**Just a quick hello to all those visiting this site from TV One. I hope you enjoy the various posts and visit/comment often.**


So as we approach the next vote in the Democratic Primary process, little new events or information has been passed on to the public. With the Republican race over, Senator John McCain has begun to collect monies and release television commercials emphasizing his experience both as a Senator and military commander. On the Democratic side, substance has been replaced in part by hype obfuscating points that I find far more interesting.

Even today this malaise can be seen in the questions being posed to General Petraeus by the Senate Armed Services Committee. Democrats are pushing that the events in Iraq are not working, that there is no end in sight ever, that the war is unwinnable, and that the only solution is to run. Republicans are thanking the service and sacrifice given, acknowledgement of the benchmarks reached, understanding of the progress and stability that has been attained, and the outlook for a measured end of the conflict. Politics are clouding every fact, effectively using our soldiers as political tools in all the polispeak.

But the bigger issues that are not being discussed as much as they should include Senator McCain’s potential choice of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as Vice-President. Back in February I noted that she was at 10-1 odds for gaining the coveted position.

“I expect that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the real favorite. She brings in some of the Black and women vote. And she is easily qualified for the position. I see the Democrats seriously troubled in trying to attack her on anything. My dream pick would be Colin Powell though.”

The implications of Secretary of State Rice as V-P are far reaching especially in terms of Iraq, Afghanistan, foreign relations, and the economy. Considering the emphasis on race relations lately, there is also the potential of improving the laws affecting African Americans. Women’s issues are also potentially on the forefront of change.

Glancing at the Democrats, Senator Hillary Clinton dominates the landscape. Not that this is a good thing.

Besides the fact that Senator Clinton is trying to duck the fact that 3 senior campaign members are connected to pro-Columbia efforts (of which only Mark Penn has been fired for) which she publicly denounces, there are less emphasized issues as well. One big fact I have a problem with is the Clinton taxes.

The Clintons made $109 million, paid $34 million in taxes, and $10 million to charity.

Sounds nice until you pay attention to the details. The first is the fact that 34% is not the top tax bracket, meaning that the Clinton’s took many deductions. That is not important, except it is a major campaign point for the Democrats. That is that the “rich” – which I think $109 million qualifies as – do not pay enough in taxes. Yet rather than paying the full taxes, or giving the I.R.S. extra money as a gift, the Clinton’s paid less. So either the Clinton campaign is lying about wanting to take more money from the rich – but since she voted to increase taxes of everyone from $31,850 and above I doubt that, her money is excluded, or she only thinks that the money should be taken by certain people for certain needs of the government. That last reason is hardly Democratic, fair, or in the benefit of the public.

Add to this the fact that former-President Bill Clinton collected $191,000 a year as part of his retirement package as President. That’s tax-payer money being given (wasted) to a millionaire. And rather than denying the money, of not cashing the check, they kept it (and that money is not taxable as I recall). How many people that money might help is unknown, but even if it were to help just one family who do you think needs the money more.

Oh and by the way, the 10% given to charity (which is a write-off) is important too. Because according to at least Dick Morris – a former top political aide of the Clinton’s – every dime of that was given to the Clinton Library. Which is controlled by guess who, and thus usable in any manner they desire.

Like Bosnia, Ireland, and many other issues, it’s a lie and slap in the face of the American citizenry.

And now I come to Senator Obama. There really isn’t much new with him, except his friends. One is Rev. Wright, who continues to be attacked unfairly by the major media. Weeks later the questions and opinions of the polispeak compilation of 10 second clips from less than a handful of the over 1000 sermons made by Rev. Wright are cascading forth having ebbed only slightly. Thus the single most difficult obstacle to the nomination is visibly what it was invisibly a year ago, skin color. And this will be re-visited at some point and some degree if Senator Obama is nominated.

The other friend of note is a real concern in my opinion. That is the former Weatherman and ultra liberal. A self-admitted bomber of American citizens and soil. A declared friend of Senator Obama. That troubles me.

