it is never too soon to ask questions of those that wish to hold the highest office of the nation. I believe that the right of American citizens to vote for our representatives in government must be tempered with a reasonable understanding of the positions and opinions of the candidates we must chose from. I equally feel strongly that those candidates, especially those seeking the Presidency, have an obligation to provide a full and clear explanation so that the public may make the best choice for the nation.

I also wish to make you aware that I am not just asking questions of you positions for my own benefit, but that of thousands of individuals most of which are Americans. By this I mean that each letter I have sent out has, and will be, reproduced word for word on several websites and blogs that I own or write for. These postings reach a cross-section of America in cities and towns of all sizes found in every state, and citizens of every political party, race, sex and age group.

While I cannot say that I can motivate these readers to vote as a group to or for any one individual, which is not my intention but rather providing information, I can say that there are far more than enough reading to have changed the outcome of the last 2 Presidential races.

I will further add that any responses to the following questions will be reproduced on the same sites this letter will be found on. I will NOT edit or change a single word of any response. I believe that your unalter comments are far too important.

If you wish to review some of the proposed websites they will include, but are not limited to, the following: www.mvass.com, www.blackentertainmentblog.com, www.vassconsult.com/politics/election2008.html .

As for my questions, one of the most prominent is that of your age. If you were to win the Presidential election you would be 72 years of age. Do you feel that your age is, or could become during your term, a matter of concern? If it is not, why do you believe this?

In reference to the current war in Iraq, and more generally on the issue of terrorism, you have stated clearly that you believe that America must act with decisive strength without pause until the mission is attained. You further have clearly stated that actions to limit troop strength or resources for troops is tantamount to emboldening the enemy. In the face of growing opposition to the war, why do you feel such a stance is required? What do you foresee as a consequence if we do not continue to fight? What exit plan do you have for Iraq, and how would you implement such a plan? What do you believe to be the steps in the near future that will be needed to ensure the safety of Americans at home and abroad?

I respect and understand the experiences you had during the Viet Nam war. My father also served in Viet Nam, in the Marine Corps, and I too volunteered for service. Given the tribulations of your decorated time in service, how would you lead the nation in dealing with the question of terrorist captives (which I believe do not fall under the Geneva Code) and gaining information to prevent future terrorist activities?

It has been noted that your positions on several issues have changed since the 2000 Presidential campaign or even before that. One of the questions has been your stance with regard to conservative Christians, specifically Rev. Jerry Falwell, where you seem to have backtracked. What was the motivation for your change of opinion from 2000 to 2006?

In regard to your stance on Roe v. Wade, you have said in 1999 that you would not repeal the law, though you wished there was no need for it. Recently you have changed your opinion to be actively against the law. What has caused your more aggressive stance?

Considering that you are in favor of teaching abstinence, against other forms of sex education and birth control, what do you believe will happen to those women that become pregnant if Roe v. Wade is repealed? Also what responsibility does the government have to mothers that find themselves with children but without enough means to support those children, and where does that funding come from, again if Roe v. Wade is repealed?

You have mentioned in the past, as I understand, that you would like to give a means for the illegal immigrants in the nation today to become citizens. What process would you follow to do this and do you feel that even the consideration of such a law would encourage further illegal immigration? Also by making a potentially 10-20 million individuals citizens in an extremely short period of time, how would the government handle the surge in social programs and government agencies (such as local DMV, Social Security, Welfare, Unemployment and so forth)?

I have certain fears in regard to embryonic stem cell research, which you have changed your opinion on. What swayed your opinion, and how would you as President help to restrict abuses from this research (such as genetic based diseases, targeted to specific genotypes such as Native Indians or Negroids or Pacific Islanders)?

What legislation have you enacted that directly improved the lives of African Americans and Hispanic or Latino Americans in your home state and the nation? In regard to education, what specific actions would you take to stem the growing numbers of African Americans that are dropping out of high school and/or finding the cost of higher education impossible to overcome?

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

Sincerely,

Michael Vass
President – M V Consulting, Inc.
Author – Black Entertainment USA and Vass
vass@vassconsult.com

Labels: presidential candidate, presidential election, Senator John McCain

Continued from part 1...

Debates for candidates, even Presidential ones, have been whittled down – presumably to save time – to trite answers on generalized questions. As if a subject like education or the economy or national healthcare or public security can be properly answered in 1-2 minutes. And any public speaking event is carried by few media outlets, and that is generally only carried in part. The net result being that most only get to hear a key phrase or video clip. The soundbite of the actual event. And the public is asked to base decisions on that. Which works well for the youth brought up on a culture of little information and fast delivery.