But the real question for him is only the one issue that he can do nothing about. His race. He is not Black enough for small minds like Rev. Manning and other racist bigots – in my opinion. He is too Black for the Clinton campaign and those with ears too gentle to hear honest commentary about race relations in America.

Sadly the real question should be is a Presidential candidate without experience what America needs during a time of war.

But not to worry. CNN, Fox News and the rest have spent the day covering General Petreaus being questioned in a manner to benefit the polispeak political aspirations of the various parties, ultimately at a cost to our soldiers. No matter what view you may have, this PT Barnum extravaganza fails them first and everyone second.

Just remember in the remaining primaries and the general election in November 2008, that the questions being avoided are perhaps the best reasons to vote and whom for.

Labels: Condolezza Rice, Democratic, Iraq War, Polispeak, racial controversy, republican, Reverend Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, tax increase, Vice President

**The I Love America That's Why I vote! campaign is not partisan. No matter who you choose, the important thing is to have your voice heard with your vote. Register today.**

The number of people that have come out to vote today has been remarkable among the Democrats. Not nearly so for Republicans, but the voice of America is being heard. And that voice is matching what my polls have long said, in one manner.

In my poll which has run from 2007 until today, there has been an overwhelming outcry for Senator Barack Obama [seen on Black Entertainment USA]. 51% of all votes have chosen Senator Obama, and the next closest choice lags far behind. Senator Clinton is the 2nd choice in my poll, but trails Senator Obama 2:1. In terms of the Republican candidates, Senator John McCain dominates all other challengers by more than 3:1. In comparing the top 3 no Presidential is more favored than Senator Obama.

And in Super Tuesday voting we saw that this is a trend in the nation. Out of the 21 states that voted today clear statements were made, though the issue of delegates is less so. 61% of the states voted in favor of Senator Obama, on the Democratic race. Looking at the voting percentages, 52% of the Democrats picked Senator Obama. If this were the actual Presidential Race, the news would now be that the popular vote was won by Obama. But that news would be singed by the fact that the delegate voting has gone to Clinton.

I think nothing would be more devastating to the nation than to have the public pick one candidate, and the electoral college deciding that someone else won. After the highly debated and problematic 2000 and 2004 elections clarity in the voice of America is needed. The only way I know that this can not be a factor is to have the voice of America, your voice, clearly stated. That means voting.

Register for the vote. Not because I am important, or you like my writing. Vote, not because I am successful or that I am asking you to. Vote because your life, and those of your loved ones will be directly affected by the outcome. Your vote could be the difference between how the war in Iraq is resolved, which direction taxes go, whether illegal aliens will gain or lose their position in America, and the quality of life of your children and grand-children. These are all things that only you will be able to affect, and you would do so via your Constitutional Right.

That Right is something that many in the world envy and die for. That Right is coveted by the candidates. And you hold that power. But it’s an impotent power if you don’t register and vote.

Here are the results, as of 2 am. If there is any result you disagree with, there is only one answer. Vote for someone and change the answers you see.

Alabama Democratic Vote Republican Vote
56% - Obama 41% - Huckabee
42% - Clinton 37% - McCain

Alaska 74% - Obama
26% - Clinton

Arizona 50 % - Clinton 47% - McCain
41% - Obama 34% - Romney

Arkansas 69% - Clinton 61% - Huckabee
27% - Obama 20% - McCain

California 54% - Clinton 44% - McCain
34% - Obama 26% - Romney

Colorado 67% - Obama 59% - Romney
32% - Clinton 19% - McCain

Connecticut 51% - Obama 52% - McCain
47% - Clinton 33% - Romney

Delaware 53% - Obama 45% - McCain
42% - Clinton 33% - Romney

Georgia 66% - Obama 34% - Huckabee
31% - Clinton 32% - McCain

Idaho 80% - Obama
17% - Clinton

Illinois 64% - Obama 47% - McCain
33% - Clinton 25% - Romney

Kansas 74% - Obama
26% - Clinton

Massachusetts 56% - Clinton 51% - Romney
41% - Obama 41% - McCain

Minnesota 67% - Obama 42% - Romney
32% - Clinton 22% - McCain

Missouri 49% - Obama
48% - Clinton

Montana 38% - Romney
25% - Paul

New Jersey 54% - Clinton 55% - McCain
44% - Obama 28% - Romney


New York 57% - Clinton 51% - McCain
40% - Obama 26% - Romney

North Dakota 61% - Obama 36% - Romeny
37% - Clinton 23% - McCain

Oklahoma 55% - Clinton
31% - Obama

Tennessee 54% - Clinton 34% - Huckabee
41% - Obama 31% - McCain

Utah 57% - Obama 90% - Romney
39% - Clinton 5% - McCain

West Virginia 52% - Huckabee
47% - Romney

Labels: democrat, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, republican, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, Super Tuesday, That's why I vote, voter registration

Due to several direct comments, and a couple found on DIGG, I see that the intent of my posts Excerpt of President Obama - a what if press release and President Obama - a what if press release - 1.25.2008.3 were not understood for what I was intending. To that end I am providing the following clarification of what I intended.

Wow, the responses are really amazing. So far I’m noticing that few are getting the point of my fictional future press release.

I’ve been told I’m fear mongering, and that it was completely inappropriate. And a few other comments as well. Well let me be more direct since that seems the only way to get the point out to more people.

I’m not advocating the death of Senator Obama. Far from it. I would never suggest such an act on any Presidential candidate or President. But such an act is a potential reality, and I feel the reactions I’ve received so far prove it. I think that it’s a fear that all African Americans have for whoever becomes the first Black President.

The post was intended to highlight that there are deep and real racial divisions in America today. That Senator Obama is not only fighting against Senator Clinton, but the perceptions and prejudices in America that have endured for centuries.

My fictional President was a man that was principled. He helped America achieve several breakthroughs that we all wish to have happen in America. He resolved the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that currently divide much of the country. He resolved the economic crisis that currently, and in the near future, is a reality and a problem for the nation. He minimized the threat to our lives from fanatical individuals that wish the death of every American for no reason other than the way they wish to observe their faith.

And in trying to further unify a nation, that previously was divided on issues of injustice in the legal system, sexual orientation and bias of gender religion and color, he was killed by a couple of small minds that refused to see America beyond a limited black and white.

It’s a sad tale, and tragedy often tells some of the best stores of mankind. It’s a morality post. A point that while we can resolve many of the transcendental and even serious issues that face America, the underlying issues at our core are not being addressed. And the cost of ignoring those issues can be devastating.

I went on to suggest that the loss of a great leader could have an impact that covers the globe, potentially affecting everyone on the planet. That even out most determined enemies would not wish to take on the wrath of a nation that would then be in the throes of a social upheaval that was caused by people closing their eyes to an issue for centuries.

Of course African Americans would be in riots. No less so than at the loss of Martin Luther King. Or after the Rodney King riots. The shock of injustice and the festering pain of centuries of inequality often lead to bouts of rage and anger. Especially if those emotions are bottled up generation after generation.

I’m highlighting that it’s the same kind of small-mindedness that is being employed by the Clinton campaign against Senator Obama. And that tactic is working, which it could not unless such racial divisions still festered under the surface of modern day America. That we are seeing race used as a tool to provide a means of segregating Democrats, and the nation.

I fully intended to shock people with the post. But I also wanted to show that even in the worst of outcomes, there are moments of greatness. The greatness in this case being the legacy and achievements of what my fictional President Obama did with the Presidency. Not hollow platitudes, not campaign promises but real action that benefits tens of millions of Americans.