Of course that is not the best thing for the nation. I think that all would agree, if any party had a plan to successfully end the war in Iraq the majority of Americans would have rallied behind it. Sadly that did not happen in the recent mid-term elections. We were fed ‘There must be a change’ and ‘I will bring you a change’. Neither of which are a plan nor a statement of what will be done. Yet as soundbites they were quite effective. Even now there has only been one plan posed. Whether it is a good plan or not, is not the question. There is no alternative being given. Yet the soundbites ring clear, ‘We need to change.’ [Let me clarify, a plan entails a detailed explanation of goals, with clearly defined resources and actions. ‘We should leave’ is not a plan. We should leave via a gradual reduction of troops over a 6 month period, allowing religious tensions to grow and create a civil war that Iran will back. When all of our troops are gone we will allow Iran to come into the area in force, raise oil prices and set up terrorist groups – that blame us for the chaos resulting from our leaving the country in disarray – that will plan to attack our nation funded by the higher oil prices. Once we are attacked on our soil again we can then nuke the nation in retaliation. That is a plan. It may be bad but it is a plan.]

So the result is that many are using the 30 seconds of information, given by faces that are familiar due to repetition, to base their decisions on. And the next generations of kids are being shown that this is the manner to base their decisions. That is those that are bothering to take the obligation of voting seriously.

I have a problem with this. I have a problem with what I see as soundbite politics. I have a problem with politicians giving one answer in a specific state and an altered, not quite the same meaning, answer in another. I have a problem with politicians avoiding giving a real answer to a serious question because it may take too long. I have a problem with politicians thinking I’m not smart enough to notice the difference.

I’m also scared that this trend will only grow. Fewer people will be involved in electing the President, or any politician and the public will suffer. That is not a democracy, and no one will notice it slip away – well almost no one. But the initial furor over candidates today will be replaced by who is in the finals of some reality show. Don’t be surprised if a debate is scheduled on the same day. It’s your nation too. Don’t let them forget.

For my part I have asked questions. I will continue to do so. I expect answers. And I will call those out that are duplicitous, or so smug to think that everyone is fooled. Regardless of their political party. Copy my letters and send them yourself. Tell me what other questions we should ask. Remind the candidates that they are OBLIGATED to answer our questions and keep their promises if they want our vote.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: mid-term elections, presidential candidate, soundbite politics

This is an exact copy of a letter sent to Mr. John Edwards, via his website. Any response received will be posted, unaltered.

January 5, 2007
Mr. John Edwards,

I recently heard of your decision to run for President of the United States. I am owner and author of multiple blogs, one of which deals primarily with political issues and individuals. This letter is both based on my personal interest and that of my readers. [My sites include www.mvass.com and www.blackentertainmentblog.com]

I am a native American citizen, with my heritage coming from African Americans and Latino Americans. I was born and raised in the Northeast, though I have traveled and lived across the country and am a former Marine. The focus of the blogs are presenting news and events from the perspective of an African Latino American view; which I feel is under-represented in the media.

Given these facts, and that I am largely unfamiliar with your past, I have several questions for you. I have already asked several questions of Senator Clinton and am awaiting her response. I intend to ask similar questions of all (or at least most) individuals that intend to run for the office of the President. I look forward to your responses.

I understand that you have pursued initiatives in healthcare, education, social security and medicare throughout your time in the Senate, and previous to that to a degree in your work as a lawyer. In regard to your work in the Senate, what laws did you initiate, that were passed, that directly improved these issues for Americans in general, and Black and/or Latino Americans specifically? What exactly do you propose to improve the education system in America, specifically for those students in the inner city?

In regard to your desire to create a universal healthcare system in the United States, how do you expect that system to be paid for? In addition what do you believe will be a motivation for professionals and medical industries to work to current standards or to create new advances without the benefit of profit?

What exact plan do you have that will allow Social Security to continue to exist or to be modified for future generations as the baby boomer generation continue to age and existing funds continue to fail to meet the need?

In the 2006 mid-term elections, the democratic party won several seats in both the House and Senate with the cry of changing the current policy in Iraq. What is your exact position on Iraq? I feel that it is not possible to support the troops and question the mission that we have sent them on. I further feel that to remove the funding of the troops, while still engaged in the mission, is neither a show of support nor a plan to win. Do you agree or disagree with this? If you were to be Commander and Chief of our troops what would you have them do to complete our mission in Iraq? Do you feel that the fact that you have never served in the military is a benefit or detriment to the country?

Your party, as I have understood, has no stated plan to change the events and status for the war in Iraq or against terrorism, beyond the statement that change is needed. What exact plan do you wish to implement if you were to be elected that could prevent future attacks by terrorists against this nation?