I further went on to ask question that I thought would further provoke thoughts. Because there are many who fear the thought of a Black President. Because there are those that assume that a Black President will inevitably be killed. Because there are those that fear a Black President will change everything in America. And yes that a Black President might mean that the racial tensions that have always existed in this nation, and the war for equality suggested for decades by multiple organizations for multiple reasons, could come to pass.

I asked if America would be better off if each event happened. By that I meant

“…winning of the nearly decade long Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the virtual elimination of the terrorist organization Al Quida, … his quick actions to restore normalcy in the earthquake ravaged suburbs of San Diego, the recovery from the 2 year economic recession of 2008, his work on balancing the American legal systems’ enforcement and punishment and rights of gays, women and minorities.”

Don’t we all want the wars to end and America win if at all possible? Don’t we all want a government that can react to natural disasters and ensure or ability to return to normalcy? Don’t we all want a stable and growing economy that allows us and our children to live the American dream of better lives? Should we all not live by the same laws, enforced equally with fairness and justice? Shouldn’t we all have no fear of persecution based on our color of skin, our religion gender and sexual orientation?

In truth there are some that don’t want these things. But I feel the majority do. Yet it is that minority that must be guarded against.

Perhaps my post was too realistic. Perhaps the fears we all don’t speak about came to life for a brief moment. If so that is good. Because it is in discussing those fears and their causes that make us grow and become stronger.

And in truth I don’t care if a woman, a Republican or Democrat, Black White or Hispanic are President. Not if they have the best intention of America at heart. Right now some of our candidates do. Some are just seeking power for their own personal gain. And some are just looking to extend the political power and partisanship that has existed and weakened America for decades.

I truly believe that America is a great nation. I know from experience in traveling part of the world that it is unique. Our freedoms and unity, such as they are, are unseen in the scope and depth they attain here.

And I believe without reservation that if all America votes we will gain the best President we can, and eventually the best President period. That in voting we will gain a better stronger and more unified nation. Because this still is a nation of the people.

Sometimes a shock can remind us of how fragile these rights and freedoms are. Sometimes we forget what happens if we aren’t open and honest about our past and present. Because everything can change if we let a few closed minds take control and make decisions for us all. But we need to be involved.

If you are angry by my mock post, good. You should be. It wasn’t meant to be a nice thing, but it was meant to provoke shock and thought, and discussion. If it causes you to act, to vote, to be involved with the Presidential election and the things happening around you then it is worth the anger being directed at me.

But don’t just read it on the surface and let it pass. Don’t assume I have anger in my heart. If you’ve read my 1000+ posts, you will understand that I am passionate in my views. Perhaps I could have worded this better. But sometimes a blunt weapon is better than the finest point.

I hope not to lose readers because of this fictional post. It was not made lightly, or in jest. There was no humor in its creation. Nor is there any attempt to generate fear. That was not its point.

I suppose I could have made this part of the original post, but I did not think that was necessary. I was wrong. But I stand by the post, and its original intent.

Hopefully now it is more clear on why I created it. Hopefully all my readers can understand that and respect me for it.

Labels: 2008 election, democrat, DIGG, fiction post, morality, Polispeak, Presidential race, race in America, Reparations for Slavery, republican, Senator Barack Obama, That's why I vote

**A fictional press release**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s an accomplishment devoid of cheer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t think Senator Biden is a racist. I really don’t. I think his comments though betray a mindset that pervades America and is implicit of the double standard in American society. This mindset is deeply entrenched in the 45 and older age group in America. Sadly they are also the ones that do the most voting, helping to pass laws or failing to do so.

I think most have heard of what Senator Biden said. "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man." These comments have started a flurry of comments. I have been waiting to hear more from Sen. Biden, and I have been unsurprised at his follow-up.

Some have readily accepted that Senator Biden misspoke. That the reactions to his words are extreme. Some feel that since he is a Democrat, the media and therefore the public are taking this in stride; and that if a Republican had said the same words an uproar would have occurred. To some extent all are correct. But I have no doubt that there was a clear secondary meaning that he did not even notice he made. It’s so subtle that he just blew past it.

To say Senator Obama is ‘articulate’, ‘clean’, and a ‘nice-looking guy’ is to belittle him. It’s a back-handed compliment at best. And not much of a compliment at that. Perhaps the Senator meant clean-cut, though that implies a description of looks and not quality of character. Senator Biden has said he intended, and should have used, the term fresh. Again that implies a description of look and not quality. The only positive part of the comment is that he called Senator Obama bright. Of course that was mitigated by his further stating that Senator Obama is a storybook, which implied that he is unreal or something that only little children would believe. Wow, what a nice compliment.

I am highly upset with the articulate comment. It implies that African Americans are generally incapable of being eloquent speakers. While rap and hip-hop may be popular, there are millions of African Americans that speak as well, if not better than Senator Biden. Several entertainers in fact speak better, when not in their on-stage personas (like Mr. Eddie Murphy, Mr. Marin Lawrence, Queen Latifah, Mr. Dave Chappelle and many others). This same kind of thinking was used to describe Former Secretary of State Colin Powell. It is this mentality that is used to insult African Americans while seeming to compliment us. It directly attacks the thought that intelligent African Americans are anything but a rare occurrence.

The use of the term clean, where many have focused, is very straight-forward. It implies, like all of his statement, the look of Senator Obama. This troubles me. From the mistaken thought that African Americans are dark because we are ‘dirty’ to bring the thought that the average Black American fails to have good hygiene. Both are false, shallow-witted thoughts.

The fact that Senator Obama is not ugly, detracts from his abilities. Most Senators, and Presidents, are anything but model quality in looks – to me. Yet I do not recall hearing that as part of their platforms which the public votes on. American Idol yes, politicians no. The looks of a politician have no bearing on their ability, but when a person seeks something nice to say – and they have no real positive comment – statements about superficial, transitory, subjective fluff fill in nicely for real substance. If done right it can even be used as a positive soundbite to gain attention.

So while Senator Biden, Democrats and some bloggers (like the one at Main and Central by Lurch who is mostly neutral but supporting the misspoken view) wish to try to turn this into a one term gaff, the totality of the comment do not reflect that in my view. The fact that there are no other politicians that are referred to in such belittling and cursory terms further supports my thought. That is unless the figure is an African American – such as Ms. Condolezza Rice, Mr. Colin Powell and so forth.

The belittling is further compounded in that Senator Biden relegates all other Black Americans that have run for President as insignificant or non-existent. Sen. Biden may wish to compliment and acknowledge Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, and former Representative Shirley Chisholm now, but his thought at the time as conveyed by his words and full context of the statement is clear to me.

This was not a misstatement. This was not a miscommunication. The theme is clear and supported by the totality of the statement. Words are very powerful, and when taken as a whole make a visceral comment that can go beyond the actual words. Sadly many in America don’t fully understand the words being used, as opposed to college English majors, teachers, salesmen, or a politician as examples. Those that rely on words to convey their thoughts to achieve a goal do understand completely what they say.

Senator Biden needs to apologize to more than just Senator Obama. Every Black American deserves an apology. These comments are reminiscent of the mentality that necessitated the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s. These comments belittle every success and successful Black American in the nation. Hiding behind one term in a statement whose total purpose is too subtly insult will not fool us. The mainstream media may not wish to address this but I will.

For me, Senator Biden will never get my vote. He will not receive a letter to investigate his views, as I have done of other Presidential candidates. Perhaps this is rash, or an over-reaction. I accept that it may be. But the underlying thought of his statement cannot be warmed-over by platitudes or a plea of a single term misstatement. The meaning of the full comment does not change. That meaning places me and 14% of America in a second-class, less than meaningful position. I will not accept that of an American President of politician if possible.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: African American, Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice, democrat, republican, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Biden