In terms of the economy, what exactly do you propose that will help those below the middle class to improve their standard of living? It is often held that the democratic party believes that taxes, particularly for the upper incomes, should be increased to provide funds for programs that benefit those of lower income, do you agree with this position? As a business owner and member of the middle class I would like to know what are your economic plans for the country?

Considering events such as the shooting of Mr. Sean Bell, the Duke rape case, the Rodney King riots and other similar events have highlighted the racial tensions that continue to exist in the nation, what would you do to help improve race relations.

Perhaps one of my biggest questions is that America has apologized and made reparations to Native American Indians and Japanese Americans for atrocities and crimes made in the past. Given this fact, how do you justify that America has never made an apology or considered reparations for slavery, jim crow, and segregation. Would you as the President finally provide an apology for these acts? Would you make reparations, and if so what might those reparations entail?

I must mention that I intend to post this to the abovementioned blog. In addition to posting this I will post your response, unaltered, on the blog as well.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Michael Vass
President – M V Consulting, Inc.
Author – Black Entertainment USA and Vass

Labels: African American, John Edwards, presidential candidate, Reparations for Slavery, universal healthcare

This is a copy of a letter sent to Senator Hilary Clinton. If and when I receive a response I will post it without edit.

December 16, 2006
Senator Clinton,

I am a citizen, former military, an entrepreneur, and resident of upstate New York. As we approach the 2008 presidential race, more and more of the talking heads on television are commenting that you are the leading hopefully for the Democratic Party. Based on that I would like to ask a few questions.

Before I go any further I must mention that I am the owner of 2 blog sites, and co-author of a third. The site that pertains to this subject the most is the www.mvass.com site. This letter, along with any response I receive, will appear in at least that blog.

If you review the site you will see that I have followed your progress and commented on several actions. While these reviews may be critical, that is due to my desire to promote the best government possible with disclosure to the public that consists of detailed relevant commentary. I invite you to review the site and respond to any comments I have made. My focus is not personal, as I do not know you, and has always centered on the actions or comments of your office and fame.

With the above said, I wonder why should anyone expect that you would run for the Presidency? While many believe that as a female candidate you could cause more women to vote than what is normally found in an election, but that is not a valid reason. To say that you are one of the few Democratic political figures that have name recognition and little negative exposure is also a good thing, but not a reason.

What legislation have you initiated, that has passed, that has benefited those living in NY state and/or this nation? When I say benefited I ask that you demonstrate the actual improvement and not the projected improvement that a study or poll has stated. Obviously any recent legislation (less than 6 months) can’t be expected to have necessarily had an immediate effect.

As a key Democrat I ask, what your party has done for African Americans in the last decade, and more importantly since you have taken office. What legislation has passed that benefits African Americans that was initiated by the Democratic Party since you have gained office? To be fair, what legislation has the Democratic party prevented that would have harmed African Americans (in NY state and/or the nation) and how did the party derive that this legislation was harmful?

What are your positions on the platforms? I have heard several soundbites for multiple politicians and none seem to really mean anything when thought about, at least to me. In the recent mid-term elections many Democrats seemed to have won, in my opinion, on the basis that they were for a change in policy. Yet none seemed to have an answer as to what that new and different policy was or could be. In a soundbite such an answer may work, but that is not a reason to be elected for, especially not presidential candidates if such a choice were up to me.

In addition I ask what are you doing to help small businesses? What are you doing about improving the public education available in New York State (especially city schools)? What are you doing to address the drop-out rate of African American males? And what are you doing for Latino/ Hispanic Americans on the above matters?

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.

Senator Clinton, I look forward to your responses on these questions. I also plan to ask these questions, or similar ones, of Senators Obama, McCain, and any other candidate for the presidency (actual or rumored) throughout 2007.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

Michael Vass
info@blackentertainmentblog.com
President – M V Consulting, Inc.

** This is seperate of the above letter. Items of interest relating to Senator Clinton and or the Democratic Party found on this site:
what-about-afganistan
stem-cells-ect

vass-thoughts-on-senator-clinton
elections-for-06-and-08
patriot-act-and-politics
reparations-for-black-african
A few words on politics, war, and Dr. Martin Luther King
Commenting on Sen. Hillary Clinton's Dr. Martin Luther King Day speech
election-year-stories-for-2006
senators-obama-clinton-and-mccain
which-woman-for-president
no-votes-for-senator-hilary-clinton
Senator John Kerry 'jokes' about the military - 11.1.2006.1

Labels: African American, Democratic Party, presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton, universal healthcare